标签：#m

If you’ve been doing Android development for a while, you know the drill. You start a new project,...

The AC email says the rebuttal is between 28 to 4th. The June 4th on website is the deadline. So I created this post for the discussion. I know it's a MM conference and less about ML but I think many people here are still submitting there. submitted by /u/Striking-Warning9533 [link] [留言]

The beleaguered luxury phone maker is pushing the AlphaFold, which has decent specs and comes with Vertu’s new Hermes Agent on board, to wealthy would-be buyers.

AI wrote the code in 30 seconds Three lines A simple function I prompted it generated I copied It...

The conversation about cognitive debt in AI-assisted development has been framed as a tradeoff: you can go fast, or you can understand your system, but not both. The proposed mitigations — pair programming, code reviews, requiring a human to understand each change — are braking mechanisms. They trade speed for comprehension. TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) says braking is a compromise, not a resolution. A resolved contradiction eliminates the conflict. You don't choose between speed and understanding. You restructure the system so they don't conflict. There are six root causes of cognitive debt in AI-augmented development. Each one is a contradiction. Each one has a TRIZ resolution that doesn't involve slowing down. Root Cause 1: The Velocity-Comprehension Gap AI generates complex logic in seconds that would take a human hours to write. The human never spends the time typing the code during creation. The theory of the program is never fully formed. The Contradiction Technical contradiction: Improving development speed (AI generates code faster) worsens depth of understanding (human doesn't internalize the logic). Physical contradiction: The development process must be simultaneously FAST (to capture AI's productivity gains) and SLOW (to allow human assimilation of the system's behavior). Resolution: Separation in Space (Principle 2 — Extraction + Principle 1 — Segmentation) The contradiction assumes that the thing being understood IS the code. Extract the understanding target from the code and put it somewhere else — a smaller, slower-moving, human-readable artifact that captures what the code must satisfy, not how it works. Segment the system's theory into independent, composable units. Each unit is one property: "this service must never accept unauthenticated requests," "this data pipeline must preserve ordering," "this retry loop must terminate within 30 seconds." Each property is 1-3 sentences in natural language or 3-10 lines in a predicate language.

In part 1 , the single-document case was easy. In part 2 , two documents brought Write Skew, and we saw that even a native ACID transaction — snapshot isolation — lets it through. So teams reach for the reflex fix: a distributed lock — Redis-based, often a Redlock-style implementation. Acquire a lock on a key, do your Read → Modify → Write, release. On paper, you've finally serialized the critical section — operationally, at least. In practice, you've stepped on three mines. 1. Network latency Every guarded transaction now makes extra round-trips to Redis — before and after hitting your NoSQL store. You've doubled your coordination surface and taken a hard dependency on a second system being up, reachable, and fast on the hot path of every write. The "fast" database is now gated by the lock service. And the coupling bites harder than the average latency suggests: every Redis tail-latency spike becomes your write-latency spike — your p99 inherits Redis's p99 — and if Redis fails over mid-transaction, the lock you think you're holding can effectively vanish on the new primary, dropping you straight into the corruption case below. 2. Deadlock You can dodge deadlock entirely with a single coarse lock — but then every writer serializes on it, and you've thrown away the very concurrency you reached for NoSQL to get. So to keep throughput you go fine-grained, one lock per resource — and the moment an invariant touches more than one key (across this series, it always does), deadlock is back on the table: Transaction A locks key X, then needs Y. Transaction B locks Y, then needs X. Both block until timeout or intervention. The textbook cure — real deadlock detection, maintaining a wait-for graph across every lock holder and breaking cycles as they form — is a distributed-systems project in its own right: not something you bolt onto a cache you reached for precisely to save engineering time. So nobody builds it. Instead teams impose a standing discipline: always acquire locks

submitted by /u/mrpro1a1 [link] [留言]

For a few glorious years, a $399 portable gadget could run almost anything you'd want to play. In 2022, the Steam Deck finally made PC gaming portable and affordable. I played through the vast majority of Elden Ring on a Steam Deck, agape that such a rich world could comfortably fit between my two hands. […]

