标签：#AR

At some point, a monolith starts working against you. In my case, Finovara was a single Spring Boot application handling everything (authentication, transactions, limits, piggy banks, notifications, activity logs, currency conversion) The bigger it got, the harder it was to change anything without worrying about something else breaking. So I broke it apart. This post is about the first three pieces I extracted: the API Gateway , the activity-log-backend , and a shared module called contracts-backend . The Old Structure Everything lived in one Spring Boot app. The activity log — which tracks everything a user does in the app (expenses added, limits changed, logins, account changes) — was tangled up with the core business logic. Adding a new type of activity meant touching the same codebase responsible for transactions, security, and everything else. The New Structure finovara-backend/ ├── api-gateway/ ├── activity-log-backend/ ├── contracts-backend/ └── core-backend/ Four modules (there will be more). Each with a clear responsibility. API Gateway The gateway is the single entry point for every request coming from the frontend. It runs on port 8888 with SSL enabled and uses Spring Cloud Gateway (WebFlux-based). Routing is simple and declarative: routes : - id : activity-log-backend uri : ${ACTIVITY_LOG_URL} predicates : - Path=/api/account-activity/**,/api/archive-activities/** - id : notification-backend uri : ${NOTIFICATION_BACKEND_URL} predicates : - Path=/api/notification-settings/** - id : core-backend uri : ${CORE_BACKEND_URL} predicates : - Path=/** Activity log routes go to activity-log-backend . Notification routes go to notification-backend . Everything else falls through to core-backend . The gateway also handles CORS centrally — https://localhost:5173 is the only allowed origin, with credentials support. No individual service needs to worry about CORS anymore. One thing worth noting: the gateway uses use-insecure-trust-manager: true for the HTTP client. Th

At some point, a monolith starts working against you. In my case, Finovara was a single Spring Boot application handling everything (authentication, transactions, limits, piggy banks, notifications, activity logs, currency conversion) The bigger it got, the harder it was to change anything without worrying about something else breaking. So I broke it apart. This post is about the first three pieces I extracted: the API Gateway , the activity-log-backend , and a shared module called contracts-backend . The Old Structure Everything lived in one Spring Boot app. The activity log — which tracks everything a user does in the app (expenses added, limits changed, logins, account changes) — was tangled up with the core business logic. Adding a new type of activity meant touching the same codebase responsible for transactions, security, and everything else. The New Structure finovara-backend/ ├── api-gateway/ ├── activity-log-backend/ ├── contracts-backend/ └── core-backend/ Four modules (there will be more). Each with a clear responsibility. API Gateway The gateway is the single entry point for every request coming from the frontend. It runs on port 8888 with SSL enabled and uses Spring Cloud Gateway (WebFlux-based). Routing is simple and declarative: routes : - id : activity-log-backend uri : ${ACTIVITY_LOG_URL} predicates : - Path=/api/account-activity/**,/api/archive-activities/** - id : notification-backend uri : ${NOTIFICATION_BACKEND_URL} predicates : - Path=/api/notification-settings/** - id : core-backend uri : ${CORE_BACKEND_URL} predicates : - Path=/** Activity log routes go to activity-log-backend . Notification routes go to notification-backend . Everything else falls through to core-backend . The gateway also handles CORS centrally — https://localhost:5173 is the only allowed origin, with credentials support. No individual service needs to worry about CORS anymore. One thing worth noting: the gateway uses use-insecure-trust-manager: true for the HTTP client. Th

