标签：#m

A crack in an aircraft window, a fracture starting at a bolt hole, a shaft that snaps at the shoulder where the diameter steps down. These failures share a cause that has nothing to do with the average load the part carries. The metal broke because a change in geometry concentrated stress into a tiny region, and that local peak — not the nominal stress — drove the crack. This article explains the stress concentration factor: what it means, where the classic value of 3.0 comes from, how to apply it, and the mistakes that make engineers underestimate the danger of an innocent-looking hole. Why this calculation matters Real parts are not smooth bars. They have holes for fasteners, fillets where sections change, keyways, grooves, threads, and shoulders. Every one of those features disturbs the flow of stress through the material. Where the lines of force have to bend around an obstacle, they crowd together, and the local stress climbs well above the value you would compute from force divided by area. The stress concentration factor, K_t, is the multiplier that captures this. It matters most for two failure modes. Under static loading of a brittle material, the peak stress can trigger fracture before the bulk of the section yields. Under cyclic loading, the concentrated stress is where fatigue cracks nucleate — and the vast majority of fatigue failures begin at a geometric discontinuity. If you size a part on nominal stress alone and ignore K_t, you have skipped the step where most failures are actually decided. The core formula The stress concentration factor is defined as a simple ratio: K_t = sigma_max / sigma_nom Here sigma_max is the true peak stress at the discontinuity and sigma_nom is the nominal stress computed from elementary mechanics. The subscript t means "theoretical" — K_t depends only on geometry and loading mode, not on the material. It comes from elasticity theory, finite element analysis, or experiment, and it assumes the material is still behaving ela

TL;DR We built a serverless pipeline that ships FSx for ONTAP audit logs to Honeycomb, where its high-cardinality query engine turns file access data into actionable insights. Two delivery paths verified: [Path A: Direct] FSx for ONTAP → S3 Access Point → EventBridge Scheduler → Lambda → Honeycomb Events Batch API [Path B: OTel Collector] FSx for ONTAP → S3 Access Point → EventBridge Scheduler → Lambda → OTel Collector → OTLP → Honeycomb Why Honeycomb for file access logs? Because file access data is inherently high-cardinality : thousands of users × millions of file paths × dozens of operations × multiple SVMs. Traditional log tools force you to pre-aggregate or sample. Honeycomb lets you query the raw events at full resolution. ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Honeycomb Query Engine │ │ │ │ "Show me which users accessed /vol/finance/* │ │ between 2am-4am last Tuesday" │ │ │ │ → BubbleUp: auto-detect anomalous dimensions │ │ → Heatmap: visualize access density over time │ │ → GROUP BY user, path, operation — no pre-indexing │ │ │ │ 20M events/month FREE │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is Part 10 of the Serverless Observability for FSx for ONTAP series. Why Honeycomb for File Access Logs? Most observability tools index a fixed set of fields. When you have high-cardinality dimensions — like file paths ( /vol/data/project-alpha/2026/Q1/report-final-v3.docx ) or Active Directory usernames — you hit index bloat, slow queries, or forced sampling. Honeycomb's columnar storage handles this natively: Capability Traditional Logs Honeycomb Query by arbitrary field Pre-index or full scan Instant (columnar) GROUP BY high-cardinality field Expensive / limited Native BubbleUp (anomaly detection) Manual investigation Semi-automatic (select time range, BubbleUp identifies differing dimensions) Heatmap visualization Requires pre-aggregation Raw events For FSx for ONTAP audit logs, this means you can ask questions like: "Which