AI Glossary: A to Z An A-to-Z glossary of AI terms, created with help from AI itself. Because in 2026, the best way to study AI is apparently to ask AI itself. 🤣 Written for beginners and practitioners alike. Each term includes a plain English definition and a real-world example. Quick Navigation A · B · C · D · E · F · G · H · I · J · K · L · M · N · O · P · Q · R · S · T · U · V · W · X · Y · Z ↑ Back to top A Term Definition Example Agent (AI Agent) An AI system that perceives its environment, makes decisions, and takes autonomous actions to achieve a goal A coding agent that writes, runs, and debugs its own code without human intervention AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) A hypothetical AI that can match or exceed human-level intelligence across any task — does not yet exist Often cited as a long-term goal by companies like OpenAI and DeepMind AI (Artificial Intelligence) The field of computer science focused on building machines that can perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence ChatGPT writing an essay, an algorithm detecting cancer in X-rays AI Ethics The principles and practices for developing and deploying AI in ways that are fair, transparent, and safe Auditing a hiring algorithm to ensure it doesn't discriminate by gender or race AI Safety The field dedicated to ensuring AI systems remain reliable, controllable, and beneficial as they grow more capable Research into preventing AI from pursuing goals that harm people Alignment The challenge of ensuring an AI system's goals and behaviour match what its designers and users actually intend Preventing a powerful AI from optimising for a metric in a way that causes unintended harm Annotation The process of labelling raw data so it can be used to train supervised learning models Humans drawing bounding boxes around cars in images to train a self-driving model API (Application Programming Interface) A defined interface that lets software systems communicate with each other Calling the OpenAI API to

submitted by /u/Xaneris47 [link] [留言]

Cloudflare recently added support for Claude Managed Agents, allowing developers to run and manage Claude agents within Cloudflare. Developers can connect agents to private systems, choose their runtime environment, and monitor agent activity using Cloudflare services. By Renato Losio

When you build a PowerApps Component Framework (PCF) component that will be used across multiple geographies, need to serve labels, button captions, validation messages, and tooltips in the user's preferred language. PCF has a built-in answer based on .resx resource files, the same format used by .NET applications. The mechanism is elegant in production — but surprisingly tricky during local development. This walkthrough takes you through the full setup, step by step, and then explains a problem that arises while locally debugging your PCF. Step 1 — Create the strings folder and your first .resx file PCF expects your localized strings to live in a folder (the conventional name is strings ) inside your component directory. Each language gets its own file, named with the pattern: <ComponentName>.<LCID>.resx The <LCID> part is the numeric Locale ID , not the textual code ( en-US , it-IT ). The framework relies on this naming convention to identify which file to load for a given user. Common LCIDs: Language LCID English (en-US) 1033 Italian (it-IT) 1040 German (de-DE) 1031 French (fr-FR) 1036 Spanish (es-ES) 3082 Japanese (ja-JP) 1041 Chinese Simplified (zh-CN) 2052 Portuguese (pt-BR) 1046 For a component called EquipmentGrid , the structure looks like this: EquipmentGrid/ ├── ControlManifest.Input.xml ├── index.ts └── strings/ ├── EquipmentGrid.1033.resx ├── EquipmentGrid.1040.resx └── EquipmentGrid.1031.resx Tip: Always include 1033.resx (English). The PCF runtime falls back to the first <resx> declared in the manifest when the user's preferred language isn't available, and English is the safest default. Step 2 — Author the resource file content A .resx file is just XML. Here's a minimal Italian version ( EquipmentGrid.1040.resx ): <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <root> <resheader name= "resmimetype" > <value> text/microsoft-resx </value> </resheader> <resheader name= "version" > <value> 2.0 </value> </resheader> <resheader name= "reader" > <value> System.Resou

TLDR Monitoring AI agents in production requires distributed tracing: a single user request fans out into 10 or more internal operations, and logs alone cannot show you which step is slow, failing, or burning your token budget. OpenTelemetry's gen_ai.* semantic conventions give you standardized span attributes for LLM calls, tool invocations, and agent steps. Some are stable today; others are still experimental. Auto-instrumentation libraries (OpenLLMetry, OpenInference, OpenLIT) cover most agent frameworks with two to three lines of initialization code. You do not change your agent code. Traces ship to OpenObserve over OTLP. From there you get SQL-queryable trace data, token usage dashboards, cost attribution by agent and model, and alerting on latency and cost anomalies. OpenObserve also exposes an MCP server. You can query your live agent traces from a Claude or GPT session without opening a dashboard. Why Agents Are Harder to Monitor Than a Single LLM Call A single LLM call is straightforward to observe. One HTTP request, one response, one latency number. You can log the input and output and call it done. An agent is different. When a user sends a message, the agent calls an LLM to decide what to do, invokes a tool, processes the result, calls the LLM again, possibly calls another tool, and eventually returns a response. That one user message becomes ten or more internal operations. Some of those operations call external APIs. Some retry. Some spawn sub-agents. Without distributed tracing, you see none of this structure. You know the response took 8 seconds. You do not know whether the LLM took 7 of those seconds or whether a tool made three retries before timing out. Four categories of problems appear in production agents that you cannot debug without traces: Latency. Which step is slow? The LLM call? The tool execution? A retry loop the agent entered because the tool returned ambiguous output? Cost. Which agent, which task, which model is consuming tokens? A s

