标签：#AR

Gear up for your next adventure with these Coleman coupons and discount codes to save on camping essentials and outdoor gear.

Discover the best Stearns and Foster promo codes, discounts, and deals to elevate your sleep experience with premium comfort and quality.

Whether you’re looking to upgrade your mattress or swap out your bedding, browse our Tempur-Pedic coupons for up to $300 off and the best sleep of your life.

Save on Barkbox subscriptions, including monthly themed collections of plush toys, tough chews, and healthy snacks designed to keep your pup’s tail wagging.

Save on iRobot products, including robot vacuums and mops designed to handle pet hair, daily messes, and hands-free cleaning with smart home integration.

Upgrade your meal prep with these Tempo discount codes and offers. Save on high-protein, ready-to-heat meals delivered to your door.

Stream your favorite shows and save up to 50% today with HBO Max discount codes and subscription deals.

Whether you’re looking to protect your small business or your personal computer, we have the top coupons and deals to help you save at Norton.

Coding agents draft specs, architecture docs, changelogs, and README updates in seconds — but a human still has to judge the quality of all that output. The bottleneck shift A year ago, the typical workflow was: you write a spec, you get comments, you revise, then you implement and get code review. Humans did most of the writing and coding. Now, agents produce first drafts of design docs, API references, runbooks, and onboarding guides — and they do it in seconds. Code implementation and code review can now be handled by agents, so those are no longer the bottleneck. What surfaced instead is the step right before: document review. A human has to read 2,000 lines of generated markdown and decide what's wrong. The writing part got dramatically faster. LLMs can assist with document review too, but compared to code implementation and code review, the human judgment required is still larger. This asymmetry compounds fast. Every agent-assisted project now has a stack of "needs human review" documents growing in a shared folder. If you're running multiple agent loops in parallel — one for the spec, one for the implementation plan, one for the test strategy — review becomes a pipeline stall. GitHub PRs remain the right tool when you need third-party review. But the step before that — the fast local self-review loop where you and your agent iterate on a draft — doesn't belong in a PR. Branching, diffing, and assigning reviewers is a lot of process for a first draft the agent wrote in seconds. Why prose feedback is lossy The most common workaround today is to have the agent read the document and then fix things based on natural-language feedback: "The error handling in section 3.2 is too vague — be specific about what happens on timeout." This looks reasonable. The agent reads it, searches for something about error handling, and makes a change. But several things go wrong: Position is ambiguous. If section 3.2 has three paragraphs about error handling, which one did the revie

vibe citing: how KPMG used AI to write a report about AI and AI made them look like fools by t474-r0b07 There are companies that charge you to tell you how to use AI responsibly. KPMG is one of them. 250,000 employees. 138 countries. Decades advising governments and corporations on how to avoid costly mistakes. In October 2025 they published a report titled "Total Experience: Redefining Excellence in the Age of Agentic AI" . They wrote it with AI. The AI invented 88% of the sources. Nobody verified anything. They published it anyway. // what is "agentic AI" — because the title matters An agentic AI is not a chatbot. Not the assistant that answers your questions. It's a system that makes decisions and executes actions on its own, without a human approving each step. You give it an objective and it acts, corrects, moves forward. It's the product everyone in the tech sector was selling in 2025. KPMG was selling it too. That's why they needed a report proving their clients were already using it. Spoiler: they weren't. And the report invented it anyway. // the forensic analysis GPTZero — a company specialized in detecting AI-generated content — ran a full audit on the report. First: what is an AI hallucination, because the term is going to come up a lot. When a language model doesn't have the information you ask for, it doesn't say "I don't know." It generates a response that sounds correct. It invents with the same confidence it would use if it actually knew the truth. Perfect format. False content. No warning. That's a hallucination. Now the numbers from the KPMG report: TOTAL CITATIONS: 45 REAL CITATIONS: 5 INVENTED CITATIONS: 40 ACCURACY RATE: 11.1% 40 of 45 citations have invented titles, authors that don't exist, or sources that don't say what KPMG claimed they said. Half of the factual claims in the report are false or misattributed. A firm that charges for intellectual rigor published a document with 11% accuracy. // the organizations that read the report and sai