In this blog, I’ll give a clear brief summary of the n8n beginner course . You can watch the full video course on the official n8n website (link in the references below). What is n8n? n8n is a powerful workflow automation platform that combines AI capabilities with business process automation. It offers a node-based visual interface while giving you full control to write custom JavaScript or Python code directly in the canvas. APIs and Webhooks Understanding APIs An API (Application Programming Interface) allows different applications to communicate with each other. Almost every modern app has an API you can connect to. Example: Google Sheets API lets you read or update data in spreadsheets. When working with APIs, we make requests and receive responses . Components of an HTTP Request There are four main components: URL – The unique address of the resource (page, image, data, etc.). Includes: Scheme, Host, Port (optional), Path, Query Parameters (optional). Method – Defines the action you want to perform: GET – Retrieve data POST – Send data PUT / PATCH / DELETE – Update data (less common) Headers – Provide additional context (language, device type, location, etc.). Body – Contains data being sent (used mainly with POST requests). Authentication (Credentials) To prove you’re allowed to make a request: API Key (via query parameter or header) OAuth (most secure common method) HTTP Response Components Status Code – Tells if the request was successful: 200 = Success 401 = Unauthorized 404 = Not Found 500 = Server Error Headers – Metadata about the response (content type, length, expiration, etc.). Body – The actual data returned (usually JSON, HTML, or binary). What are Webhooks? Webhooks are used when an external service needs to notify your workflow automatically (e.g., every time a payment is made in Stripe). You provide a URL that receives a POST request when the event occurs. Nodes in n8n Nodes are the building blocks of every workflow. There are three main categor

This is a submission for the Hermes Agent Challenge TL;DR — Type a one-line bill topic. Twenty-five Hermes agents (1 Speaker, 19 ministries, 5 parties) run a full Polish legislative session in 2 minutes. Vote tally, social impact, party tweets — and a side-by-side "current law vs proposed amendment" with every clause cited to a real statute. Built on delegate_task for parallel ministry consultation. 🌐 Live: https://web-production-53027.up.railway.app/ 🎥 Walkthrough: https://www.loom.com/share/92cdac7da31c471088a4e569b0cfe1ed 📦 Repo: https://github.com/monsad/ai-politics (MIT) What I Built Watch a politician debate a new tax law on TV. They argue whether it's fair, whether it'll work, whether the other side is lying. Nobody ever shows you the diff — which paragraph of which statute actually changes, and from what to what. The conversation is theatre on top of an invisible legal document. So I built the theatre AND the legal document. Virtual Parliament is a multi-agent simulation of the Polish Sejm. You type something like "four-day work week" or "flat income tax" , and 25 Hermes agents run a full legislative session: 🎯 Marszałek (Speaker) — the orchestrator. Classifies the topic. Picks 2–3 ministries via delegate_task in parallel . Reads their findings. Routes the bill to a party debate. 🏛️ 19 ministry experts — Finance, Climate, Labour & Social Policy, Justice, … Each returns a structured analysis: legal finding · budget impact · top 3 risks · recommendation . Every claim cites a real statute via PageIndex RAG. 🗳️ 5 party agents — KO, PiS, TD, Konfederacja, Lewica. Each one carries the real party's seat count (157, 194, 65, 18, 26 — totalling 460), policy positions and rhetorical style. First reading. Second reading with rebuttals. 📊 Vote — weighted by seats. >230 passes. 📜 Draft bill — produced with explicit "Article 129 §1 of the Labour Code **is amended to read …" diffs against current law. The frontend surfaces the diff as a Current law vs proposed change panel

