标签：#m

I understand why so many people are questioning software engineering right now. Every week there’s another headline saying AI will replace developers. Junior engineers are worried there won’t be jobs. Senior engineers are wondering how long their experience will stay valuable. And honestly, if you spend enough time on tech Twitter or LinkedIn, it can start feeling like the industry is collapsing in real time. But after using AI heavily in my day-to-day work as a software engineer, I’ve started seeing things differently. AI didn’t make me feel less useful. It made me feel more capable. Before AI became part of my workflow, a lot of engineering time disappeared into things that were mentally draining but necessary: repetitive refactoring debugging small issues writing boilerplate digging through documentation trying to remember syntax cleaning up legacy code writing SQL queries optimizing simple functions translating vague tickets into technical tasks None of these tasks were impossible. They were just time-consuming. Now, a lot of that friction is reduced dramatically. One of the biggest changes I noticed was backlog cleanup. Tasks that used to sit untouched because nobody wanted to deal with them suddenly became manageable. Not because AI magically solved everything. But because it helped reduce the “mental startup cost” of difficult tasks. Sometimes all you need is: a starting point a refactored example help understanding unfamiliar code a faster debugging path quick documentation summaries That momentum matters more than people realize. A task that feels overwhelming at 9AM suddenly becomes achievable when AI helps break it down. I also noticed we started delivering faster as a team. Not in a “replace developers with AI” kind of way. More in a: less context switching faster research quicker prototyping fewer hours stuck on repetitive problems better ticket breakdowns improved communication kind of way. The interesting part is that AI didn’t just help with coding.

Why Does Using an ORM Decrease Database Performance? While trying to optimize the shipping module in a production ERP, I noticed that database queries were incredibly slow. At first, I examined the SQL queries and checked the indexes. However, I couldn't get the performance boost I expected. The problem lay in the Object-Relational Mapper (ORM) library, which was the cornerstone of our application. ORMs make things easier for software developers by providing an abstract layer for database operations, but this convenience often comes at a performance cost. In this post, I will explain why using an ORM decreases database performance, using concrete examples from my own field experience. The core promise of ORMs is to keep developers away from SQL and allow them to interact with databases in a way that is more aligned with the object-oriented paradigm. This is a huge advantage, especially in small and medium-sized projects or rapid prototyping processes. However, when things get complex and performance becomes critical, the efficiency of the queries generated by ORMs starts to be questioned. In many cases I have encountered, especially in enterprise software development processes, the default behaviors of ORMs created an unexpected load on database servers. Query Inefficiencies Generated by ORMs ORMs usually manage database relationships using mechanisms like "eager loading" or "lazy loading". Depending on the developer's preference, these mechanisms either fetch all related data at once (eager loading) or fetch it in pieces as needed (lazy loading). However, ORMs may not always perform these loads in the most optimized way. For example, while only a few fields like ID and name are sufficient in a list view, the ORM might query the entire table or all related tables. This situation causes unnecessary data transfer and unnecessarily overloads the database server. To give an example, on the order list screen of an e-commerce site, we needed to display the customer inform

Disclosure: I work on Passlens, a browser-first passport and ID photo maker. This post is about the product decisions behind that workflow, not a neutral review of every tool in the space. A passport photo looks simple until you try to make one that an upload form will actually accept. It is a headshot, yes, but it is also a small chain of constraints: physical size, pixel size, background, head position, print scale, and whatever the destination country's portal decides to reject that week. That is why generic photo editors feel slightly wrong for this job. They can crop. They can resize. They can export. The hard part is not any one of those actions. The hard part is keeping all of them tied to the document rule the user picked. The unit problem For developers, document photos are awkward because two units matter at the same time. A user may need a 2x2 inch passport photo. A visa portal may ask for 600x600 pixels. A print sheet may need 35x45 mm photos at 300 DPI. These are not the same request, but people often treat them as if they are. If the app only thinks in pixels, the print can come out the wrong physical size. If it only thinks in millimetres or inches, the digital upload can be rejected for the wrong pixel dimensions. A good workflow has to keep both ideas alive: the document size and the export target. That is the main reason Passlens keeps presets and print layouts as first-class pieces of the workflow instead of treating them as labels on a crop box. The crop is not the output Another small trap: the crop the user sees is not always the final output. For a digital upload, the crop usually becomes one image file. For printing, the same crop may become several photos arranged on 4x6, A4, or Letter paper with spacing, margins, and optional cut marks. If that print sheet is scaled by the browser or printer dialog, the whole thing is wrong. So the editor needs to separate three things: the face and shoulder crop the finished document-photo size the print s

