标签：#m

I want to develop an LLM that can solve open-ended math problems (such as proof-only problems). This means that RLVR where we use the final answer alone as reward signal is not enough. Since SFT is useless here and GRPO/PPO methods will not have an appropriate reward function, what kind of fine-tuning can I do? For data, I will use the MathNet dataset. submitted by /u/TechNerd10191 [link] [留言]

You may have heard that Valve's new Steam Controller can ring like a telephone or do the Wilhelm scream. But did you know it can sing songs, too? Let me show you. Here's the new Steam Controller performing the "Ground Theme" from Super Mario Bros. 2: Here is "Still Alive" from Portal - fitting for […]

As handheld consoles continue to grow and push the limits of what you can actually hold in your hands, the Arduboy FX-C comes in a refreshingly pocketable package. It manages to squeeze the best features of past models and some welcome upgrades into a handheld that’s still no larger or thicker than a few credit […]

Backrooms is a wild ride, and it's yet another example of how many great directors are coming from the internet

Meta's mouse tracking tool for employees could capture non-US data and could violate the EU's privacy rules, according to Reuters.

I mostly use Claude Code, but lately I've been using Codex CLI and Codex.app (hereafter "Codex") more often too. My environment is macOS. However, after I started using mise in [2026-03-29-1] , I ran into trouble because Codex wouldn't use the mise-managed Ruby, Node.js, and so on. Here's the state I was in: $ where ruby /usr/bin/ruby $ ruby --version ruby 2.6.10p210 (2022-04-12 revision 67958) [universal.arm64e-darwin25] The Solution I solved it by adding the following to ~/.zshenv : # When Codex CLI and Codex.app run commands, .zshrc's mise activate zsh doesn't take effect, # so add mise shims to PATH. if [ -n " $CODEX_SANDBOX " ] ; then PATH = ${ XDG_DATA_HOME } /mise/shims: $PATH fi Here's the state inside Codex after the change: $ where ruby /Users/masutaka/.local/share/mise/shims/ruby /usr/bin/ruby $ ruby --version ruby 4.0.5 (2026-05-20 revision 64336ffd0e) +PRISM [arm64-darwin25] Codex's Command Execution Environment Is a Sandbox I'd vaguely suspected this for a while, but it seems Codex's command execution environment runs inside a sandbox. You can spot the clues from within Codex: $ env | grep CODEX CODEX_CI=1 CODEX_SANDBOX=seatbelt CODEX_THREAD_ID=019e7806-6025-7c13-a3c6-a70d41c13905 "seatbelt" refers to Apple Seatbelt, which appears to be macOS's sandboxing mechanism. 🔗 macOSで手軽にSandbox環境を構築できるApple Seatbeltの実践ガイド しかしながら、Apple Seatbeltは公式にドキュメントを公開されておらず、非推奨とされています。一方で実際には多くのアプリケーションやツールで使用されています。 (English translation) However, Apple Seatbelt has no officially published documentation and is considered deprecated. Yet in practice, it's used by many applications and tools. I see... According to this article, Claude Code also adopts Apple Seatbelt, and I confirmed that it can be enabled with /sandbox (see the official documentation ). Coming from a background of being used to Claude Code, Codex's sandbox is hard to wrap my head around, but the following article covers it in detail. Much appreciated. 🔗 [Codex] sandbox実行の仕組みと設定方法を完全に理解する Codex also seems to r

AI placement latency is not the problem most teams think they are managing. The default framing treats it as an optimization variable — pick the cheapest compute that meets the SLA, centralize inference, optimize for utilization, revisit locality later when the architecture matures. That framing is wrong in a way that compounds over time. AI placement decisions are not continuously reversible optimization choices. They are architectural commitments that harden incrementally — through inference path configuration, data gravity, routing dependencies, and runtime behavior that normalizes around whatever topology you chose first. By the time latency SLAs begin failing, the placement topology is already embedded across routing, observability, and application behavior. The remediation cost is not an optimization exercise. It is a re-architecture. The First Optimization Becomes the Permanent One Cost is the default optimization axis for AI placement decisions. Centralized GPU clusters are cheaper to operate per token than distributed inference endpoints. Utilization density justifies centralization on paper. Procurement processes reward it. FinOps tooling measures it. So teams centralize. They optimize the compute economics. They defer locality decisions to a later phase when requirements are better understood. That later phase rarely arrives before the architecture has already made the locality decision implicitly — through the inference paths built against a centralized endpoint, the data gravity that formed around it, and the application behavior that normalized against the latency profile it produced. The pattern this creates is latency debt: accumulated runtime latency overhead from placement decisions that optimized for cost before locality requirements were operationally visible. It accrues gradually, stays invisible until something triggers it, and is significantly more expensive to resolve after the fact than it would have been to avoid at design time. It does not

