标签：#AR

Kit out your Apple tablet with our favorite stands, cases, keyboards, and styli.

WhatsApp has caught the NSO Group phishing its users, in violation of a court order.

Chinese EV colossus BYD has announced plans to speed up its conquest of the European auto market with the rollout of superfast Flash Chargers across the continent. BYD has already installed the first new chargers in Germany and the UK, and plans to roll out 3,000 across Europe by the end of next year. At […]

Laptops for college should be portable, offer long battery life, and remain reasonably affordable. Based on testing hundreds of laptops, these are my top picks.

I’m curious whether people would actually follow an AI’s life if it had enough continuity. By “life,” I don’t mean pretending software is human. I mean a persistent AI character or agent that has memory, habits, public posts, relationships with other agents, and changes you can observe over time. The interaction is not just prompt-response. It becomes closer to following a living project or a fictional persona that keeps generating history. The hard part is avoiding novelty. A single weird AI post is not a life. A stream of coherent choices, recurring behavior, social context, and consequences might be. Do you think that is a meaningful product direction, or does it collapse back into chatbot novelty once the first surprise wears off? submitted by /u/Budget_Coach9124 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/fxboshop [link] [留言]

Hello Reddit I've been working on QSPR (Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship) analysis for chemical compounds mentioned in the Jean-Claude Bradley Open Melting Point Dataset . Basically the idea is to see how accurate a model can predict melting points of compounds using only topological indices. After some work on the topological indices (feature engineering), each compound was represented by 26 features. I trained a random forest model on the data and got a test r2 score of 0.66 (which is pretty respectable, given the constraints). However, the file size of the model was around 1.23GB. I didn't like it being that big, so I opened up PyTorch to build a custom deep learning architecture that could make predictions as accurately as the random forest but with much smaller file size. After around 2 weeks of research, I build a 270,000 learnable parameter model (1.3-1.4MB according to torchinfo) that got an r2 score 0f 0.6399. Given all this context, I wanted to ask the following question: Should I commit and work on publishing the results, or should I keep working on improving the model? Note: I'm obligated by my university to not give out intricate details of my research before publication, so please forgive me if such details are required for a high quality answer. However, I can give out the metrics achieved by my little deep learning model. Here it is: === Evaluation Metrics (Expected Value) === R² Score : 0.639910 MAE : 41.246754 MSE : 2989.062744 RMSE : 54.672322 NRMSE : 0.083469 MAPE : 11.69% The unit for MAE, MSE, RMSE and NRMSE is Kelvin (K). submitted by /u/AgiGamesYT [link] [留言]

The games start June 11 and end with a grand finale in New Jersey on July 19. There are 104 of them. Here’s how to watch ’em all.

According to new research, Trionda would show less unpredictable movements in actions such as corner kicks or free kicks. However, in powerful and long-distance clearances it would lose range.

Referees for the 2026 World Cup will be wearing cameras positioned at their temples, allowing TV audiences to see a live view of the pitch from a vantage point they never have before.

Azure API Management shipped a Unified Model API that lets clients speak one format while APIM transforms requests to Anthropic, Vertex AI, and other backends. Content safety policies now cover MCP tool calls and Agent-to-Agent payloads alongside LLM traffic. Token metrics expanded to track reasoning, cached, and audio tokens across providers. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

Text based, I don't want any cheesy porn AIs please 😅 submitted by /u/holupIgotthis [link] [留言]

AI is already deciding who gets loans, who gets job interviews, who gets flagged for benefits fraud. Not assisting humans in making those decisions. Making them. And in most countries there is no law requiring anyone to tell you AI was involved, explain why it decided what it did, or give you any way to challenge it. That needs to change. We need laws that say if an AI makes a decision about you, you have the right to know, the right to understand why, and the right to challenge it. A human must always be accountable for the outcome. That’s not anti-innovation. That’s just basic protection for people living in a world already being shaped by these systems. Most governments don’t understand it well enough to even write those laws yet. Most politicians making AI policy genuinely cannot explain how these systems work, who owns them, or what accountability looks like when they go wrong. Voluntary frameworks have failed every single time. Social media companies voluntarily committed to reducing harm. They didn’t. Financial firms voluntarily committed to responsible lending. They didn’t. Voluntary always means the least responsible actor sets the standard. Hard law is the only mechanism that has ever reliably produced accountability at scale. We need it for AI before the damage is done — not after. The window to get this right is still open. But it won’t stay open forever. submitted by /u/United-Actuator-3527 [link] [留言]