Having a server at home opens up a huge range of possibilities. I'd been thinking about setting one up for a while, and when I finally got started, I realised that half the process was simply deciding what to buy and what to install. So what is a home server actually good for? There are obvious advantages like cutting SaaS costs or gaining privacy, but there's one that matters more to me than all the others: learning . In this post I'll walk through the process, the options I considered and why I ended up building my server around a Beelink S12 Pro running Proxmox VE . Why a mini PC? The first decision is form factor. The most common options are: An old PC or laptop from the cupboard. It works, but it's usually noisy, consumes a lot of power and takes up too much space. A Raspberry Pi. Small and incredibly power-efficient, but limited in RAM and processing power for running several services at once. A NAS. A solid choice if storage is the main priority, but the price climbs quickly. A mini PC. Small, silent, low power consumption, reasonable price. Clear winner. The mini PCs I considered In 2025, there are three families that make sense for a home lab: Intel N95 / N100 is probably the most popular choice right now for this kind of use. Very good energy efficiency, full virtualisation support and highly competitive prices. The N100 is more efficient than the N95; the N95 wins slightly on raw performance but at the cost of a bit more power draw. There are countless manufacturers building models around these chips, and the difference between them is usually minimal: what varies is the connectivity, the stock RAM and the after-sales support. Mac Mini deserves a mention because it's one of the most well-known options on the market. Performance is excellent and power consumption is surprisingly low, but for me the problem is the price — clearly higher than a Chinese mini PC — and I don't need something like that to get started. Fanless mini PCs (no fan). Fully passive mod

"AI slop" is not a model problem. It's an engineering problem you decided not to solve. The slop is the bland, off-voice, half-hallucinated, occasionally-just-an-error-message text that your LLM emits maybe 5% of the time — and that 5% is the part users screenshot. The instinct is to fix it in the prompt: add three more sentences of "be concise, be accurate, match my tone." That treats a stochastic system as if it were deterministic. It isn't. You cannot prompt your way to a guarantee. What actually works is treating the model like any other unreliable upstream dependency: wrap it in a harness that validates, rejects, and retries before anything reaches a user. The model proposes; the harness disposes. Here's how to build one. Slop is a systems problem, not a prompt problem Every production LLM feature I've shipped converged on the same shape: the model is one stage in a pipeline, not the pipeline itself. You don't trust raw generation any more than you'd trust raw user input. You parse it, you validate it against constraints you can express in code, and you reject anything that fails — automatically, before a human ever sees it. The key insight is that most slop is detectable . Empty output, a leaked stack trace, the wrong language, a 900-word answer when you asked for 200, a banned phrase like "in today's fast-paced world" — these are all checkable with deterministic code. You don't need a judge model to catch them (though a judge model has its place at the end). You need a gate that runs on every generation, costs microseconds, and never gets tired. Think of it as five layers, each rejecting a different class of failure. Layer 1: Structured output, not freeform text The single biggest reduction in slop comes from refusing to accept prose where you can demand structure. If you ask for a JSON object with named fields and a schema, the failure modes collapse from "infinite" to "a handful you can enumerate." Use the provider's native structured-output / tool-calling

The goal, the firm said, is to develop and operate up to 5 gigawatts of additional data center capacity.

A Stanford and Tsinghua paper ran a controlled experiment earlier this year. Same model. Same task. Different harness architecture. The result: a 6x performance gap driven entirely by the system built around the model. Not the model itself. This is not a prompt engineering insight. It is a systems architecture insight, and it changes where developers should invest their time when building agentic systems. The 6x Gap Meta-Harness tested Claude Opus 4.6 across two harness configurations on TerminalBench-2. The only variable was the scaffold: the code that manages tool calls, context windows, error recovery, and state persistence. One version scored at baseline. The other, with structured tool orchestration and context management, scored 18.4 points higher. Same inference cost. Same model. Different architecture. This pattern replicates across multiple independent studies: LangChain DeepAgents (2026): Same GPT-5.2-Codex model. Harness-only changes moved it from Top 30 to Top 5. That is a 13.7-point gain. Can Bölük (Hashline, 2026): Same model, same task. Changed the edit tool format. Performance went from 6.7% to 68.3%. That is a 10x improvement with 61% fewer tokens. Vercel's d0 agent : A production agent had 16 tools. Removing 14 of them (leaving only bash) took success rate from 80% to 100%. The bottleneck was not capability. It was decision surface. Why This Matters Practically The cheapest Haiku call with an optimised harness (37.6% on TerminalBench-2) outperformed the most expensive Opus call with a default harness (58.0%). That is at 1/50th the inference cost. Most teams are optimising at the wrong layer. They swap models, tune prompts, add retrieval. The structural leverage is in how the system manages tool calls, handles state, and recovers from failure. What Changes The practical takeaway for anyone building with AI agents: Audit your tool surface. Every tool your agent can call is a decision it must make. Vercel found 16→1 tool reduction improved everything.