AI coding tools are no longer just autocomplete. In 2026, they are becoming coding assistants, terminal agents, code reviewers, and sometimes full workflow helpers. But the real question is: Which AI coding tool should developers actually use? Here is a short, practical comparison. Quick comparison Tool Best for Main strength Watch out for GitHub Copilot Daily coding inside IDE Fast autocomplete and GitHub workflow support Can feel limited for deep architecture work Cursor Full AI-first coding experience Great for editing across files and working inside a project You may rely on it too much without reviewing code Claude Code Terminal-based agentic coding Strong reasoning, repo understanding, and command execution Needs careful review before running changes Gemini CLI Open-source terminal AI agent Good for terminal workflows, debugging, and automation Output quality depends heavily on task clarity 1. GitHub Copilot GitHub Copilot is the safest default choice for most developers. It works well inside common IDEs and is useful for: Autocomplete Small functions Unit tests Refactoring Explaining code GitHub-based workflows GitHub also has Copilot coding agent support, which can work on assigned tasks, make code changes, and open pull requests from GitHub workflows. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0} Use Copilot if: You want AI help without changing your full coding workflow. Best for: Junior to senior developers Teams already using GitHub Everyday coding productivity 2. Cursor Cursor is best when you want an AI-first editor experience. Instead of only helping with one line or one function, Cursor is useful when you want to ask questions about your whole project and make multi-file changes. Use Cursor if: You want your editor to feel like an AI coding workspace. Best for: Building features quickly Editing multiple files Understanding unfamiliar codebases Indie hackers and startup builders My honest take: Cursor is very productive, but developers should avoid blindly ac

In November 2023 we ran our first global Hytale servers on Google Kubernetes Engine using Veltrix 3.2 as our configuration orchestrator. The Treasure Hunt Engine—a service that fans spawn to claim event loot—started crashing every time search volume exceeded 12 k RPM. Grafana showed a steady climb of 503 errors on /hunt/claim until the autoscaler maxed out at 32 G1 CPU cores and still couldnt keep up. Operators kept filing tickets that boiled down to one sentence: We click the map, nothing happens. We never saw the actual error because the ingress controller was swallowing it and returning a generic Too many requests. What we tried first (and why it failed) Our first move was to crank up the nginx-ingress-controller replicas from 3 to 12 and switch the load-balancer tier from GKE Standard to Premium. The 503 rate dropped to 8 k RPM, but now the p99 latency on claims spiked from 80 ms to 420 ms. The culprit was a recursive call in the hunt service: every claim required a round trip to the player-profile service to validate tier eligibility, and that service was on a shared Postgres 15.4 cluster with 3 k TPS of unrelated traffic. The error stack in Jaeger was literally tracing_id=7f3a1c8… server=profile-db pool_timeout . We tried adding connection pooling with PgBouncer, but the hunt service was using raw libpq and refused to reuse connections—no matter how many times we told it. The Architecture Decision We ripped the validation out of the synchronous path and made the hunt engine publish an event called HuntTierCheckRequired to a dedicated Kafka topic player-events-tier . The hunt service would respond to the client with a 202 Accepted immediately, then the loot-claim worker would listen to that topic and, if the tier passed, publish HuntLootReady . The worker ran in the same pod but on a separate goroutine with a 60-second TTL so we didnt leak memory if the tier service hung. We moved the player-profile service to an SSD-backed CloudSQL instance and gave it 32 GB R

Based on real QA scenarios. About what happens when AI-generated metrics replace real testing, and the quiet engineer in the back row has been running his own numbers the whole time. Act 1: The Review Meeting I was sitting at the back of the long table, a ThinkPad in front of me, screen dimmed. On the big screen, Zhang Lei was presenting the acceptance data for his "AI Automated Testing Platform." His delivery was smooth. Every slide was a beautiful chart — coverage trends, automation rate improvements, regression testing time curves. All three lines pointed up and to the right, exactly like the textbook ideal curves. "In the past three months, the AI testing platform has executed 47,000 test cases, achieving 97.3% functional coverage. Regression testing time has dropped from 12 hours to 2.1 hours." Sparse applause. Zhang Lei added the final slide: "Monthly savings: approximately 200 person-days in labor cost." General Manager Zhou nodded and started the applause. That number was what he cared about most. I glanced at the other end of the table — the client's representative from RuiJie Technology. Chief Engineer Shen. Early fifties, thinning on top, silver-rimmed glasses. He hadn't said a word through the entire presentation. Hands folded on the table, occasionally jotting notes in a small book. Zhang Lei opened the Q&A slide and looked around the room: "Any questions?" Chief Engineer Shen flipped through the printed materials in front of him, stopped at the appendix, and looked up. "Page 47, Table 3.2 — what's the confidence interval on that 97.3% coverage?" The room went silent for about 15 seconds. Not the kind of silence where people are thinking. The kind where nobody had ever thought about it. Zhang Lei stood by the projector, clicker still in his hand, paused for two seconds: "Uh... the model confidence is quite high. The specific number is in the technical report." "Which page?" "I'll need to look it up." Chief Engineer Shen didn't push further. He looked do

