标签：#t

Last month my OpenClaw agent kept making the same mistake: it would run a health check, the script would fail silently, and the agent would report "all systems operational" with total confidence. It wasn't broken. It was just doing what it was built to do — execute tasks — without any mechanism to learn from the outcome. So I built it a self-improvement loop. Every night at 2 AM, an isolated OpenClaw session wakes up, reads the previous day's execution logs, identifies patterns in what went wrong, and updates the agent's memory files. No human in the loop. No re-deployment. Just... learning. Here's what I built, what broke, and what actually works. Why Self-Improvement Is Hard for Personal Agents Enterprise AI labs solve this with massive infrastructure: reinforcement learning pipelines, full fine-tuning jobs, A/B testing frameworks that run for weeks. For a personal agent running on a cron job, that's not an option. The self-improvement loop for a personal OpenClaw setup has to be lightweight. It has to run in seconds, not hours. It has to write to plain text files that the next session will actually read. And critically, it has to avoid the feedback loop problem — an agent that rewrites its own improvement logic can spiral into nonsense if there's no anchor. The key architectural decision I made: separate the executor from the critic . Your main agent runs tasks. A separate isolated session reviews what happened and recommends changes. The main agent applies them on the next run. No single session is both judge and executioner. The Nightly Cron: What Actually Runs This is the cron I have running at 2 AM ET every morning: { "name" : "nightly-self-improvement" , "schedule" : { "kind" : "cron" , "expr" : "0 2 * * *" , "tz" : "America/New_York" }, "sessionTarget" : "isolated" , "payload" : { "kind" : "agentTurn" , "message" : "Review the last 24 hours of OpenClaw execution. Read memory/$(date +%Y-%m-%d).md and memory/yesterday.md. Identify 3 patterns where the agent u

AI models with advanced hacking capabilities will soon be the norm.

World models are the next big thing in AI beyond LLMs and, with this round, Odyssey has cemented itself as one of the startups to watch.

Mastodon’s newly launched newsletter feature lets anyone subscribe to creators by email, even without a Mastodon account.

→ Try it: gnomeman4201.github.io/r4b1t It's a curated random link generator for security and OSINT...

The highest capacity Optimus GX Pro 850P drive for the PS5 almost tops the $3,000 mark.

Trump administration officials tell WIRED that if Anthropic wants to rerelease Fable 5, it will need to ensure the model's guardrails can't be circumvented. Security experts say that can't be done.

Clair Health will track inflammation and bloating markers, energy levels, and cycle phase classification to give insights into cycle irregularities and perimenopause, as well as hormonal fluctuations, and how to navigate those changes.

Carvana is converting old car dealerships into test drive centers.

We’re seeing good early Prime Day deals ahead of the event next week, and unsurprisingly, some of the best deals are on Amazon’s own devices. Several Echo speakers have dropped to new low prices, including the Echo Dot Max, which is on sale for $64.99 ($35 off) at Amazon. Our smart home reviewer Jennifer Pattison […]

Google is betting generative AI can breathe new life into the smart speaker. The company's new $99.99 Google Home Speaker replaces the rigid commands of the Google Assistant era with more conversational Gemini interactions.

Hello and welcome to Regulator, an email for Verge subscribers about technology, politics, and what happens when science crashes headlong into self-interest. Not a subscriber? Sign up here today! Got the scoop on a petty feud that's going to somehow fundamentally reshape the entire field of frontier AI development? Send 'em over to tina.nguyen+tips@theverge.com. Back […]

Yesterday, Snap debuted its new $2,195 Specs glasses. In an interview with CNBC, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel described the Specs as something the company had been working on for more than 12 years, an attempt to "bring computing into the world" and "make it more human." He positioned them as a device to help people […]

The corporate venture arm ends after 10 years and 80 investments.

Google's new smart speaker is more about Gemini than audio quality.

Rate Limiting and Circuit Breakers in Distributed AI Systems Distributed AI systems are inherently complex, handling massive volumes of requests, variable latency from model inference, and dependencies on external services like GPU clusters, databases, or third-party APIs. Without proper safeguards, a single misbehaving component or a sudden traffic surge can cascade into system-wide failure. Two fundamental patterns— rate limiting and circuit breakers —provide essential protection. This post explores their roles, implementation strategies, and practical Python examples tailored for AI workloads. Why Distributed AI Systems Need These Patterns Consider a typical AI pipeline: a user sends a prompt, which hits a load balancer, then an API gateway, then an inference service (e.g., a large language model), which may call a vector database or a fine-tuning API. Each component has capacity limits: GPU inference servers can handle limited concurrent requests. External APIs (e.g., OpenAI, HuggingFace) impose rate limits. Database connections are finite. Without rate limiting, a single abusive client can exhaust resources. Without circuit breakers, a failing downstream service can cause cascading timeouts and resource exhaustion across the entire system. Rate Limiting: Controlling Request Flow Rate limiting restricts how many requests a client, user, or service can make in a given time window. It prevents resource starvation and ensures fair access. Common Algorithms Algorithm Pros Cons Token Bucket Smooth burst handling, easy to implement Memory per bucket Leaky Bucket Constant outflow rate, simple Less flexible for bursts Fixed Window Simple, low overhead Boundary spikes (reset issues) Sliding Window Smoother than fixed, accurate Slightly more complex For AI systems, token bucket is often preferred because it allows short bursts (e.g., a user sending a batch of prompts) while maintaining a long-term average. Python Implementation: Token Bucket Rate Limiter import time impor