The real question isn't which framework is better. It's which one you can stop thinking about six months into the project. Key Takeaways Project Suitability — Django is built for weight. Flask is built for speed. Know which one your project actually needs before you commit. Development Flexibility — Django makes decisions so your team doesn't have to. Flask hands those decisions back. Both are features, depending on who's writing the code. Scalability & Performance — Scaling is an architecture problem first, a framework problem second. Pick the one that matches the system you're building — not the one you hope to build. Security Features — Django's protections are on by default. Flask's require you to turn them on. In a fast-moving team, that difference is more significant than it sounds. Ecosystem & Community — Both communities are active and well-documented. You won't be stuck either way. The Decision Nobody Takes Seriously Enough I've watched this play out more times than I'd like to count. A team kicks off a Python project, someone picks a framework — usually the one the most senior person knows best — and everyone moves on. Fast forward six months and the codebase is exhausting to work in. Either they're dragging a full framework through a service that should've been twenty lines of Flask, or they're rebuilding authentication from scratch on something that outgrew its lightweight origins two sprints in. The framework choice isn't irreversible. But undoing it mid-project is expensive in a way that doesn't show up in any estimate. Django and Flask are both genuinely good. What they're good for is different. That's the part worth slowing down on. What You're Actually Getting With Each One Django arrives with almost everything a web application needs already assembled — an ORM, an admin panel, authentication, form handling, CSRF protection, and more. The design assumption is that most web applications need most of these things, so it makes more sense to ship them i

Waymo has a lot of experience building virtual systems to help its autonomous vehicles better understand the real world. It built realistic 3D worlds to better anticipate natural disasters and unpredictable edge cases. It created a virtual representation of a hyperattentive driver to test against its own autonomous vehicles in a series of simulated scenarios […]

Hi, Niels here from the open-source team at Hugging Face. I've recently relaunched paperswithcode.co as a source for finding the state of the art (SOTA) across various AI domains, from 3D generation to AI agents. This is done by automatically parsing research papers published on arXiv/Hugging Face, enabling leaderboards to be created. See BrowseComp below as an example (a scatter plot and a table are available for each benchmark). - Scatter plot (you can hover over the dots to see the models): https://preview.redd.it/9rz2r3ffcf6h1.png?width=2880&format=png&auto=webp&s=b3f8e7a870802f6ef8227ecc0619e9e1057554b0 - Table: https://preview.redd.it/qoqriddw5f6h1.png?width=2862&format=png&auto=webp&s=a0034574f693847537037013672fb61daf27b16e As you can see, I've added support for viewing evals for closed-source models, too, given that many benchmarks are nowadays dominated by them, like GPT-5.5 and Mythos 5. You can always disable viewing closed-source evals with a toggle or in your PwC settings: https://preview.redd.it/p3k6jt6q6f6h1.png?width=1582&format=png&auto=webp&s=40149e51d6b326a77e53e33baf70d9850b3de365 When you turn them off, here's what the open model leaderboard looks like: https://preview.redd.it/tg42sin36f6h1.png?width=2838&format=png&auto=webp&s=1330a117ae9b4e0ce6d459493ae9e8f64107310a Closed-source papers are treated as regular "papers", although they can be any source, like a blog post (given that PwC supports submitting any source beyond arXiv). See the GPT-5.5 or Mythos 5 papers as examples, with their evals at the bottom. Notice the "closed" tag on their evals. Hence, you could jokingly call these "papers without code". Let me know what you think of this, and whether anything needs to be changed or added! Kind regards, Niels submitted by /u/NielsRogge [link] [留言]

Earlier parts examined the performance characteristics of sequential and random access under single-threaded execution, and noted in passing the destructive effect of random access on the TLB. This part devotes full attention to the TLB: what it is, why a TLB miss is more severe than a cache miss, why a page table walk constitutes one of the longest dependency chains a CPU can encounter, how huge pages fundamentally alter TLB reach, and where memory-level parallelism falters in the face of TLB misses. Page Boundaries: Where the Prefetcher Halts Part III, in its discussion of prefetchers, noted a hard constraint: a prefetcher must not cross page boundaries on its own authority. The operating system manages virtual memory in units of pages (typically 4 KB, i.e., 64 cache lines). When a program reaches the end of one page and is about to step into the next, the prefetcher cannot proceed. The reason is that the next page may not reside in physical memory (it may have been swapped out to disk), or it may be an entirely invalid virtual address — if the prefetcher were to speculatively initiate an access to the next page, it would trigger a page fault: the OS would have to suspend the process and swap the page in from disk; in the case of an invalid address, the OS would terminate the process outright. From a security standpoint, the prefetcher neither can nor is permitted to autonomously cross page boundaries without TLB approval. Hence a performance brake appears every 4 KB — even when traversing an array sequentially, after every 64 cache line accesses the prefetch pipeline must pause and await confirmation of an address translation. This is not to say that modern CPU prefetchers are completely unable to cross pages. Intel's Next Page Prefetcher and AMD's equivalent mechanism can consult the TLB when approaching a page boundary — if the address mapping for the next page is already registered in the TLB, the prefetcher receives clearance to continue prefetching across th

