Hello, everyone. When listening to a conversation, we naturally keep track of who is speaking. A program has a harder job: beyond finding speech, it must also determine where one speaker gives way to another. Today, I will use an ONNX version of Pyannote Segmentation 3.0 to detect speaker changes in a two-person conversation and split the recording into one WAV file per utterance. What I Tested This lab uses FFmpeg to decode a roughly 14-second conversation into a 16 kHz mono waveform. It then combines the Pyannote segmentation model with simple post-processing to produce contiguous speaker segments. I wanted to verify: Whether six alternating utterances can be separated into six segments Whether the detected speaker indexes remain consistent throughout the recording Whether ONNX Runtime can process the audio faster than real time using only its CPU execution provider Whether every segment can be saved as a separate WAV file The complete code and reproducible environment are available in the pyannote-scd lab in kiarina/labs . This test performs segmentation using the model's speaker indexes. It does not compare speaker embeddings or run clustering, so it is not a complete speaker diarization pipeline that identifies the same person throughout a long recording. Reproducing the Lab You will need: mise uv FFmpeg curl The following commands fetch only this lab, download the shared test audio, and run it: git clone --depth 1 --filter = blob:none --sparse \ https://github.com/kiarina/labs.git cd labs git sparse-checkout set .gitignore .mise/tasks Makefile mise.toml \ 2026/07/04/pyannote-scd make download-test-assets mise -C 2026/07/04/pyannote-scd run On the first run, the task downloads the full-precision onnx/model.onnx file from onnx-community/pyannote-segmentation-3.0 on Hugging Face. uv then prepares the Python dependencies and runs the detector. How Speaker Segments Are Detected The input is this shared test asset: assets/mp3/conversation_2speaker_14s_16k.mp3 The re

When asked how I evaluate BMAD recently I said haven't quite decided yet, but it definitely has strong sides and makes development faster. Of course, it dependss what you are currently work on. If you work in scrum and handle single tasks from Jira, you probably won't fin BMAD useful in any way. It's strength is in handling large projects which have to be taken from brainstorming, through requirement specification to proper design and implementation plan. BMAD does really good job in asking the right questions and pushing you into providing all necessary details. The only thing I found a bit discouraging was the boring implementation phase where you just keep clicking approve. I was recently pointed to Superpowers framework, which apparently deosn't have that problem and does the implementation part without human interaction. I tested it, but to be honest I wasn't impressed. In my case it didn't work so good. The whole planning phase comes down to brainstorming and implementation plan. This is clearly not meant to be handling large complex projects. In BMAD you have several distinct steps where each of them is handled with care and brings value to the final design. First, the brainstorming in BMAD pushes you into providing all available information, any documents you may already have and then asks a bunch of questions. Superpowers is more like: give me a brief intro and I will make up the rest. In BMAD, brainstorming is just the start, then you go to PRD, UX and architecture. You have to really spend some time to get it right, but that's exactly the real value, you spend the effort on planning, but save long hours of searching for bugs in the implementation or re-implementing the solution. Having said that, I am going to keep using BMAD, but there is still the issue I mentioned, and it has to be taken care of. The implementation itself is a pain. It's not just the approval thing, this can be fixed easily, by running cluade with --dangerously-skip-permissions , which

🧠 Building CogneeCode - AI Developer Memory Assistant The Problem Every developer faces the problem of lost context. "Why did I make this decision 3 months ago?" "How did I fix this bug last week?" Current AI tools forget everything between sessions. This is a real problem that wastes hours of developer time. My Solution CogneeCode is an AI developer memory assistant that builds a permanent knowledge graph using Cognee Cloud . It remembers every decision, bug fix, and code context you give it. What It Does ✅ Log architectural decisions with tags and context ✅ Log bug fixes with error messages and solutions ✅ Ask natural language questions about your codebase ✅ Get answers with evidence citations from the knowledge graph ✅ Semantic search across all memories ✅ Visual timeline of all decisions and bug fixes ✅ Analytics dashboard showing memory insights ✅ Knowledge graph visualization Tech Stack Backend: Flask (Python) Memory Layer: Cognee Cloud LLM: Groq Llama 3.3 Frontend: Vanilla HTML + CSS + JS Icons: Tabler Icons Cognee Cloud APIs Used remember() - Save decisions and bug fixes with metadata recall() - Natural language queries with evidence citations search() - Semantic search across memories visualize() - Knowledge graph visualization improve() - Memory graph enrichment forget() - Remove outdated memories Why This Matters When you return to a project after months, all your reasoning and solutions are still there, searchable in natural language. No more "Why did I do this?" or "How did I fix this bug?" Demo Watch the video: https://youtu.be/TNcBIBuPW7c Links 🔗 GitHub: https://github.com/JOSESAMUEL14/cogneecode 🔗 Live Demo: https://josesamuel.pythonanywhere.com AI Assistance Disclosure Built with assistance from Claude and Gemini AI. Built for WeMakeDevs x Cognee Hackathon 2026 Category: Best Use of Cognee Cloud ⭐ Star the repo if you find it useful!