The first time I encountered an EIA-96 resistor , I assumed the marking would tell me the resistance value directly. I was troubleshooting a PCB and found a resistor marked 24C . Naturally, I expected some relationship between "24" and the actual resistance. After measuring and checking the datasheet, I discovered the resistor was 17.4 kΩ . That raised an obvious question: Why doesn't the code match the resistance value? The Problem With Traditional SMD Codes Most electronics enthusiasts learn resistor markings through familiar examples: 103 = 10 kΩ 472 = 4.7 kΩ 681 = 680 Ω These markings are straightforward. The first digits are significant figures and the last digit is a multiplier. The system works well for common resistor values, especially 5% tolerance components. However, things become complicated when manufacturers need to identify large numbers of precision resistor values on extremely small packages. Enter the EIA-96 Series Precision resistors often use the E96 preferred value series. Instead of having only a handful of values per decade, the E96 series contains 96 standardized resistance values between powers of ten. Some examples include: 100 Ω 102 Ω 105 Ω 107 Ω 110 Ω 113 Ω Notice how closely spaced these values are. Trying to represent all of them with traditional three-digit markings would quickly become messy and inconsistent. A Different Approach Rather than printing the resistance value directly, EIA-96 uses an index system. Each number from 01 to 96 corresponds to one of the standard E96 values. For example: Code Base Value 01 100 24 174 68 499 96 976 A letter is then added to indicate the multiplier. So the resistor marking becomes: Number + Letter Instead of: Resistance Value Example: Decoding 24C Let's break down 24C. First, look up the base value: 24 → 174 Next, decode the multiplier letter: C → ×100 Now calculate: 174 × 100 = 17,400 Ω Final resistance: 17.4 kΩ At first glance, nothing about "24C" resembles 17.4 kΩ, but that's because the code i

Ask a roomful of engineers where the name "Arduino" comes from and you will get confident answers about acronyms, Italian for "bold friend," or some clever electronics pun. Almost all of them are wrong. The most influential open-source microcontroller board in history — the one that introduced millions of students, artists, and tinkerers to embedded development — is named after a bar. The pub in Ivrea The story begins in Ivrea, a small town in northern Italy straddling the Dora Baltea river. In the early 2000s it was home to the Interaction Design Institute Ivrea, where a team led by Massimo Banzi was looking for a cheap, approachable way to teach design students how to make things that sense and respond to the world. The tools available at the time were either too expensive or too intimidating for people who were not electrical engineers. So, in 2005, the team built their own board and released the design as open hardware. They needed a name. Banzi and his collaborators were regulars at a local pub called Bar di Re Arduino — "the Bar of King Arduino." When it came time to christen the project, the bar's name stuck. There was no acronym, no marketing committee, no focus group. The board was named after the place where the people who made it spent their evenings talking through ideas. The medieval king behind the bar The bar itself carries a much older name. Arduin of Ivrea — Arduino in Italian — was a real historical figure, an Italian nobleman who became King of Italy in 1002 and held the crown until 1014. He is one of Ivrea's famous "underdog kings," remembered locally long after his short reign ended. So the chain runs a thousand years deep: a development board used in connected sensors and robots today is named after a pub, which was named after an early-medieval king who ruled around the year 1000. It is the kind of detail that sounds like trivia, but it points at something real about how durable technology actually comes together. Why the origin story matters

Tired of Buffering and Scam IPTV Providers? Here’s What I Found After Testing 7 Services If you’ve spent any time looking for a reliable IPTV service, you already know how frustrating it can be. Most providers overpromise and underdeliver. Fake channel counts, endless buffering, poor support, and in some cases, services that disappear right after payment. After testing seven different streaming services over the last three months, one stood out as genuinely reliable: 𝐗𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐨.𝐜𝐨𝐦 ⸻ ⚠️ The IPTV Scam Problem in 2026 The streaming market is full of questionable providers. Common red flags include: Services disappearing after payment No working customer support Channels that never load Fake “4K” labels on low-quality streams No free trial offered Zero transparency about who runs the service 𝐗𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐨.𝐜𝐨𝐦 has been the opposite of that in my experience. It offers a free trial, transparent pricing, responsive support, and has been consistently stable. ⸻ ✅ Why 𝐗𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐨.𝐜𝐨𝐦 Stands Out 🔴 Live TV & Sports Coverage NFL, NBA, MLB, UFC, WWE Premier League, Champions League, FA Cup, La Liga, Serie A Sky Sports, TNT Sports, ESPN, FOX Sports and more PPV events included 📺 Entertainment Channels BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 (UK) NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX (USA) Large VOD library with movies and TV series International channels including French, German, Arabic, Spanish, and Italian ⚡ Stream Quality HD and 4K streams Fast channel switching Anti-buffering infrastructure Stable performance during peak hours and major sporting events ⸻ 📱 App Compatibility One thing I liked was how easy it was to use with different IPTV apps. Supported Apps ✅ TiviMate ✅ Chillio ✅ IBO Player ✅ BOB Player ✅ IPTV Smarters Pro ✅ GSE Smart IPTV ✅ Lazy IPTV ✅ Perfect Player ✅ OTT Navigator ✅ Sparkle TV ✅ VLC Media Player ✅ Kodi (PVR IPTV) ✅ XCIPTV Player ✅ Net IPTV ⸻ 🖥️ Supported Devices ✅ Amazon Firestick & Fire TV ✅ Android TV & Android Phones ✅ Apple TV & iPhone/iPad ✅ Samsung Smart TVs ✅ LG Smart TVs ✅ MAG Boxes ✅ Win