Lately I keep reaching for SQLite where, before, I'd have reached for Postgres without thinking. It started with small services, then a bigger question: could a multi-tenant SaaS actually run on SQLite? And for AI agents specifically, isn't a local, embedded database the more natural home for their state? Turso is the version of this stack I've found most compelling so far, especially when paired with Cloudflare. I wish D1 would reach embedded-replica parity with Turso, and that AWS offered a managed SQLite-style service the way it offers RDS for Postgres. This isn't a "Postgres is over" argument. I still use Postgres more often than SQLite. And it isn't advice. It's just where my thinking has drifted recently — written down mostly so I can find out where it's wrong. Read it as one person's notes, not a recommendation. Where I've landed for now (and expect to keep revising): SQLite isn't replacing Postgres. For work state , it's increasingly my first reach, not my last. AI agents push this harder: their state is high-churn, local, and mostly private. The answer isn't all-local. It's a local workbench plus a central ledger . Why the old default existed For years, "where does the data live?" had one practical answer: a server, behind an API, in a shared Postgres. A lot of that wasn't architecture — it was the cheapest shape available. SQLite was already everywhere, but it lacked the operational layer that makes a database viable as SaaS infrastructure: networking, replication, managed backups, and a way to run many small databases without drowning in tooling. So centralizing was the path of least resistance, and a tenant_id column in shared Postgres became the reflex. What changed isn't SQLite. It's that the ecosystem grew the missing parts — and for a growing class of workloads, the thing doing the most frequent writing moved onto my own machine. The constraint that's lifting SQLite itself is, by design: Embedded, not networked — a library, nothing listens on a port.

How I Cut Costs 65% Migrating LangChain to DeepSeek I want to tell you about a switch I made recently that genuinely surprised me. If you're running LangChain in production and haven't explored the DeepSeek models yet, this one's for you. Let me show you what I learned, what broke, and what I'll never go back to. The short version? I was burning cash on a generic LLM setup. I migrated to DeepSeek through Global API's unified interface, and my monthly inference bill dropped by over 60%. Setup took me less time than brewing coffee. Let me walk you through it. Why I Even Looked at This in the First Place Here's the thing about working in AI engineering: the model landscape moves so fast that whatever you chose six months ago is probably overpriced now. That's been my experience, anyway. When I first built my LangChain pipeline, I defaulted to a popular name-brand model because, well, that's what everyone was using. It worked. It was fine. Then I looked at my AWS bill. That's when I started digging into alternatives. And let me tell you, the rabbit hole is deep. Global API alone exposes 184 AI models at prices ranging from $0.01 to $3.50 per million tokens. That's a wild spread. The trick is finding the sweet spot where cost meets quality, and for migration workloads (think: code translation, schema conversion, content rewrites), I found it with DeepSeek. Let me show you the numbers that actually mattered to me. The Pricing Reality Nobody Talks About I built a comparison table when I was making this decision, and I want to share it because staring at these numbers side by side is what convinced me. Here's the lineup I evaluated through Global API: DeepSeek V4 Flash sits at $0.27 per million input tokens and $1.10 per million output tokens, with a 128K context window. That's my default for most production traffic now. Fast, cheap, and smart enough for almost everything. DeepSeek V4 Pro comes in at $0.55 input and $2.20 output with a beefier 200K context. I use this when

Introducing LifeSciBench, an expert-authored, expert-reviewed benchmark for evaluating how AI systems handle real-world life science research tasks and decisions.

Whether you’re at a festival, tennis match, or wedding, these hand fans and wearable cooling devices will make the heat way more bearable.

Anthropic's popularity with business users is growing so well that the latest beef with the government might actually boost it, data from Ramp suggests.

Partner tells Ars that HPE should be giving out more free VM Essentials licenses.

There is a comparison that the artificial intelligence industry had kept out of the public conversation until now. Satya Nadella brought it up this Sunday in a post on X that garnered over a thousand responses in just a few hours. The metaphor he used is "industrial offshoring" . Just as the first wave of globalization hollowed out industrial economies, wiping out factory jobs and decades of competitive advantage with consequences we still feel today, artificial intelligence threatens to do the same to corporate knowledge. The Silent Drain of Expertise The mechanism Nadella describes is concrete. If an organization hands over its workflows, its domain knowledge, and the accumulated judgment of its teams to external AI models, those models absorb it. What was once a unique advantage, now could become a generic capability available to everyone. There are no layoffs or plant closures. The hollowing out happens silently, in every usage cycle, in every operation the model records and leverages. Where there was once exclusive know-how, there is now a standard resource. "You can outsource a task, or even a job. But you can never outsource the learning." Microsoft CEO Warns That AI Winners Could Hollow 'Entire Industries' - Business Insider AI models are hoovering up corporate knowledge, and that's leaving one big loser, says Satya Nadella. businessinsider.com The Invisible Asset / The Identity This warning is not directed at employees but at executives. The risk Nadella identifies is not the loss of an individual position, but the erosion of the organisation's collective intellectual property, its processes, and the judgment a team spends years building. To name this, he introduces a term that was not in the business management vocabulary until now: "Token Capital" . This represents the layer of agentic capability that a firm builds and owns when it connects its real workflows with the AI models it uses. It is not software or a database. It is a system that learns with eve