What if a development board could be as friendly as an Arduino, yet powerful enough to drive industrial-grade robots? That is exactly the gap the new G2 Nano sets out to close. Most hobby boards handle simple robot builds with ease, but they hit a wall once a project demands tight, simultaneous control of several motors. Embedded systems engineer Ryan Strace noticed that the custom controllers built for these complex machines tend to look remarkably alike, with motor coordination as the recurring headache. Rather than reinventing that hardware on every project, he designed a single accessible platform to handle it, and the G2 Nano is the result. Precise motor control usually leans on closed-loop techniques like PID, but real-world gremlins such as integrator windup, sensor noise, mechanical saturation, and phase delay can all degrade performance. Robots also need smooth multi-axis motion with managed acceleration to avoid jerky, stressful movement, plus solid fault handling so an unexpected state does not wreck expensive parts. Strace is tackling all of this with a low-cost motion-control IC he is developing, and the G2 Nano is the high-performance platform built to prove out that future chip. What's under the hood Processor: NXP Arm Cortex-M7 clocked at a brisk 1 GHz Wireless: u-blox MAYA-W1 module with dual-band Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Motion sensing: six-axis IMU (3-axis accelerometer plus 3-axis gyroscope) and a dedicated magnetometer for compass heading Form factor: just 0.8 by 3 inches, breadboard-friendly, on a six-layer PCB stackup for clean high-speed signals On the software side, the board targets native micro-ROS and the Zephyr real-time operating system, with planned MicroPython support so you can prototype in Python without paying the usual speed penalty, thanks to that unusually high clock. Every design file and document is open-source and published on GitHub. Build it yourself If you want to follow along, the core ingredients are clear: an NXP Cortex-M7 a

Something broke in the AI pricing market between January and May 2026. A year ago, "frontier model" meant "expensive model." Claude Opus was $15/$75 per million tokens. GPT-4 was $5/$15. If you wanted the best coding performance, you paid the best price. The correlation between quality and cost was loose, but it existed. That correlation is gone. The Numbers That Changed Everything Here's SWE-bench Verified — the benchmark that tests AI models against real GitHub issues from projects like Django, Flask, and scikit-learn — plotted against output price per million tokens: Model SWE-bench Output $/1M Score/Dollar ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Claude Opus 4.7 87.6% $25.00 3.5 Claude Opus 4.6 80.8% $25.00 3.2 Gemini 3.1 Pro 80.6% $15.00 5.4 GPT-5.2 80.0% $10.00 8.0 DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 80.6% $3.48 23.2 Kimi K2.6 80.2% $4.00 20.1 Qwen3.6 Plus 78.8% $3.00 26.3 MiniMax M2.5 80.2% $1.20 66.8 DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) 79.0% $0.28 282.1 Read that last line again. DeepSeek V4 Flash scores 79% on SWE-bench at $0.28 per million output tokens. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 87.6% at $25.00. The performance gap is 8.6 percentage points. The price gap is 89x . For a team running 100 million tokens per month, that's the difference between $28/month and $2,500/month. For a 9-point improvement in code completion accuracy. It's Not Just One Outlier This isn't a DeepSeek anomaly. Look at the cluster of models scoring 78-80% on SWE-bench: DeepSeek V4 Pro : $3.48/1M output — open source, 1M context Kimi K2.6 : $4.00/1M output — open source, 256K context MiniMax M2.5 : $1.20/1M output — open source, 200K context Qwen3.6 Plus : $3.00/1M output — open source, 1M context MiMo-V2-Pro : $3.00/1M output — open source, 1M context Five models from five different Chinese labs, all scoring within 2 points of GPT-5.2 ($10.00/1M) and Gemini 3.1 Pro ($15.00/1M), all at 1/3 to 1/10 the price. And they're all open source. What Happened Three things converged: 1. Mixture-of-Exper

According to the complaint, a Google engineer risked over $2.7 million on wagers related to Google's 2025 Year in Search campaign.

I'm hoping for some advice from any former PhD's outside of machine learning. If you made it into machine learning engineering and/or data science, what was the key for you? Any tips for this job market? It seems like non computer science PhD's are especially in trouble at the moment. submitted by /u/Electrical_Fan_9587 [link] [留言]

Problem Statement We have a misinformation problem. But more specifically, we have a speed problem. A journalist spots a suspicious claim. They search for sources. Cross-reference databases. Call experts. Write a verdict. Get it edited. Publish, maybe 6 hours later. Maybe 3 days later. Meanwhile, the original claim has been screenshot, reposted, quoted in newsletters, and cited in arguments across five platforms. I wanted to build something that closed that gap. Not a chatbot that guesses. A proper pipeline, one that retrieves real evidence, reasons from it, and tells you why it reached a verdict. That's what Sift is. What is Sift? Sift (Source Inspection & Fact-checking Tool) is an open-source multi-agent AI pipeline that takes any text, extracts every factual claim, retrieves grounded evidence, and returns auditable verdicts — TRUE, FALSE, or UNCERTAIN, with cited sources and full reasoning chains. Paste a news article. A politician's speech. A viral statistic. A WhatsApp forward. Sift breaks it into individual claims and fact-checks each one independently. Why Multi-Agent? The naive approach is to ask an LLM: "Is this claim true?" The problem: LLMs hallucinate. They have knowledge cutoffs. They're confidently wrong in ways that are hard to detect. And critically, they don't show their work. A single LLM call can't reliably handle the full pipeline of: Extracting structured claims from noisy text Retrieving dated, traceable evidence from live sources Reasoning across conflicting evidence without confabulating Adversarially reviewing its own conclusions for overconfidence Finding corrections when something is wrong Each of these is a distinct task that benefits from its own prompt, its own tools, and its own failure modes. That's why I built five separate agents, orchestrated with LangGraph. The 5-Agent Pipeline Agent 1 — Claim Extractor A single paragraph can contain 4-5 distinct factual claims. Generic LLMs miss them or conflate them. This agent uses LLaMA 3.3 70