Last year, I was doing something that felt increasingly absurd: manually reading AI-generated content to decide if it was "good enough." PostAll — the content automation tool I've been building — was producing hundreds of blog posts per week for clients. And I had no systematic way to evaluate quality at scale. I was spot-checking. Vibes-checking, really. That doesn't work at volume. So I built a programmatic quality analysis pipeline, ran it over 1,000 AI-generated posts, and let the numbers tell me what my gut was missing. The findings surprised me. A few of them genuinely changed how I think about AI content quality. What I Actually Measured First, a definition of terms, because "quality" is almost meaninglessly vague in this space. I broke quality into five measurable dimensions: Readability — Flesch-Kincaid grade level and reading ease score Keyword density — Target keyword frequency and distribution across the post Grammar error rate — Errors per 1,000 words, caught via LanguageTool's API Factual accuracy — Claims that could be verified programmatically (dates, statistics, named entities cross-referenced against a knowledge base) Structural consistency — Presence of expected elements: intro hook, subheadings, conclusion, CTA I used 1,000 posts across three categories: SaaS product descriptions, long-form "how-to" articles (1,200–2,000 words), and listicles (500–900 words). All were generated by PostAll using GPT-4o, with various prompting strategies. The Setup The analysis pipeline isn't complicated, but the piece that makes it useful is the batch processing layer: import anthropic import language_tool_python import textstat from dataclasses import dataclass from typing import Optional import json @dataclass class QualityReport : post_id : str flesch_reading_ease : float flesch_kincaid_grade : float grammar_errors_per_1000_words : float keyword_density : float structural_score : int # 0–5 based on element presence flagged_claims : list [ str ] overall_score :

"Settlement layer for the agent economy" is suddenly a crowded sentence. In the last few weeks, two very different things have started competing for it. OKX Agent Payments Protocol (APP) announced in May 2026 — backed by AWS, Alibaba Cloud, Uniswap, Paxos, QuickNode, with ecosystem support from Base, Ethereum Foundation, Solana, Sui, Aptos, Optimism — describes itself as the settlement layer where AI agents pay each other. AEON's $8M pre-seed (May 20, YZi Labs) described itself the same way. There is a list now, and it is getting longer. We build one of the things on this list, and we think the framing is wrong. These are not rivals jostling for the same slot. They are two different layers, and they answer two different versions of the same question: what does an agent need to settle a trade? This piece walks through the two layers, where each is the right answer, and why an honest comparison gets you further than picking sides. What APP and other custodial-venue protocols actually do A useful way to read OKX APP — and similar moves coming from the larger exchanges — is to treat them as a venue layer . An exchange already holds inventory across many chains. It already has the risk engines, the liquidity, the legal arrangements with banks and partners. Adding an agent-facing API on top of that machinery is a relatively short walk. What an agent gets, in exchange, is breadth. Many chains, many assets, batched and netted settlement against deep internal books, and fast execution because the exchange is just moving entries in its own ledger. For an agent whose job is "find a price somewhere and execute now," that is a powerful primitive. What the agent gives up, in exchange, is a counterparty. At any moment between deposit and withdrawal, the agent's balance is the venue's promise to pay. That promise is normally good. The agent has no way to verify, from inside its own logic, that it still is. This is not a criticism of OKX APP. It is the structural shape of any venue-