You did the hard part. You designed it, you built it, you shipped it. The product is good. And still, the users do not come. I have been in that exact spot more than once. You refresh the analytics, you tell yourself it is early, and quietly a worse question starts to form: what if people are not ignoring my app, what if they simply never see it? Here is the thing almost nobody tells builders in 2026. For a growing share of your future users, the front door to the internet is no longer a list of blue links. It is a sentence. Someone opens ChatGPT, Perplexity, or Google's AI Mode and types "what is the best tool for X." The model replies with a short list of names. If your product is not one of them, you do not exist in that moment. There is no page two to claw your way onto. There is one answer, and you are either in it or you are not. Three things are probably true about your app right now, and you cannot see any of them Your app might render blank to the machines that decide. If you built a single-page app (React, Vue, most modern stacks), the raw HTML a crawler receives can be an almost empty . Most AI crawlers do not run JavaScript. They read what your server sends and leave. To them, your beautiful app has no words, no product, no reason to be cited. You can rank number one on Google and still be missing from the answer. In one large 2025 study, roughly 68 percent of the pages cited in AI Overviews were not even in the top ten organic results. Ranking and being cited have quietly become two different games. Winning the old one no longer wins you the new one. A model may already be describing your product to strangers, and getting it wrong. A feature you do not have. A price that is out of date. A category that is not yours. You are being represented in rooms you will never enter, by a narrator you never hired, and the only way to fix the story is to give the machines a cleaner one to read. None of this shows up in your dashboard. That is what makes it dangerous

Artificial Intelligence has changed the way we write software, but one thing has become clear: AI is a collaborator, not a replacement. After using coding assistants for months, I've realized they're best at handling repetitive tasks: Generating boilerplate code Explaining unfamiliar APIs Refactoring existing functions Writing documentation Creating unit tests Finding bugs faster Where AI still struggles is understanding the bigger picture. It doesn't know your product vision, business requirements, or why one architectural decision is better than another. Those are still human problems. The most productive workflow isn't asking AI to build an entire application from scratch. It's treating AI like an experienced teammate that can help with implementation while you stay responsible for the design and direction. The developers who will thrive over the next few years won't necessarily be the ones writing the most code—they'll be the ones asking better questions, validating AI-generated solutions, and combining technical knowledge with critical thinking. AI is changing software development, but it's also raising the value of good engineering judgment. How has AI changed your development workflow? What's one task you now almost always delegate to an AI assistant?

Honestly it's not a new concept. this feature already existed in models before. problem was the models were just weak. Looping only works if each attempt gets the agent closer to the correct solution. Earlier models weren't consistent enough for that. They often misunderstood feedback, repeated the same mistakes, or got stuck in an infinite loop. Instead of improving with each iteration, they frequently failed to make meaningful progress, eventually consuming large numbers of tokens without solving the problem. The Context Window Limitation Earlier language models had much smaller context windows. As the agent went through more iterations, the conversation history and reasoning gradually filled the available context. Once the context window was exceeded, older messages had to be dropped or compressed into summaries. As a result, the agent could forget previous failed attempts, lose important clues or reasoning, and sometimes repeat the same mistakes it had already made. So what did modern models actually fix? Bigger context windows Models can now hold way more of the conversation/history without forgetting, so the agent doesn't need to spin up a fresh session every few iterations. it can just keep looping with the full history of what failed and why. modern models also got way more consistent earlier if you asked a model to fix the same bug 5 times you'd get 5 different half-baked answers, now it actually converges toward the real fix. and tool use got better too . Old models could write code but couldn't run it and read the actual error, now they call a test runner, see the real failure, and fix that exact thing which is literally what makes the "verify" step possible. And then there's inference it is simply the process of a model generating an answer. like when you type "write a java binary search," the model reads your prompt, thinks, and generates code that whole process is inference. every time the model generates text, that's one inference. now here's the thin

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is...