I am a software developer who has been using LLMs extensively at work. I wanted to develop a foundational understanding of LLMs, but have no background in machine learning or statistics. So, I started to read and take notes with the goal to eventually write up a developer's guide to the foundations of LLMs. The article kept growing, so I have split it into four parts. This is the first in the series. Hope this helps! submitted by /u/Normal-Tangelo-7120 [link] [留言]

According to federal prosecutors, Michele Spagnuolo made more than $1 million on the prediction market platform using confidential information about Google Search traffic.

[R] BEAM 100K memory benchmark: CSM vs Hindsight local artifact comparison I’m looking for feedback on a local agent-memory benchmark comparison, especially from people who care about evaluation methodology. I built an open-source R&D memory system called Context Swarm Memory (CSM). It uses bounded read-only memory shards, query routing, probe/recall/synthesis, cited packets, and explicit Committer-gated writes. The current comparison is against the accepted local Hindsight artifact on BEAM 100K: CSM: 0.757573 AMB score, 342 / 400 correct Hindsight: 0.733658 AMB score, 326 / 400 correct CSM uses 38.2% fewer answer-visible context tokens CSM is slower: 29.23s average retrieval vs 6.38s I want to be precise about the claim: This is not an official leaderboard claim. It is not a BEAM 10M claim. It is a committed local accepted-artifact comparison at 100K, and the next step should be independent replication or official chart acceptance. Repo: https://github.com/muhamadjawdatsalemalakoum/context-swarm-memory Evidence and reproducibility notes: https://muhamadjawdatsalemalakoum.github.io/context-swarm-memory/ The main question: what would make this comparison scientifically stronger before it is presented as a serious agent-memory result? submitted by /u/keonakoum [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/henk53 [link] [留言]

New preprint. A Mixture-of-Experts inference kernel (TritonMoE) written entirely in OpenAI Triton, targeting portability across NVIDIA and AMD without vendor-specific code. Highlights: A fused gate+up GEMM computes both SwiGLU projections from shared tile loads, eliminating 35% of global memory traffic. 89-131% of Megablocks throughput at inference batch sizes (up to 512 tokens) on A100; the same kernel runs on MI300X unchanged. Limitations: falls behind at 2048+ tokens, and degrades with 64+ experts under extreme routing skew. Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23911 Code: https://github.com/bassrehab/triton-kernels Writeup with benchmarks: https://subhadipmitra.com/blog/2026/fused-moe-dispatch-triton/ submitted by /u/bassrehab [link] [留言]

Dataset for fine-tuning compliance assistants. Each pair includes: - A practical SME-facing question ("Can I use pre-ticked consent boxes?") - An answer with specific UK GDPR article references, ICO guidance by name, and actionable steps - Source metadata: which GDPR concepts were used, which generation strategy, timestamp Generation method: questions via local Qwen 14B from a curated term bank, answers via DeepSeek API for factual reliability. JSON + Parquet, MIT license for the 1K sample. This is a niche dataset — it's not a benchmark contender, it's for people building privacy tools for UK businesses. If you're doing legal NLP or compliance RAG, might be useful. Free sample: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Draeg82/uk-gdpr-small-business-qa submitted by /u/a_serial_hobbyist_ [link] [留言]

I am a junior in college, and have two accepted workshop papers at ICML 2026. Some background: I had an accepted workshop paper last year at ICLR, but couldn't attend due to a rejected visa, which led to all the more disappointment. So this year I was VERY eager to attend, and my supervisor really wants me to as well. However, the cost of attending (workshop pass, air tickets, etc.) is SO HIGH. Even if my university does offer to cover some of it, it's not gonna cover even half the cost. I'll have to fund it myself. I study for free at my current institution, so my parents wouldn't be mad about paying, but I'm also not someone comfortable asking my parents to pay (which is why I chose my current institution in the first place). So, as third year undergraduate student aiming for grad school, will presenting at ICML workshops/ attending the event have any particular benefits? There's still a part of me that really wants to experience this event, but the cost is going to be a burden. Is it worth it for a 2-day trip? Any insights, experiences, thoughts are welcome. What would you have done? submitted by /u/milasonder [link] [留言]

The update also introduces the app's take on film stock simulation.

Smooth movement, compelling combat, and tons of secrets make for an innovative throwback.

Bungie also shared more information about what players can expect from the game's new season.

Snowflake has signed a new, enormous five-year deal with Amazon to secure chips for AI usage. Nvidia is once again being put on notice.

submitted by /u/teivah [link] [留言]