标签：#AR

The company's latest recall of 3,871 vehicles follows incidents of its autonomous cars prioritizing other hazards or failing to recognize closed construction zones altogether.

One of the oldest axioms of software engineering is that code is written primarily for humans to read, and only secondarily for machines to execute. Clean code, expressive variable names, and architectural elegance all serve a single purpose: to ensure that the next developer - or our six-months-older self - can understand what on earth happened. Code has always been a cultural artifact, a shared language, a bridge between human intent and silicon. But what happens to this bridge in the era of vibe coding? We are rapidly moving toward a reality where code is generated by LLMs and pull requests are reviewed by LLMs. When the resulting string of characters is spawned by a machine and audited by a machine, human readability immediately ceases to be a primary metric of quality. This forces a radical question upon us: If code no longer needs to be human, does the code itself need to change? Why do we still cling to Python, to micro-frontends, or to neatly structured repositories? We invented these structures to accommodate the cognitive limitations of the human brain - to keep ourselves from drowning in complexity. An AI doesn’t need these training wheels. To an LLM, a 50,000-line monolithic spaghetti-code mess, completely impenetrable to a human eye, is just as easy to parse as the most pristine clean architecture. So, what is the point of the code itself? Is it possible that code is merely a transitional, obsolete interface—a form of "digital carbon monoxide" that we will soon phase out entirely, replacing it with pure intent and mathematical weights? I ran this exact thought experiment in practice recently when I built a tiny, native macOS utility called Portia over a single weekend (you can check it out here: getportia.app ). The app's function is dead simple: when a port gets stuck (EADDRINUSE), it frees it up with a single click. Throughout development, I was almost exclusively in vibe coding mode. I wasn’t thinking about syntax; I was thinking about the problem an

The Frame Pro 2026 benefits from meaningful tweaks. AI audio and picture tuning work in tandem with a new anti-glare coating to deliver impressive benefits.

Forget stickers, GIFs, and emoji reactions. Pixi is betting that the next evolution of messaging is interactive augmented reality (AR).

Anime collaborations are everywhere, from Gundam watches and Naruto nights at Major League ballparks to just about anything Evangelion. But these Ghost in the Shell keyboards from Iqunix are some of the coolest examples I've seen of anime-inspired everyday tech. They look sick and they type and play great. At $249 they're a hefty upcharge […]

Whether you need a travel-friendly slate or something affordable for the kids, we tested every model to find the right one for every occasion.

How we decide is at the core of architecture, and the architecture advice process is a way to decentralize architectural decisions. It needs to be supported by Architecture Decision Records because of the speed at which technology and systems move, and can be complemented by a weekly architecture advice forum. By Ben Linders

At least one malware developer is adding text about nuclear and biological weapons to their spyware, in an effort to stop automatic AI analysis. Details : The _index.js payload begins with a large JavaScript block comment containing fake system instructions and policy-triggering content. Because it is inside a comment, it does not affect JavaScript execution. The runtime skips it. The real malware begins after the comment with a try{eval(…)} wrapper around a large character-code array and a ROT-style substitution function. This header appears designed for AI-mediated analysis, not for Node, Bun, or Python. It attempts to derail scanners or analyst copilots that feed the beginning of a file to a language model without clearly isolating the content as untrusted data. In weak pipelines, this can cause refusal behavior, prompt confusion, context pollution, or premature classification before the scanner reaches the actual malware...

I tested over a dozen top home diffusers for scent strength, longevity, special features, and more. The Urpower Aroma is my favorite option for most people.

Artist Morry Kolman will be livestreaming feeds of the NBA champions’ ticker-tape parade from NYC’s traffic cameras—and this time, the city’s Department of Transportation isn’t demanding he stop.

By focusing on sleep, ScreenZen’s app-blocking Halo gadget is downright dreamy compared to the rest.

VS Code 1.123 adds a two-hour delay before auto-updating extensions to newly published versions, creating a revocation window against supply chain attacks. The delay does not apply to trusted publishers like Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI. Similar cooldown mechanisms have now spread across pip, RubyGems, npm, pnpm, Yarn, and Bun. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

Solar geoengineering is often portrayed as a sort of emergency brake. Something along the lines of Pull in case of climate emergency to scatter light-reflecting particles to bounce sunlight out of the atmosphere and cool the planet. But it might be less like a simple brake and more like a complicated, entirely unsolved puzzle. Some…