When you fire a fetch() and the component that triggered it unmounts, the request keeps going. The server still processes it. When the response arrives, it calls back into whatever JavaScript it finds — a stale closure, a dead state setter, a global store that has already moved on. React's "Can't perform a state update on an unmounted component" warning is the polite version of this. The silent version is worse: results from an old query overwriting the current UI. These aren't mysterious race conditions. They're the predictable result of starting async work and never telling it to stop. The race condition hiding in every search box The search input is the clearest example. The user types "reac", your debounce fires a request. Before it lands, they finish typing "react" and you fire another. Two requests, in flight at the same time, and no guarantee about which one finishes first. If the "reac" request happens to be slower — network jitter, a cache miss, a heavier result set — it will land after "react" and overwrite the correct results with the wrong ones. The bug reproduces maybe one time in twenty on a local dev server, and consistently in production on a slow connection. The fix isn't smarter debouncing. It's cancelling the previous request when a new one starts. AbortController in plain terms AbortController is a browser-native API for cancelling async work. You create a controller, pass its signal to fetch() , and call controller.abort() to cancel. If the response hasn't arrived yet, the fetch promise rejects with an AbortError . const controller = new AbortController (); fetch ( ' /api/search?q=react ' , { signal : controller . signal }) . then ( res => res . json ()) . then ( data => setResults ( data )) . catch ( err => { if ( err . name === ' AbortError ' ) return ; // expected — not a real error setError ( err ); }); // Somewhere else, when we no longer need this request: controller . abort (); Two things to internalize: signal is how the controller knows

Hello, DEV Community! 👋 Hi everyone! My name is Sulemana Abdallah , and I'm excited to be part of the DEV Community. I'm passionate about software development and enjoy building modern, responsive web applications using: HTML CSS JavaScript TypeScript React Python My goal is to become a skilled Full-Stack Developer and Software Engineer while continuously learning and building real-world projects. I joined DEV to: Learn from experienced developers. Share my projects and progress. Write about what I learn. Connect with developers from around the world. I'm looking forward to growing with this amazing community. Thanks for reading! 🚀

In June 2026, "loop engineering" went viral. Stop prompting your agent — design the loop that prompts it. Ralph Wiggum loops running Claude for hours. Overnight runs. Millions of views. My honest reaction: finally, everyone's here. I've been running my entire development process as AI loops since this February — months before the trend had a name — and one project is now 70+ loop iterations deep , and the tool that runs those loops is itself built by those loops. So this is a field report. Not "loops are amazing" (they are) and not "loops are hype" (they're not). Just the seven things that turned out to actually matter once you live inside a loop long enough — including the ones the infinite-loop crowd is about to learn the hard way. Context: the tool is REAP ( https://reap.cc ), an open-source pipeline I built on top of Claude Code / OpenCode. It exists because I needed these seven lessons encoded in software, not in my discipline. First, what the loop people get right Credit where due — the core insight of loop engineering is correct: One-shot prompting doesn't scale. Iteration beats a perfect mega-prompt every time. Files beat context windows. State that matters must live on disk, not in the conversation. Fresh context each iteration prevents the slow rot of a 400-message session. The leverage moved. Your job really is designing the system around the agent now. I agree with all of it. Now here's what months of actually living inside the loop adds. Lesson 1: A goal is not a loop spec The naive loop is: final goal + while true . It works for tasks where the environment can say "done" — make tests pass, finish a mechanical migration. Even Ralph loop advocates admit it: vague criteria = infinite loop, judgment-heavy work doesn't converge. But almost everything interesting in software is judgment-heavy. So instead of one goal driving infinite iterations, I got much better results from one bounded goal per iteration , chosen fresh each time by comparing long-term visio

submitted by /u/fagnerbrack [link] [留言]

You can minimize the risk of films and shows being spoiled for you by muting comments, conversations, and keywords on various platforms.

AWS recently announced Amazon S3 Annotations, a feature that lets teams attach rich, searchable context such as summaries, classifications, compliance data, or AI-generated insights directly to S3 objects. Annotations can be updated independently of the object and queried across datasets, reducing the need for separate metadata systems. By Renato Losio

Has anyone gotten a response from the eccv travel support program listed on their website? https://eccv.ecva.net/Conferences/2026/DEI Edit: also have anyone applied for this program as an accepted author? I have an independent research paper accepted and am currently looking for funds for paying for the registration fees submitted by /u/tedd235 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/itachi_amaterasu [link] [留言]