Filament's export action is great. It's quick to set up, supports queued exports, includes column mapping, handles notifications, and keeps a history of generated files through the Export model. For most use cases, it's exactly what you need. But I recently ran into a limitation that the native export couldn't solve. When XLSX isn't really Excel I was exporting financial data or measurements from a Filament table. The export worked. The file downloaded. Excel opened it without any issue. The problem was that every amount was exported as text instead of a real numeric value. For an accountant, that creates several problems immediately: Excel formulas such as =SUM() don't work correctly Selecting a range of cells doesn't display totals in Excel's status bar Conditional formatting based on numeric values becomes unreliable Additional manual cleanup is required before the file can be used Technically the export contained the data. Practically, it wasn't usable. The root cause is simple: Filament's export system is designed around CSV-style exports. That's perfect for many scenarios, but it doesn't expose the full spreadsheet capabilities offered by PhpSpreadsheet and Laravel Excel . On top of that, I also had a second, completely different requirement: a yearly report with one worksheet per month, merged headers, borders, conditional formatting, and custom layouts. Not a table dump but a report. Why not just use Laravel Excel directly? Laravel Excel already solves all of these problems. It's built on PhpSpreadsheet and provides complete control over cell types, number formats, formulas, styling, and multiple worksheets. The obvious solution would have been to abandon Filament's export action entirely and build custom exports from scratch. But that means losing everything Filament already provides: Export modal and options form Column mapping UI Queue handling Progress notifications Download links Export model history I didn't want to rebuild all of that. I simply wanted

What I actually found when I stopped reading about AI and started running my own experiments. Everywhere you turn right now, someone is telling you how AI is going to transform your workflow, your team, your organization, your life. The content is relentless, and it is almost universally positive. Glowing. Evangelical, even. I'm not here to tell you that's all a lie. I genuinely don't know. That's kind of the problem. We live in a media environment where the line between advertising and information has been blurring for years, and AI is accelerating that blur in ways I don't think we've fully reckoned with. When I read a breathless LinkedIn post about how some engineering leader 10x'd their team's output with AI coding agents, I find myself asking: is this a real person sharing a real experience? Is it a paid placement? Is it content generated by the very tools being promoted? I have no way to tell. Neither do you. And it's getting worse, not better. The most qualified people to evaluate these tools honestly, the ones with enough experience to have real judgment, are also the busiest. They don't have time to write takes. Which leaves a lot of space for everyone else: the shiny-object adopters who are genuinely excited, the vendors with obvious incentives, and an increasingly murky middle ground of content that looks like an opinion but might be something else entirely. The financial relationship between a writer and the tools they're praising is almost never disclosed. And now the tools themselves can generate content praising the tools. Think about that for a second. I'm not making accusations. I'm describing a problem that I think we have a collective responsibility to sit with rather than just nodding along. The appropriate response to an information environment you can't fully trust isn't paralysis. It's going and finding out for yourself. So that's what I did. Why I finally got off the fence I've been watching this space with skepticism for a while. Being a cyn

Your backend returned 200. The mobile app showed an error. The user tapped "Pay" three times. Three pending charges hit their account. One order was placed. Their balance was short. And your incident log showed zero failures. Every engineer on the team did their job. Nobody solved the problem. This is the most common way engineering teams fail, not through incompetence, but through excellent execution of the wrong unit of work. And until you recognise the difference between completing a task and solving a business problem , you will keep shipping systems that work perfectly and experiences that don't. The Ticket-Thinker vs. The System-Owner Most engineers early in their careers think in tickets. Ticket assigned → code written → tests pass → PR merged → ticket closed. Done. This is fine when you're learning. It's a liability when you're trying to grow. The engineer who closes tickets is useful. The engineer who asks "what problem does this ticket actually solve, and am I solving it in the right place?" that engineer is dangerous in the best way. Here's the distinction in practice. The backend engineer builds a payment endpoint. It processes charges correctly, returns the right status codes, has proper error handling. 100% test coverage. Ticket closed. The mobile engineer builds the payment screen. It calls the endpoint, handles the response, shows confirmation or error. Smooth UI. Ticket closed. The problem nobody owned: what happens when the network drops after the backend processes the charge but before the mobile app receives the confirmation? The backend: charge processed. No error. The mobile: timeout. Shows "Payment failed." User retries. The user: charged twice. Both engineers solved their assigned problem correctly. The business problem — charge the user once and confirm it reliably — went unsolved. Because that problem lived in the space between their tickets, and nobody was watching that space. Real Scenario 1: The Payment That Worked and Failed at the Same

"Space Launch Complex-6 represents six decades of American innovation."