I’ve been writing my project - Python port scanner for 9 months now. You might be wondering, “Why is it taking so long?” Most of the time was spent figuring out how raw sockets work, how to write a function for manually assembling a packet, calculating the checksum, packing the IP packet bytes, the TCP header, the pseudo-header using struct.pack, sending the packet, and how SYN scanning works. Why did I decide to take such a complicated route instead of just using Scapy? I’m a principled person and have a very exhausting yet useful skill—understanding everything. That’s how I got acquainted with big-endian, or “network byte order.” I won’t go into the details of big-endian logic, to be honest, I’m already mentally exhausted It took several evenings and nights to analyze and understand the principles—watching videos, reading RFCs, and looking at GitHub code (which I didn’t understand)—but what bothered me most was that I had to ask gemini for an explanation. As I mentioned above, I’m very principled; I can’t just copy code without understanding it, so I ask gemini for a prompt like this: “Don’t write the code for me. If I end up asking you for an example because I’m tired, explain it line by line.” Yesterday I realized I don’t fully understand Python (basics)—I don’t remember REPL—so I went to ask Gemini for advice; I don’t have anyone competent who could help me with advice. I’m not very sociable, and the only thing that’s interested me for the last four years is IT. I used to make music. Lately, something strange has been going on with my health, the day before yesterday I woke up because of a nosebleed; this has happened before, but on a larger scale. I stopped working on the scanner yesterday and decided to try writing a backup script in Python. I found an article and jotted down in Obsidian what the project should and shouldn’t do. Previously, the project used Docker, Prometheus, and Grafana. My questions: Am I a good developer, and am I even one at all? Should

The YouTube-to-prestige-horror pipeline is looking very strong.

I started off thinking I needed to simply memorize Modules and go through each and find a way to apply each of them linearly through the docs. Thinking about it that was kind of a retarded approach, but i blame it on classroom conditioning. My inconsistent life stability as well, going off and on with studying. Anyway, I found progress in freeCodeCamp and I've took these notes: Project Completion List: Report card printer | Employee profile generator | Bill Splitter Movie ticket calculator | Weather Travel Planner | Apply Discount Function Caesar Cipher | RPG Character Creator | Pin Extractor | Number Pattern Generator Medical Data Validator | In Python, code blocks are determined by indentation. Redundancy Is A BIG Logic Problem I have in learning Python. Think of parameters as placeholder variables that act as "slots" for the values you pass into functions when you call them. To use the parameters, you have to pass in "arguments". Arguments are the values you pass to a function when you call it. In Python it seems that you should learn to do things with incredible detail and specifics. In the FCC it seems an unspoken lesson is to pay careful attention to what is not said, don't under-cut and don't exceed the expectation. That might be something to ponder later. In note taking i have also found that it is much more meaningful and efficient to only record pointers, not executions or further examples. Logic Thinking and Problem Solving are both things that have to be developed by you. They cant be memorized or given to you. You should give yourself obvious recognition to look back on, It helps you remind yourself when you think your not making progress. order matters whenever it comes to for loops Also, an if statement is NOT a for loop Memorizing isn't learning, It's memorizing. submitted by /u/Big_Example_3390 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/fagnerbrack [link] [留言]

Go from 4K resolution for Crimson Desert to 680Hz for Counter-Strike 2.

