标签：#AR

The app is designed for people who want to create social content, but find traditional video editing tools too complex or time-consuming.

How an unexpected regional constraint forced us to deeply understand Azure GPU VM families, naming conventions, and workload fit. Introduction As architects, we often assume that infrastructure decisions are straightforward: "The workload is already running successfully in Region A. Let's deploy the same Kubernetes workload in Region B." That's exactly what we thought. Our workload consisted of a Visual Element Detection (VED) service hosted on Kubernetes. The application uses a PyTorch model to analyze images and detect various visual elements in an image file. The service was already running successfully on a node pool backed by Azure's NVads_A10_v5 GPU VMs. Then we hit an unexpected challenge. The target region did not offer NVads_A10_v5 instances. What looked like a simple deployment exercise became a deep dive into Azure GPU virtual machine families, GPU architectures, VM naming conventions, and workload characteristics. This article shares what I learned in the hope that it helps others who find themselves evaluating Azure GPU SKUs for AI inference workloads. I am relatively new to the world of MLOps, Model deployments, GPU Workloads etc and equally interested and excited to learn more on this front. The Workload Before discussing VM selection, let's understand the workload characteristics: Model Type : PyTorch Model Size : less than 200 MB (.pth) Image Resolution : ~2000 x 2000 Expected Throughput : 5-7 requests/sec Platform : AKS (Kubernetes) Workload Type : Inference only This is important because GPU sizing should always start from the workload and not from the VM catalog. Step 1: Understanding Azure GPU VM Families Many engineers first encounter Azure GPU machines through names like: NV12s_v3 NV6ads_A10_v5 NC4as_T4_v3 ND96isr_H100_v5 The naming can be intimidating. The first breakthrough was understanding that Azure organizes GPU VMs into three primary families: N-Series ├── NV ├── NC └── ND NV Series – Visualization and Graphics NV-series VMs are designe

I stared at the GitHub page for what felt like forever. The repo had thousands of stars, hundreds of issues, and a long list of contributors who clearly knew what they were doing. Me? I had a few small personal projects, some half-finished tutorials, and a nagging feeling that I wasn’t “ready” to contribute to real open-source software. Especially not an AI project with fancy models, complex pipelines, and people publishing papers off the codebase. But I wanted in. I wanted to learn how real-world AI systems are built, to get feedback on my code, and to be part of something bigger than my local src/ folder. So I made a deal with myself: no more waiting until I feel “ready.” I’d go from zero to my first pull request (PR) in one focused push. Here’s exactly how I did it, what I learned, and what I’d tell anyone hesitant about contributing to an open-source AI or machine learning project for the first time. Step 1: Pick the Right Project (Not the Biggest One) The biggest mistake I almost made was aiming for the most famous AI repo I could find. Big projects are great, but they can be intimidating and slow for a first-timer. Instead, I looked for: Active maintenance : recent commits, issues being closed, maintainers responding. Clear contribution guidelines: a CONTRIBUTING.md or at least a solid README. Beginner-friendly issues: labels like good first issue, beginner, or help wanted. Scope I could understand: I didn’t need to grasp the entire codebase, just enough to fix one small thing. I ended up choosing a mid-sized open-source AI library : not unknown, not legendary. Perfect. If you’re searching now, try queries like: “awesome open source llm” “open source machine learning projects good first issue” “open source AI tools GitHub” Then scan their issues tab for beginner-friendly tasks. Step 2: Set Up the Project Locally (Without Panicking) Once I picked a project, the next hurdle was getting it to run on my machine. The repo had a typical structure: project/ README.md

Samsung says its next foldables will have less visible creases thanks to its new titanium display tech.

Gidi Littwin's new AI startup, Hemispheric, makes diagnostic brain scans for conditions like depression, PTSD, and Parkinson’s. He wants the technology to be as cheap and easy as a blood test.

The startup has reached a $120 million annualized revenue run rate and more than 200,000 paying customers.

Withings' new $600 bathroom scale promising clinical-grade monitoring is finally available to buy.

But with great power comes a great price.

Co-founded by serial entrepreneur Shai Morag, Israeli identity management startup Oak is emerging out of stealth with $60 million in seed funding.

Make some noise for safety with our favorite alarms, from keychain sirens to wearable bracelets.

There’s now only one worth buying—but you can still access new features on older models you might already own.

Someone has to bundle all the wires that go into rockets, missiles, and satellites.

Companies’ increasing reliance on AI chatbots isn’t making the customer service experience smarter. It’s just making it more infuriating.