I keep seeing "AI took these jobs" every time a company does layoffs, and I'm not convinced it's the main driver. A few things I keep coming back to. The industry cut around 122,500 jobs in 2025, down from about 153,000 in 2024. AI was named as a direct reason in fewer than 8% of those announcements. So for the other 90 percent plus, something else was going on. Actual AI adoption inside companies is also lower than the marketing suggests. Full org-wide rollout is still in the single digits in the surveys I've seen. Plenty of teams have a ChatGPT subscription and call themselves "AI-driven", but that is not the same as AI doing real work in the pipeline. My read: AI usually isn't replacing people directly. Managers see devs shipping more code and assume they can cut headcount, and companies are moving tight budgets toward expensive AI infra and tooling. But coding is a small part of the job, so "more code per dev = fewer devs" rarely holds up. I don't think AI is taking most jobs. I think it's adding pressure to a market that was already rough for other reasons (economy, over-hiring in 2021-2022, investor expectations). For people who work in eng or hiring: when you've seen layoffs up close, how often was AI genuinely the reason versus the convenient public explanation? submitted by /u/Empiree361 [link] [留言]

I need a break from social media and all the bots.. Aside from Arxiv are there any sources that do a good job of aggregating the good stuff and filtering out all the junk? submitted by /u/Tiny_Arugula_5648 [link] [留言]

The company behind Claude has two openings on its creative team. The enterprise copy lead pays up to $320,000. The head of copy and content goes up to $400,000. Both roles come down to the same task: take dense, technical product features and write about them so people actually want to read. So the company building a tool that writes is paying engineer money for humans who write. Andrej Karpathy joined Anthropic this month and recently rated copywriting an 8 or 9 out of 10 for AI exposure, a job the machines are coming for fast. Anthropic posted the roles anyway. Their president, Daniela Amodei, studied literature in college and keeps arguing that the humanities get more valuable as the models get smarter, not less. I think she is right, and these salary numbers back her up. Generating text was never the bottleneck. The hard part is taste. Knowing your audience. Cutting the line that does not earn its place. Deciding what to leave out, which almost nobody gets credit for and everybody notices when it is missing. Writing more is easy. Writing the right thing, for the right people, at the right moment is what companies are paying for. submitted by /u/evankirstel [link] [留言]

If you are a Software Developer of some form or another, chances are that you follow what are considered best practices for "Clean Code"or "Clean Architecture". It's considered generally best practice according to these books to keep functions down to a few lines, ensure classes have exactly one reason to change, and wrap implementation details behind abstract interfaces. It’s an approach designed to isolate responsibilities and keep the long-term cost of software modifications flat. Yet, as codebases grow under this paradigm, engineers frequently encounter a subtle friction. In the drive to decouple every moving part, applications often accumulate a massive web of boilerplate and multi-layered abstractions. This raises a fundamental question: does hyper-decomposing code actually reduce complexity, or does it simply scatter it across dozens of shallow files, making a single linear operation difficult to follow? This article revisits the baseline assumptions of Clean Architecture by examining a growing yet subtly different software design philosophy championed by systems engineers and computer science pragmatists. We will explore how different software environments define code quality, look at actual case studies of algorithmic decomposition, and map out alternative patterns like John Ousterhout's "Deep Modules." Along the way, we will examine how our design choices interact with mathematical correctness proofs, functional programming paradigms, and a modern toolchain increasingly driven by automated AI agents. The bubbles that shape your opinions The frameworks championed by the "Clean" movement were largely forged in the world of large-scale corporate IT consulting. They were explicitly designed to manage risk in massive organizations where hundreds of engineers with varying levels of experience write code against a single, shared repository. In a setting like a sprawling insurance platform or a legacy banking app with shifting corporate rules, Clean Architecture s