A while back I was building a side project that needed public data from a few social platforms. Nothing crazy — profiles, posts, some engagement numbers. I figured I'd just grab each platform's official API. Reader, I did not "just grab each platform's official API." Here's what that road actually looked like, and how I ended up consolidating everything down to one key and roughly ten lines of shared code. The five-API nightmare Instagram (Meta Graph API). Great if you own the account. Useless for pulling public data about accounts you don't. Endless app review. TikTok. The research API is academics-only with a long application. For commercial use, basically nothing. X (Twitter). Used to be wonderful. Now $100/month to start, more for anything serious. YouTube. Honestly the best of the bunch — generous and well-documented. Credit where due. LinkedIn. Partner-only. For most people, no useful public access at all. So to cover five platforms I was looking at: five sets of credentials, five auth flows, five rate-limit models, five totally different response shapes, two flat-out rejections, and a monthly bill. For a side project. What I actually wanted getProfile ( " tiktok " , " someuser " ) getProfile ( " instagram " , " someuser " ) getProfile ( " twitter " , " someuser " ) Same call shape, same auth, same error handling. That's it. I don't care that each platform structures things differently internally — I want one boundary that hides that from me. The consolidation I switched to SociaVault , which puts public data from all of these behind one API and one key. My entire client became this: const API_KEY = process . env . SOCIAVAULT_API_KEY ; const BASE = " https://api.sociavault.com " ; async function sv ( path , params = {}) { const url = new URL ( BASE + path ); Object . entries ( params ). forEach (([ k , v ]) => url . searchParams . set ( k , v )); const res = await fetch ( url , { headers : { " X-API-Key " : API_KEY } }); if ( ! res . ok ) throw new Error ( ` $

One of the most common system design interview questions is: "How would you scale a web application from 100 users to 100 million users?" The answer is rarely a single technology. Instead, systems evolve through multiple stages, with each stage solving a specific bottleneck. This article walks through the typical evolution of a scalable system and explains why , how , and when each component is introduced. 1. Single Server Why Start Here? Every application starts simple. In the beginning: Traffic is low Development speed matters more than scalability Infrastructure costs should be minimal What Is It? A single machine handles everything: Frontend Backend Database Users | v Single Server ├── Application └── Database How Does It Work? User sends request. Application processes request. Database stores and retrieves data. Response is returned. Everything happens on one machine. Problem As traffic grows: CPU becomes overloaded Memory becomes insufficient Database competes with application for resources A single server becomes a bottleneck. Interview One-Liner A single server architecture is simple and cost-effective but becomes a bottleneck as traffic and resource usage increase. 2. Application and Database Separation Why Do We Need It? The application and database have different workloads. Application Server: Uses CPU Handles business logic Database Server: Uses memory and storage Handles queries Keeping them together causes resource contention. How Does It Work? Move the database to a separate machine. Users | v Application Server | v Database Server Benefits Independent scaling Better resource utilization Improved performance Example Suppose an e-commerce website receives thousands of requests. The application handles: Authentication Order processing API responses The database handles: Product data Orders User information Separating them prevents one workload from affecting the other. Interview One-Liner Separating the application and database allows each layer to scal

Originally published on lavkesh.com I recall one of the first design decisions for our payments platform, which was to deploy an in-memory cache for low-latency access to customer account balances. The architecture diagrams looked clean, with Go services using sync.Once-initialized maps in memory, bypassing the database for sub-millisecond reads. However, this approach worked as expected for only three months, until users started reporting inconsistent charges on receipts. The problem surfaced at peak hours when concurrent updates to the same balance would overwrite each other. For instance, the account balance for user ID 12345 went from $1,200 to $850 to $1,200 again within seconds, leaving the cache in a state that defied the database of record. Engineers stared at the logs, baffled by the mismatch between transactions and cached values, because the team had not accounted for the fact that memory maps are not thread-safe by default in Go. Debugging revealed the fundamental error: we were optimizing for speed without considering write-through guarantees. The cache treated concurrent requests as idempotent, which they were not. During a single user’s purchase flow, multiple goroutines could validate the balance, each reading a stale value from memory before any had a chance to commit updates. We had to shift to Redis with explicit lock keys and time-to-live settings, adding 4 milliseconds of latency but ensuring atomicity. The cache also invalidated itself only when a change occurred, not when an upstream source updated. We discovered this when the accounting team reconciled overnight and adjusted balances based on fee settlements - the cache never reflected these updates until it expired naturally. To fix this, we had to implement message queues to broadcast invalidation events across all services. What started as a performance optimization became three nights’ worth of rewriting concurrency models. This experience taught me two concrete lessons about distributed

Why your brain learns faster by doing than by studying, and the neuroscience that explains...