There's a specific kind of marketer who should be nervous right now. Not the strategist. Not the writer with a point of view. Not the creative director who can look at forty options and know, instantly, which one is alive and which thirty-nine are furniture. The one who should be nervous is the marketer whose entire job was being a slow version of a machine. You know this person. Maybe you've been this person — most of us have, at some point, in some job. The one whose week was resizing banners, rewording the same caption in six formats, pulling a report nobody reads, and calling a meeting to discuss the meeting. Their output was never brilliant, but it was there, and for twenty years, "there" was enough. Volume looked like value. Busy looked like good. AI just ended that arrangement. Quietly, without a memo. The excuse economy is closing For most of modern marketing, mediocrity had excellent cover. A bad campaign could hide behind timelines. A weak idea could hide behind budget. "We didn't have the resources" was the most useful sentence in the industry, and everyone accepted it, because everyone was using it. Now a two-person studio in Amman or Manila or Medellín can produce, in an afternoon, what used to require a floor of people and a quarter of runway. The drafts are instant. The variations are infinite. The production bottleneck — the thing entire careers were built on managing — is basically gone. Which means the only thing left to judge is the thing that was always the actual point: is the idea any good? That question used to arrive at the end of a long process, softened by exhaustion and sunk cost. Now it arrives immediately, naked, on day one. There's nowhere for a bad idea to hide anymore, because there's no longer a six-week production schedule standing in front of it. What the machine actually can't do Here's what gets lost in the panic. AI can generate. It cannot choose. It can write you a hundred taglines. It cannot tell you which one will make a foun

DeepSeek vs Qwen vs Kimi vs GLM: Which One Wins My Freelance Budget? Last Tuesday I spent two hours building a client dashboard that needed AI-powered text summarization. The client is a small e-commerce shop, they get maybe 500 product descriptions a week that need condensing into bullet points. Sounds simple, right? Except when I ran the numbers on my usual OpenAI setup, the bill was going to eat into my margin harder than I'd like. That's when I went down the rabbit hole of Chinese AI models. DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, GLM — I've been hearing about these for months from other devs in Discord, but I never actually committed to testing them because, honestly, who has the time? Well, apparently I do, because that Tuesday I decided to run all four head-to-head against my actual workload. Here's what happened. Why I Even Bothered (The Real Math) Before we get into the benchmarks and pricing tables, let me put this in perspective. My hourly rate as a freelance dev sits at $85. Every hour I spend wrestling with a subpar API that hallucinates or charges too much is an hour I'm not billing a client. The "free" model is never free — either it costs me time or it costs me money, and usually both. I was paying roughly $0.60 per 1M output tokens on GPT-4o for the summarization work. For 500 product descriptions, each averaging maybe 150 tokens output, that's about $0.045 per batch. Sounds tiny, right? But multiply that across multiple clients, and suddenly I'm watching $40-60 a month vanish into API costs that I can't really pass along without awkward pricing conversations. So I started shopping. And what I found genuinely surprised me. The Contenders at a Glance All four model families run through Global API's unified endpoint, which means I didn't have to maintain four different SDKs, four different auth setups, four different billing dashboards. Just swap the model name in the request and ship. For a one-person operation, that's huge. Here's the landscape I was working with: Di

Everyone talks about prompts memory RAG But production issues were actually loops false completion replay retries wrong tool non deterministic execution Here are the top 7. That's what led us to build Failproof AI not because we wanted another framework, but because we kept seeing the same reliability problems across every framework.

Connecting an AI agent to a tool is becoming easier. Letting that agent operate a real business system responsibly is still a different problem. Imagine an existing commerce system with APIs for reading orders, changing inventory, creating refunds, and disabling staff accounts. OpenAPI can describe the endpoints. A tool protocol can make them discoverable. An agent framework can select an operation and generate arguments. But those pieces do not, by themselves, answer several business questions: Which operations may be exposed to an agent-facing surface? Which invocation must carry a trusted acting subject? Which operation is high consequence? When does an invocation express approval intent? Which calls need stronger audit handling? Which execution properties should a runtime know before it invokes the API? These questions sit between tool connectivity and final business authorization. That is the layer the Agent Capability Contract, or ACC, is designed to describe. Start with a concrete operation Consider this API operation: paths : /orders/{order_id}/refund : post : operationId : createRefund parameters : - in : path name : order_id required : true schema : type : string requestBody : required : true content : application/json : schema : type : object required : [ amount ] properties : amount : type : number minimum : 0 This is enough to describe how to call the operation. It is not enough to describe how an agent-facing system should treat it. ACC adds a small, machine-readable declaration next to the operation: x-agent-capability : version : 1 enabled : true scope : refund.create risk : level : high subject : required : true approval : required : true when : - param : amount op : " >" value : 1000 audit : sensitive : true execution : readonly : false idempotent : true timeout_ms : 10000 The declaration does not grant the refund. It tells a compatible runtime how the operation should be presented and governed before the business system receives the call. The miss

The end of the FIFA Men’s World Cup is nigh. Here’s how to watch the final games and the first ever World Cup halftime show.

OpenAI employees have donated more than $215,000 to a political effort opposing Leading the Future, a group backed by the company’s president, Greg Brockman.