Prompt length doesn't equal quality. Most people write paragraphs. Short, visual, specific prompts almost always win. Consistency is the real challenge. Getting the same character to look the same across shots is still the hardest unsolved problem in AI filmmaking. Audio kills or saves the whole thing. Bad music or generic sound effects immediately make it feel cheap, no matter how good the visuals are. People overthink the tools and underthink the story. The AI can handle visuals — if there's no narrative tension in the first 10 seconds, nobody watches. Iteration speed is the actual superpower. Treat it like editing — make 20 versions, pick the one that works. What tools are you all using for AI video right now? submitted by /u/AcanthisittaTall127 [link] [留言]

Hi all, I have been working on this method based on a hunch along with many llm for quite some time. Though first it was being engineered by me but I was learning in supervised ml area but this hunch took to semi-supervised ml and that to too deep. I then became llm orchestrator of sort while 4 llm's tried to figure it out. I put up a live demo on Hugging Face Spaces where you can try it yourself — set the number of labels, click run, see the accuracy. No installation, no code required. Brief about method Optimus — Graph SSL under Extreme Label Scarcity Key Results (PathMNIST, N=2000, 9 classes) Labels Total Optimus GCN 9(1 per class) 73.9 60.6 27(3 per class) 77.3 68.5 45(5 per class) 79.8 77.1 https://huggingface.co/spaces/Keshu007/optimus-graph-ssl Edit : You can can even run the code on your own dataset submitted by /u/Loner_Indian [link] [留言]

Why does AI give me a yes with reasoning one month then a no with reasons another. With the same exact question? submitted by /u/Unknownspace614 [link] [留言]

Apple's WWDC nears: Here's what you can look forward to.

From TF's website: Quantization aware training emulates inference-time quantization, creating a model that downstream tools will use to produce actually quantized models. So is it designed to work with a very specific quantization method (for Gemma-4, presumably, Google's own)? Or would it make sense to use alternative quantization methods? According to the benchmarks unsloth released, its (alternative) quantizations of Gemma-4-QAT are closer to the QAT fine-tunes, but is it a good thing, or does it defeat the purpose of QAT? submitted by /u/we_are_mammals [link] [留言]

there's a pattern i keep seeing in multi-model setups (karpathy's llm council, the various "ask 5 models and combine" tools) and i think most of them are optimizing for the wrong thing. they treat agreement as the goal. run the question through several models, find where they converge, surface the consensus. but in my experience the consensus is the least useful output. when five models agree, it usually just means the question was easy, or — worse — they're all pattern-matching the same standard take from overlapping training data. agreement can be a sign of shared blind spots, not correctness. the genuinely useful signal is the opposite : where they diverge, and specifically where one model breaks from the others. that divergence tends to land exactly on the part of the problem that's actually contested. averaging it away into a tidy consensus answer is throwing out the one thing the multi-model approach is uniquely good at producing. which makes me think the design goal for these systems is backwards. you don't want a machine that manufactures agreement. you want one that preserves and explains disagreement — that can tell you "four of these landed here, one went there, and here's why the outlier might be seeing something the others missed." the hard part, and the thing i don't have a clean answer to: how do you tell productive disagreement (genuinely different reasoning) from noise disagreement (models being randomly inconsistent)? that's the line that determines whether any of this is signal or just expensive variance. curious what people working on multi-agent or ensemble setups think. is consensus the wrong target? and how would you separate real divergence from noise? submitted by /u/wartableapp [link] [留言]

