标签：#r

Buzz is a group chat platform for the workplace that puts humans and their AI agents in the same conversation.

Over the past decade, streaming platforms competed by dominating individual formats like music, video, podcasts, or audiobooks. Now, as AI makes it easier to create, organize, and recommend content, those distinctions are fading, pushing companies like Spotify, Netflix, YouTube, and TikTok to become all-purpose entertainment destinations instead.

Taylor Farms stirred confusion on FDA test and provided a vague recall list.

Sila's fresh $300 million round will help it make enough of its silicon-carbon anode material to power more than 100,000 EVs.

The company donated more than $3.6 million to conservative groups between 2020 and 2025, including $1 million to the MAGA Inc. super PAC.

Pat Gelsinger wants to pave the way to ever more powerful artificial intelligence using tiny beams of light.

The latest release of Android Studio, Quail 2, now stable, expands Gemini/AI Agent Mode inside the IDE by enabling multiple AI conversations in parallel and further advancing Google's push to integrate AI-powered workflows directly into Android Studio. It also enhances debugging and profiling capabilities and makes it easier to explore experimental features. By Sergio De Simone

With code coming in faster and faster, we've been losing track of context, what's out of date, the source of truth, etc. Also with individuals spending less and less time on any one problem, finding an expert to answer questions has become challenging. People don't have that single domain of expertise like we used to. There's too much surface area to cover. Are we the only ones dealing with this? How's everyone else handling it?

Einride agreed to buy Flipturn for $38 million in stock.

Most "AI agent" libraries fall into one of two buckets. Either they're a big framework you spend an afternoon configuring, or they're a tiny toy that drops the one feature you actually need in production: the ability to stop and ask a human before the agent does something you can't undo. I wanted the middle. So I wrote yieldagent : a small agent loop you can read end to end, with human-in-the-loop pause/resume built in, and no runtime dependencies. This post walks through how it works and why it's built the way it is. What an agent loop actually is Strip away the branding and an "agent" is a loop: Send the conversation to the model, along with the tools it's allowed to call. If the model asks to call a tool, run it and append the result. Repeat until the model answers without asking for a tool. That's it. The model decides the control flow at runtime; your job is to run the tools and feed the results back. Here's the core, lightly trimmed: for ( let step = 0 ; step < maxSteps ; step ++ ) { const reply = await call ( messages , toolSpecs ); messages . push ( reply ); if ( ! reply . tool_calls ?. length ) { yield { type : " final " , text : reply . content , messages }; return ; } for ( const tc of reply . tool_calls ) { const args = JSON . parse ( tc . function . arguments ); const result = await tools [ tc . function . name ]. run ( args ); messages . push ({ role : " tool " , tool_call_id : tc . id , content : JSON . stringify ( result ) }); } } Everything else in the library is in service of making this loop observable, testable, and safe to run against the real world. Why an async generator Notice the yield . The loop is an async generator, so the caller drives it: for await ( const step of agent ({ call , tools , messages })) { if ( step . type === " tool-start " ) console . log ( " -> " , step . tool , step . args ); if ( step . type === " final " ) console . log ( step . text ); } Every step (each tool call, each result, and the final answer) is handed back to

For a long time, I believed coding was only for people who studied computer science or worked as professional developers. Whenever I saw a screen filled with code, it looked like a completely different language. There were brackets, symbols, functions, and terms I did not understand. I assumed learning it would require years of study before I could create anything useful. That changed when I encountered a repetitive task at work. I was regularly copying information from a spreadsheet, checking each row, preparing an email, sending it, and updating the status manually. The work was manageable, but completing the same process repeatedly took time and left room for mistakes. I started wondering if the spreadsheet could do some of the work for me. That question led me to Google Apps Script. At first, I did not even know where to begin. I understood the result I wanted, but I did not know how to translate it into code. I could explain the process clearly to another person, but explaining it to a computer felt different. AI became my starting point. I described the task and asked it to create a script. Within seconds, it gave me several lines of code. I copied them, ran the script, and immediately received an error. My first reaction was frustration. I had expected the code to work because it looked complete. But I soon realized that generated code was not automatically working code. I went back and explained the error. AI suggested a change, so I tested it again. Another issue appeared. I repeated the process until the automation finally worked. The moment it worked, something changed in the way I viewed coding. I did not suddenly become a programmer, but I had created something useful. A task that previously required several manual steps could now happen automatically. I became curious about what else I could build. I started experimenting with confirmation emails, timestamps, form submissions, missing-data checks, and automatic reports. Each project introduced me to a