Arm has open-sourced Metis, an agentic AI security framework designed to autonomously uncover complex software vulnerabilities. Unlike traditional pattern-based tools, Metis applies semantic reasoning to analyze cross-component dependencies and provides clear, natural language explanations for its findings. By Sergio De Simone

Hi! I want to share a project that I work for a while. It started from idea to get rid off manual copying data from game design documents to game engine. Here you can define your game objects, their props, relations and everything will be stored in structural JSON format that can be read by Unity, Godot, Unreal and other engines. What we have now? construct **wiki-like documents **using a block editor and template system (markdown is supported too) design dialogues of your game in special graph editor create maps and prototype levels on canvas store and manage database of game objects use created objects inside engine directly or export data to customizable data formats (arbitrary JSON, CSV) Made it free and open source. Please try (have Windows and Mac builds) and give your feedback Source code: https://github.com/ImStocker/ims-creators Itch.io: https://nordth.itch.io/imsc-desktop

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is free and source-available on Github. Star git-lrc to help devs discover the project. Do give it a try and share your feedback for improving the project. You might not have noticed, but Chrome quietly started shipping a local AI model called Gemini Nano bundled right into the browser. No API keys. No cloud round-trips. No per-token cost. It just runs on your machine. The interface to talk to it is called the Prompt API , and it landed in Chrome 138. I spent some time going through the full API surface and built a playground that lets you experiment with every feature session management, streaming, structured output, multimodal input, response prefixing, and more in one page. This post walks you through all of it. Why does this matter? On-device AI flips the usual tradeoffs: Free at runtime — the model runs on the user's hardware, not your servers Private by default — no data leaves the device once the model is downloaded Works offline — after the initial download, no network required Low latency — no round-trip to a data centre The catch is that Gemini Nano is a small model. It's great for classification, summarization, Q&A on focused content, and structured extraction. It won't replace GPT-4 for complex reasoning. Think of it as a smart, free, always-available layer you can add on top of your existing product. Enabling the API The Prompt API isn't on by default in all Chrome builds. Enable two flags: Step 1 — Go to chrome://flags/#optimization-guide-on-device-model and set it to Enabled BypassPerfRequirement . Step 2 — Go to chrome://flags/#prompt-api-for-gemini-nano and enable both the base API and the multimodal option. Relaunch Chrome. Then visit chrome://on-device-internals to check the model download status. First use will trigger a download — Gemini Nano is a few gigabytes. The Playground I put together a single-file HTML playground that covers the entire API

I go over some basics and implement a simple feature live on the Wookash Podcast. It might be interesting to those who have tried File Pilot and wondered why its UI is so fast and responsive. I do some actual UI programming. Not much, since we were short on time, but enough to give you a glimpse into how it works. submitted by /u/vkrajacic89 [link] [留言]

Large language models are good at sounding structured. That is not the same as being structured. Ask an AI assistant to "use first principles" and it may produce a confident answer with the phrase "first principles" near the top. Ask it to "red-team this plan" and it may list generic risks. Ask it to "apply OODA" and it may give you four headings without doing the hard part: orienting against assumptions, constraints, and evidence. That failure mode is subtle because the answer looks responsible. It has the right vocabulary. It has the right shape. But the method did not actually control the analysis. I built methodology-toolkit to target that gap. The goal is not to add more clever prompts to Claude Code. The goal is to add a small layer of discipline around non-trivial decisions: classify the problem, choose methods that fit, apply those methods explicitly, verify load-bearing claims, and stress-test plans before they harden into action. Repository: https://github.com/gagharutyunyan1993/methodology-toolkit The Problem: Methodology Theater Methodologies are useful because they constrain attention. First Principles asks you to strip assumptions and rebuild from base facts. ACH asks you to compare competing hypotheses by disconfirming evidence, not by collecting confirmations for your favorite answer. OODA asks you to separate raw observation from orientation, where bias and context do most of the work. Pre-mortem asks you to imagine the plan has already failed so optimism does not screen out obvious risks. When an AI assistant merely names those methods, you get the cost without the benefit. The answer becomes longer, more formal, and more convincing, but not necessarily more correct. That is worse than a short intuitive answer because the structure creates false confidence. methodology-toolkit treats that as the core anti-pattern: If a method is named, its steps must be walked. Not hinted at. Not summarized. Applied. Methodology theater: right vocabulary, no method