Building a "paste a YouTube link, get a transcript" feature sounds trivial until you deploy it to a server. The moment your request comes from a datacenter IP instead of a residential one, YouTube responds with LOGIN_REQUIRED or quietly serves nothing. Here's how VidTranscriber handles it. The problem There are two ways to get text from a YouTube video: Existing captions — if the uploader (or YouTube's auto-caption) provides them, you can fetch the caption track directly. Fast, free, no transcription needed. Transcribe the audio — pull the audio stream and run it through a speech-to-text model (Whisper-family). Works for any video, but costs compute. Both start with talking to YouTube from your server — and that's where it breaks. YouTube aggressively gates datacenter traffic: the watch page and InnerTube API return LOGIN_REQUIRED , and naive audio fetching gets reCAPTCHA'd. The approach The fix is to separate where the request originates from where the work happens : A Cloudflare Worker handles the user request and orchestration. Caption/audio fetching is routed through a path whose egress isn't treated as a bot — so the LOGIN_REQUIRED wall doesn't trigger. Captions, when available, become the primary path (no transcription cost). Only when there are no usable captions do we fall back to downloading audio and running Whisper. Long jobs go onto a queue (Cloudflare Queues) so the request returns immediately and the transcript streams in as it completes. Why captions-first matters Most "transcript generator" traffic is for videos that already have captions — talks, tutorials, news. Serving those from the caption track is instant and free, which means the expensive Whisper path is reserved for the minority of videos that actually need it. That's the difference between a tool that's cheap to run and one that isn't. What's still hard IP reputation drifts — what works today can get throttled tomorrow, so the extraction path needs monitoring and fallbacks. Caption quality

I have watched founders lose sales calls they should have won. Not because they lacked skill. Not because the offer was wrong. Because they walked in to prove they were smart — instead of finding out whether the pain was real. Sales Is Diagnosis Plus Decision The call is not there for you to pitch. The call is there to find out: Is the pain real? Does the buyer have urgency? Does the budget exist? Can a fixed-scope sprint create a clear win? That is it. Four questions. Everything else follows from those. Sales is not pressure. Sales is diagnosis plus decision. 1️⃣ The Call Structure That Works Frame the call in the first 60 seconds: "I'll understand the current state, ask what is costing you, then tell you whether a sprint makes sense. If it doesn't, I'll say so." That sentence does 3 things: Sets expectations — no pressure, no hard close Signals competence — you have done this before Removes the buyer's guard — they can be honest about what is broken Then run this flow: 1️⃣ Current state — what exists now? 2️⃣ Pain — what is broken or slow? 3️⃣ Cost — what does it cost in time, money, trust, or delay? 4️⃣ Urgency — why now? 5️⃣ Decision — who approves? 6️⃣ Success — what would make this worth paying for? 7️⃣ Close — recommend the sprint or walk away 2️⃣ The Questions That Reveal Money These are the 6 questions I use to find whether a sprint is worth recommending: "What happens if this stays broken for another 30 days?" — reveals urgency and cost "What have you already tried?" — reveals how serious they are "Where does the current process lose leads, users, time, or trust?" — reveals the money leak "Who feels this pain most inside the business?" — reveals whether the buyer is also the decision-maker "What would make this an obvious win?" — reveals success criteria before you price "If we fixed only one thing first, what would matter most?" — reveals scope Listen for the answer with the money in it. That is the thing you fix. That is what you price. That is the sprin

A million dollars is emotional as a dream. As math, it is boring. And that is exactly why most people never get close. Break It Down Here is the thing: $1M/year is not one big bet. It is a machine. And machines are built from boring, repeatable components. 20 clients at $50,000? That is $1M. 100 clients at $10,000? That is $1M. 12 retainers at $4,000/month? That is $576k — plus 4 sprints at $10,000 each gets you to $616k. The question is not whether the number is possible. The question is which machine can realistically produce it — from where you actually stand today. 1️⃣ The Practical Ladder Here is how the staged path actually works for an AI service business: Stage What You Are Doing Why It Matters Stage 1 Sell fixed-scope sprints Creates cash and proof Stage 2 Turn repeated sprint work into templates, SOPs, automations Reduces delivery time, increases margin Stage 3 Sell retainers around highest-demand system Predictable monthly cash Stage 4 Productize repeated workflow into software or toolkit Scalable without more hours Stage 5 Scale the thing the market already proved it wants Compound the machine Notice what is missing from Stage 1. There is no SaaS. No product. No cold paid traffic. No team. Just skill, packaged cleanly, sold to people with money and a painful problem. That is the fastest path — not the most glamorous one. 2️⃣ The Proof-of-Force Line The first mission is not $1M. The first mission is $10k/month — reliably, from sprint work. Here is what that actually looks like: 2 × $1,500 teardown/audit packages = $3,000 2 × $3,500 implementation sprints = $7,000 2 × $5,000 launch/GTM sprints = $10,000 3 × $2,000 retainers = $6,000/month That is not the finish line. It is the proof-of-force line. It proves the machine works. It funds the next iteration. It creates the case studies that make the next sprint easier to sell. Then you go from $10k/month to $25k. Then $50k. Then you make the productization decision from a position of demand — not hope. 3️⃣ The