Quark’s Outlines: Python User-Defined Functions Overview, Historical Timeline, Problems & Solutions An Overview of Python User-Defined Functions What is a Python user-defined function? You can define your own function in Python using the def keyword. A Python user-defined function is made when you write a def block in your code. When Python runs this block, it creates a function object. A function object has special parts. These include its name, its list of default values, and its code. It also keeps a link to the global names from the file where it was made. You can use this object to call the function later with any valid input. Python lets you create named function objects with the def keyword. def greet ( name = " friend " ): return " Hello, " + name print ( greet ()) print ( greet ( " Mike " )) # prints: # Hello, friend # Hello, Mike The function greet is now a user-defined function. Python stores its name, code, and default values for later use. What are the special parts of a Python function? A Python function holds many facts about itself. These are called attributes. For example, __name__ holds the function name. __defaults__ is a tuple of default values. __globals__ holds the global names it can see. __code__ is a special object that stores the function’s bytecode. Python functions store their details in special attributes. def square ( x = 2 ): return x * x print ( square . __name__ ) print ( square . __defaults__ ) print ( square . __code__ . co_varnames ) # prints: # square # (2,) # ('x',) These parts let Python understand and run your function later. A Historical Timeline of Python User-Defined Functions Where do Python’s user-defined functions come from? User-defined functions in Python build on ideas from earlier languages. They let you name blocks of code and reuse them. Over time, Python added new parts to function objects—like closures, default values, and metadata—to make them more powerful. People designed ways to name and reuse logic 1958 — Fu

Ps. Not pitching anything; Just trying to understand where reality differs from the narrative We're a couple of ML students, mostly worked on ML/software before, but over the last few months we've been playing with VLAs, robot datasets, and trying to understand where the field is heading. After spending a few weeks downloading robotics datasets, we were surprised by how much effort went into just getting data into a usable format. Maybe we're missing something, but it felt like every dataset had different assumptions, schemas, sensors, coordinate frames, metadata standards, and tooling. That got us wondering: How do robotics teams actually think about data sharing? Do people genuinely want access to more robot data, or is the industry moving toward "collect your own data because nobody else's transfers"? Our current (possibly very wrong) hypothesis is: The robotics ecosystem doesn't have a data scarcity problem. It has a data interoperability problem. We're considering running a pretty large experiment: Take essentially every public robot-learning dataset we can get our hands on, normalize it into a common schema, enrich it with metadata, and see how much of it is actually reusable across tasks, embodiments, and learning pipelines. Before we spend months doing that, we'd love to hear from people actually building in robotics. Where is this hypothesis wrong? Is finding data not actually a problem? Is embodiment mismatch the real blocker? Is quality the issue? Is labeling the issue? Is everyone just collecting their own data anyway? Would you ever use robot data collected by another team? If I gave you access tomorrow to every public robotics dataset through one API, what would you actually do with it? Or would you ignore it completely? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Edit: One clarification We're not thinking about a marketplace, proprietary format, or closed platform. The experiment we're conside

Slots & Daggers, a low-key, fantasy-themed slot machine roguelike, was one of my favorite games last year. That may sound like a complicated description, but the game mixes ideas from deckbuilding roguelikes with slot machines to create an engrossing loop, and there's steady meta-progression that helps you push further with just about every run. Perhaps […]

I haven't seen anything as stupid as the WeWork IPO document in a very long time - that is, until Elon Musk filed to take SpaceX public. WeWork was a joke. SpaceX is a threat. And if Musk and his bankers have their way, you are going to be their bagholder. Lots of the top-line […]

Hi, friends! Welcome to Installer No. 130, your guide to the best and Verge-iest stuff in the world. (If you're new here, welcome, don't forget to hydrate, and also you can read all the old editions at the Installer homepage.) This week, I've been reading about Victor Wembanyama and mahjong and Merlin Mann's pearls of […]

Indie Game Roundup: Mina the Hollower, a Sims alternative and more

The Kentucky school district that filed a social media addiction lawsuit against Meta and other companies is getting $27 million in settlement.

A few weeks ago I posted about building a desktop app that automates GitHub commits because...

Keychron's K2 HE Concrete Edition sounds like a cute gimmick, but as I discovered, there's a really solid keyboard beyond the absurd choice of materials.

Kane Parsons was just 16 years old when he created a viral YouTube horror series based on a 4chan meme. Now he’s ready to conquer the big screen.