Welcome back to a series of introductory articles on AI Hub, the new product feature currently in an early access program! (links: EAP Site for download, documentation ) In the last article, we covered how to create agents and agent tools directly in ObjectScript using the new %AI classes. However, sometimes, instead of creating a new agent, you just want to add some custom tools to an existing agent so you can ask your local claude code, codex, copilot or other agent of choice to query your data directly. This is where MCP Servers might come in. In this guide, we will walk through how you can create your own MCP Servers to access your data. Disclaimer: AI Hub is an early access preview, with features likely to change before production releases, any issues identified can be raised as issues on the documentation GitHub repo linked above. The EAP preview is not to be used in production settings. A very brief intro to MCP I'm going to keep this brief because there are loads of other good articles on MCP Servers Model context protocol (I recommend starting with this article from @pietro .DiLeo or this brilliant introductory video from InterSystems President Don Woodlock). Model Context Protocol is a transport protocol allowing external tools to be added to an agent . There is a discovery 'handshake' where the MCP server sends a list of tools to the MCP Client. After the tools are discovered, the agent can send requests for tool executions, including parameters, to the MCP server, which executes the tool call and returns the result. MCP servers can be remote servers, i.e. running on a different machine to a client, this usually uses a streamable http/https connection or Server-Side Events. Or MCP servers can be local servers, i.e. running on the same machine, usually using a stdio connection. An important distinction AI hub allows you to create custom MCP servers within your IRIS environment, allowing agents to access or monitor your IRIS databases, productions and statu

This is the concrete, runnable walkthrough for Post 1 of the Portway series . The goal: stand up a single model behind an OpenAI-compatible endpoint on hardware you already own, call it from the official OpenAI SDK, and internalize the stateless contract. Everything here runs locally for $0. What this post covers A demo.py script with two blocks: Round-trip — one chat call via the OpenAI SDK, printing the content and the usage object. Stateless proof — the same final question sent as a 1-turn message and as the last turn of a 5-turn fabricated history; both prompt_tokens values are printed alongside an explanation of the delta. Engine choice on this machine Apple Silicon Mac, 48 GB unified memory, Ollama already installed. The demo uses Ollama's OpenAI-compatible endpoint at http://localhost:11434/v1 and the gpt-oss:20b model (~14 GB). The wider Portway series uses llama.cpp on Mac (Ollama is called out as problematic for Qwen3.5 in Post 2). For Post 1 — one model, prove the contract — Ollama is fine and already on the box. Model options by available RAM The demo script works with any Ollama-served model — just substitute the model name in demo.py . The table below covers machines from 9 GB unified memory upward. Model Pull command Approx size Min RAM Notes llama3.2:3b ollama pull llama3.2:3b ~2 GB 8 GB Fastest; good for testing the contract gemma3:4b ollama pull gemma3:4b ~3 GB 8 GB Google; solid instruction-following mistral:7b ollama pull mistral:7b ~4.1 GB 8 GB Classic 7B baseline llama3.1:8b ollama pull llama3.1:8b ~4.7 GB 9 GB Best quality under 10 GB qwen2.5:7b ollama pull qwen2.5:7b ~4.4 GB 9 GB Strong at instruction + reasoning gpt-oss:20b ollama pull gpt-oss:20b ~14 GB 24 GB Used in this post's sample output On a 9 GB machine, replace gpt-oss:20b in demo.py with llama3.1:8b or qwen2.5:7b — the contract demonstration is identical. Prerequisites Ollama running locally ( curl -s http://localhost:11434/api/tags should return JSON) uv installed ( uv --version )