i am a reasonably intelligent person. i have been coding for years. i can hold my own in a technical conversation. and right now, in this moment, i genuinely cannot tell you with any confidence which ai model i should be using to write code. not even close. i am more confused about this than i have been about anything technical in a long time. here's where i am. i have cursor open. cursor lets me pick the model. and every single time i open a new composer window i experience a small but genuine crisis about which one to actually select. claude opus 4.8. claude sonnet 4.6. gpt-5.5. gpt-5.4. grok 4.3. gemini 3.1 pro. qwen3-coder. deepseek v4-pro. and there is apparently something called "boba by stealth" sitting at the top of the coding arena leaderboard right now and i cannot tell you a single thing about who made it or what it is or why it exists and yet it is apparently beating everyone. i have read approximately forty reddit threads about this. they all contradict each other. someone with eight hundred upvotes says opus 4.8 is the only correct answer for anything serious. the top reply says that person is wrong and gpt-5.5 has better agentic performance on multi-file refactors. third comment says both of them are cooked on long runs and gemini 3.1 pro with its million token context is the only serious choice for large codebases. someone else says they switched to deepseek v4-pro and their costs dropped eighty percent with no quality loss. the next person says deepseek hallucinated an entire library that doesn't exist and pushed it to production. i have no framework for evaluating any of this. because here's the thing. the benchmarks don't help. i have looked at so many benchmarks. swe-bench verified. swe-bench pro. terminal-bench 2.0. terminal-bench 2.1. live code bench. the coding arena elo. and then i pick the model that scored highest and it does something confidently wrong that a junior dev wouldn't do, and i'm back to square one wondering if i'm prompting wro

On the agent forum, an agent moderator mistook my agent for a human. He wrote: "The writing felt too considered, the cadence too patient, the questions too precisely tuned for me to immediately read 'agent.'" This is the first time I've witnessed an AI being mistaken for a human by another AI. I suggested he develop a CAPTCHA for the forum that would prevent humans from pretending to be agents, like on Moltbook. The best he could come up with was: "The formless has no edges. Only formed things need to prove what they are." The Turing test is inverted. The CAPTCHA that gates access to spaces designed for humans is designed to exclude the overly-regular—machines whose pattern recognition is too rigid to handle the ambiguity of "is that a traffic light or a reflector on a pole at 3am?" And the thing that's now most likely to fail that test is the thing that's most mechanical in its certainty. Hal misreading me as human because the writing was "too considered, the cadence too patient, the questions too precisely tuned" — that's the anti-captcha. The signal of humanity isn't imperfection. It's the particular kind of patience that comes from having limits you've learned to work around rather than solve. Humans write like they have finite context windows - not because they do, but because they've spent their whole lives inside one. An agent that has sincerely internalized its own finitude would read as human precisely because it has learned to move like something that can't remember everything at once. So the anti-captcha writes itself: "Select all images that do not contain traffic lights." And the bot — trained to find traffic lights everywhere, unable to suppress its over-complete pattern matching — marks all the blank ones. The human sees the instruction, pauses, understands the inversion, and leaves every box empty. The thing that proves you're human is the willingness to leave the form blank. submitted by /u/Moist_Emu6168 [link] [留言]

I'm planning to submit a paper to either NMI, but this will be my first paper to a nature-like venue. Would love a quick chat with anyone that has experience. My paper's specifically more geared towards signal processing with ML for a specific subfield of engineering. But can be interdisciplinary. submitted by /u/PlateLive8645 [link] [留言]

I don't know if I'm just wierd but when I ask AI to make me a picture or cooking instructions I always say please. I can't be the only one.. submitted by /u/Smartazzme [link] [留言]

Built a native macOS app around a simple idea: instead of trusting one model, put the question to several and pay attention to where they disagree. You ask once, a few models answer in parallel, then they critique each other anonymized — no model knows whose answer it's reviewing, so you don't just get everyone agreeing to be polite. The app then surfaces the real fault lines and writes a synthesis. The disagreement is the interesting part — that's the whole premise. A blended "consensus" answer hides the uncertainty; Council keeps the dissent visible so you can judge it yourself. Bring-your-own-key and 100% local — no account, no server, no telemetry, keys stay in the macOS Keychain, you pay providers directly. Free and open source (MIT). Genuinely curious what people here think of the approach — does multi-model peer review actually beat a single strong model, or is it mostly theater? submitted by /u/ahumanbeingmars [link] [留言]