When organizations scale, a simple monolithic architecture often becomes difficult to maintain, deploy, and scale. This is where microservices come into the picture. However, moving to microservices introduces new challenges: How do we migrate from a monolith safely? How do we handle transactions across multiple services? How do we scale read-heavy applications efficiently? Three popular patterns solve these problems: Strangler Pattern – Monolith to Microservices Migration Saga Pattern – Distributed Transaction Management CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation) – Read/Write Scalability 1. Strangler Pattern Why Do We Need It? Most companies cannot shut down a production monolith and rewrite everything from scratch. A complete rewrite is risky because: Development takes a long time. Existing customers are affected. Bugs can impact business operations. Rollback becomes difficult. The Strangler Pattern allows teams to migrate gradually with minimal risk. What Is It? The Strangler Pattern is a migration strategy where new microservices slowly replace parts of a monolithic application until the monolith is no longer needed. The name comes from the strangler fig tree, which gradually grows around another tree and eventually replaces it. How Does It Work? [Insert diagram here showing Client → API Gateway → Monolith + Microservices] Step 1 All requests go to the monolith. Client | v Monolith Step 2 Introduce an API Gateway (or Controller). Client | v API Gateway | v Monolith Step 3 Extract one module into a microservice. Client | v API Gateway |------> Order Service | v Monolith Step 4 Gradually move more modules. Client | v API Gateway |------> Order Service |------> Payment Service |------> Inventory Service | v Monolith Step 5 Eventually remove the monolith completely. Example Consider an e-commerce application. Initially, everything exists inside one application: Monolith ├── Orders ├── Payments ├── Inventory └── Users Over time: Orders become Order Service Payme

NVIDIA's Parakeet speech models used to mean a Python stack: NeMo, PyTorch, and a GPU you kept warm. A new C++ port collapses that to one binary and one file. From NeMo to GGUF: What the Port Covers parakeet.cpp is a C++17 inference port that runs NVIDIA's Parakeet automatic speech recognition (ASR) models on the ggml tensor library — the same engine behind whisper.cpp and llama.cpp — with no Python, no NeMo, and no ONNX at inference time. The project is maintained by Ettore Di Giacinto (@mudler), author of LocalAI, and its first tagged release, v0.1.0, landed on May 30, 2026 . The code is MIT-licensed; the model weights keep their original NVIDIA Parakeet licenses. This is a community project, not an official NVIDIA release. The port covers the offline Parakeet families — CTC, RNNT, TDT and hybrid TDT-CTC — in 110M, 0.6B and 1.1B sizes, plus a streaming 120M model with end-of-utterance detection . Two checkpoints anchor most use: parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2 , the English default that reports 6.05% average WER on the Hugging Face Open ASR Leaderboard and was released 05/01/2025 , and parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v3 , which extends the same 600M FastConformer-TDT architecture to 25 European languages with automatic language detection, released 08/14/2025 . Inference runs on CPU, CUDA, HIP (AMD ROCm), Vulkan and Metal (Apple Silicon) — the same ggml backend matrix as whisper.cpp and llama.cpp — so deployment reduces to one binary plus one GGUF file . The hard part was mapping Parakeet's RNNT/TDT decoders onto a static-graph tensor library. An earlier work-in-progress port surfaced on Hacker News in mid-2025, where the author flagged how far there was to go: "The GGML build is roughly 1000x slower than the MLX Python version" — jason-ni, reporting an early Parakeet-on-ggml experiment (source: Hacker News, 2025 ; see also the jason-ni port ). The mudler release is the matured answer to that decoder-on-static-graph problem, and as of June 2026 Parakeet is not yet merged into mainline whis

A trader I was talking to recently said something that stuck with me: "I've blown accounts just from slow fills or missed order cancellations." He was talking about CEX perpetuals. But the problem is identical on Polymarket's CLOB - just measured in seconds instead of milliseconds. My TypeScript bot was averaging 340ms from signal detection to order placement on Polymarket's Central Limit Order Book. On a 5-minute market with a ~2.7-second mispricing window, that's 12% of the entire opportunity window consumed before a single byte hits Polymarket's servers. I was consistently entering at 74¢ when I'd detected the signal at 70¢. The market had already repriced against me. So I rewrote it in Rust. This article documents exactly what I found, what changed, and - critically - what didn't. Background: What My Bot Was Doing If you've read my earlier posts in this series ( architecture , Kelly Criterion sizing , last-60-seconds capture ), you know the context. But the short version: The bot targets Polymarket's 5-minute and 15-minute crypto up/down binary markets (BTC, ETH, XRP, SOL, DOGE, BNB). The strategy is simple: find markets that are briefly mispriced relative to real-time spot momentum, enter at a discount to fair value, hold to resolution. A 5-minute "XRP Up" market priced at 70¢ when spot momentum suggests 82% probability = +12¢ edge per dollar wagered. Do that 50 times a day with disciplined sizing and the math works - if you can actually get filled at the price you detected. The problem: by the time my TypeScript code detected the signal, formatted the order, opened an HTTP connection to Polymarket's CLOB API, waited for TLS handshake, serialized the payload, and received confirmation, the market had often moved to 74-76¢. I was paying for an edge I wasn't capturing. Profiling the TypeScript Bot: Where Was the 340ms Going? Before rewriting anything, I instrumented every stage of the order path. Here's what I found across 500 sampled trades: Stage Average time %