The promise of agentic AI coding was a tireless partner, an assistant that could take a feature request and run with it while we focused on the hard problems. The reality, for most professional engineering teams, has been different. The reality is a brilliant but distractible intern you have to constantly supervise. The reality is spending 20 minutes writing the "perfect prompt," only for the AI to ignore a critical constraint, use a deprecated pattern from your codebase, and confidently break three other features. The reality is the "babysitting tax." It's the cognitive overhead of constantly reviewing, reverting, and re-explaining. And it's negating the incredible potential of these tools. At BrainGrid, we believe the problem isn't the agent—it's the plan. Or the lack thereof. In our rush to generate code, we've skipped the most critical step: creating a shared, deep, and unambiguous understanding of what we're actually building. "Vibe coding" doesn't work in a multi-tenant system where permissions are non-negotiable, or at least not with peace of mind. It doesn't work in a complex fintech application where money is on the line. And it certainly doesn't work in a four-year-old codebase with layers of tech debt and unwritten rules. The bottleneck in software development is no longer just the speed of writing code. The bottleneck has shifted to the speed of creating a reliable plan. BrainGrid is the AI-powered planning platform built to solve this new bottleneck. It's designed to provide the structure and guidance—the "babysitting plan"—that turns powerful but unreliable coding agents into predictable and effective teammates. Here's how: We Give the Agent a Map BrainGrid starts by deeply analyzing your entire codebase—its architecture, data models, and dependencies. It provides the persistent context that agents desperately need but currently lack. We Help You Define the Destination Our requirements agent acts like a seasoned tech lead, asking you and your team clar

The most important design decision in an email classifier isn't the model — it's the label set, and here's the one I keep coming back to: You triage email into one of four categories: URGENT — production incidents, executive requests; reply within 1 hour ACTION — code reviews, meeting follow-ups; reply same day FYI — informational, no response needed NOISE — newsletters, marketing, automated notifications From: {sender} Subject: {subject} Snippet: {snippet} Return ONLY the category name. Nothing else. That's the working prompt from the Nylas email triage recipe , and almost every line encodes a taxonomy-design lesson worth unpacking. Most people building email agents obsess over model choice and prompt phrasing. The recipe's quiet thesis is that the label set itself does the heavy lifting — get the taxonomy right and a cheap model classifies well; get it wrong and no model saves you. Why four is the magic number The recipe states it flatly: four is the right number. Three loses fidelity — everything important collapses into one overloaded bucket and you've built a binary classifier with extra steps. Five and the model starts confusing categories, because the boundaries between adjacent labels get too thin to express in a definition. Notice what makes these four work. They aren't topics — they're response obligations . URGENT means "reply within the hour," ACTION means "reply today," FYI means "no response needed," NOISE means "archive." Each label maps to exactly one behavior. That's the test I'd apply to any email taxonomy: if two labels lead to the same action, merge them; if one label leads to two different actions depending on content, split it. The same principle shows up in the sales context. The Agent Accounts overview describes an outreach agent classifying replies as interested / not now / unsubscribe — three labels, because the workflow has exactly three branches: book the meeting, schedule a follow-up, stop emailing. The taxonomy is the decision tree, fla

A human assistant borrows the boss's calendar; a scheduling bot owns its own. That one difference dissolves most of what makes calendar automation miserable. The borrowed-calendar model is how nearly every scheduling tool works today: connect to a person's Google or Microsoft account via OAuth, request calendar scopes, and act on their behalf. It works, but the seams show everywhere. The human's calendar fills with bookings the bot manages. Delegation permissions vary by provider and admin policy. Tokens expire when the person changes their password or leaves the company. And the bot has no address of its own — every invite, every confirmation email, appears to come from a person who didn't write it. Nylas Agent Accounts (currently in beta) invert this. Each account is a real mailbox and a real calendar , provisioned automatically, owned by your application. From a participant's perspective there's nothing special about it — it's just another attendee on the invite. What "owning availability" actually changes When the bot's calendar is its own, availability stops being a permissions question and becomes a query. The agent calls the free/busy endpoint against its own primary calendar, gets back busy blocks for a time window, and proposes open slots. No delegation, no scopes negotiation, no "the admin needs to approve calendar sharing for service accounts." The scheduling-agent tutorial wires the whole loop: a meeting request lands at scheduling@agents.yourcompany.com , a message.created webhook fires, an LLM parses duration and timezone, the agent checks its own free/busy and replies with 3 candidate slots. When the human picks one, the agent creates the event: curl --request POST \ --url "https://api.us.nylas.com/v3/grants/<GRANT_ID>/events?calendar_id=primary&notify_participants=true" \ --header "Authorization: Bearer <NYLAS_API_KEY>" \ --header "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{ "title": "Product demo", "when": { "start_time": 1744387200, "end_time": 174