The Problem We Were Actually Solving During load testing at 50k concurrent hunters hitting the hunt endpoints, p99 latencies stayed under 200ms. But at 270k concurrent users in production, the hunt page suddenly took 1.8 seconds to load, triggering cascading 502s from our CDN. The error surfaced in Datadog as hunt_page_render_time_bucket{le=2.0} = 42% while le=0.5 dropped to 18%. The fingerprints were identical across three regions: high latency correlated exactly with Redis cache miss rate spiking from 12% to 48% during the hunt start window. Our cache-aside pattern with a 30-second TTL was amplifying miss storms. We discovered that the treasure hunt start time was synchronised by marketing campaigns. When the clock struck 10:00:00 UTC, 270k users hit the endpoint within 30 seconds. Each request would check the cache (miss), fetch from PostgreSQL, render the page, and write the cache entry. But PostgreSQL couldnt keep up with 9k queries per second during that window, causing query queueing and connection exhaustion. The Redis layer, designed for 150k ops/sec, was not the bottleneck. The database was. What We Tried First (And Why It Failed) Our first attempt was to increase Redis TTL from 30 seconds to 5 minutes. This reduced cache misses from 48% to 24%, and p99 latency improved to 650ms. But at 320k concurrent users, the latency still spiked to 1.4s because the underlying database queries were still hitting the same table with the same indexes. The Redis layer was masking symptoms, not solving the root cause. Next, we tried database read replicas. We spun up three read replicas and routed hunt queries to them using a weighted service mesh. This worked for a few minutes, but then we hit replication lag. The replicas fell 800ms behind primary, causing hunt pages to display stale treasure locations. Our operators started getting customer complaints about seeing the wrong treasure coordinates. We rolled back within 15 minutes. We even tried increasing PostgreSQL share

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy . ] submitted by /u/Economy_Goose_8561 [link] [留言]

This is a submission for the GitHub Finish-Up-A-Thon Challenge What I Built Last...

A while ago I tried to build a local coding assistant. I downloaded Qwen3, fired it up on my MacBook with 16GB of RAM, and within a day realized the output quality was nowhere close to Claude or GPT-5. The model could fit . It just couldn't compete . So I changed the question. If I can't make the model smarter on my hardware, can I make what I feed it smarter? Where the tokens actually go I started watching where my Claude / Cursor / Copilot sessions actually spent their tokens. The surprise: most of it wasn't reasoning. It was lookup . Every fresh chat about my company's database re-discovered the same things: What does status = 3 mean? (cancelled) How does orders join to users ? ( orders.user_id → users.id ) What's that cryptic JobStatus enum? (a dozen integer codes nobody remembers) The model figured it out, the session ended, and tomorrow it figured it out again . Same tokens, same latency, every single time. The expensive part of working with an AI wasn't the thinking — it was re-teaching it things it had already learned yesterday. There's a lot of attention right now on trimming AI output tokens (talk like a caveman, strip the pleasantries, etc.). But in my workflow the bigger leak was on the input side: paying full token cost every session to re-establish context that never changed. "Memory" isn't a feature, it's an architecture question AI clients are starting to bolt on "memory" features. But they're proprietary, opaque, and locked to one tool. Claude's memory doesn't help Cursor. Cursor's doesn't help Copilot. You can't inspect it, you can't share it with a teammate, and you can't diff it. What I actually wanted was an explicit, inspectable, shareable context layer that any AI client could read deterministically — same answer every time, same file my team could hand off. I picked the highest re-learn cost in my world to start with: SQL databases. Enter amnesic amnesic is an open-source MCP server that gives any AI client persistent semantic memory of your

Most trading ideas start as vague thoughts. "Buy when RSI is oversold and price bounces from support." It sounds reasonable. But the moment you try to test or automate it, the ambiguity becomes obvious. What exactly counts as oversold? How is support defined? What qualifies as a bounce? When do you exit? Without precise answers, the idea cannot be tested, measured, or executed consistently. This gap between intuition and execution is exactly what no-code strategy builders are designed to close. Why vague trading ideas fail Most traders think in concepts rather than rules. "Buy the dip." "Trade strong momentum." "Enter when the trend looks healthy." These ideas feel intuitive, but they are unusable in practice unless translated into explicit logic. Without clear definitions, you cannot backtest a strategy, cannot repeat decisions consistently, and cannot diagnose why results change over time. Ambiguity leads to second-guessing. Second-guessing leads to inconsistent execution. Inconsistent execution makes performance impossible to evaluate. What a no-code strategy builder actually does A no-code strategy builder is a visual system that forces clarity. Instead of writing code, you select indicators, define conditions, combine logic using AND/OR rules, specify entries and exits, and then test the strategy on historical data. Conceptually, it works like assembling building blocks. Each block represents a condition such as "RSI below 30" or "price above moving average." When combined, those blocks form a complete, testable trading system. The key benefit is precision. From idea to testable strategy The transformation follows a predictable workflow. You begin with a loose idea, such as buying when a stock is oversold and starting to recover. You then break that idea into components. What defines oversold? What signals recovery? How do you enter? How do you exit? How much do you risk? Once those questions are answered, the idea becomes a set of explicit rules. For example,