标签：#AR

Standard constrained RL assumes consequences are immediate and attributable to the current action. This breaks down whenever violations are delayed and stochastic, which is most real-world settings you end up penalizing whatever action happened to precede the observed violation, not the action that caused it. Working on CCPL (Causal Consequence-Penalized Learning) to address this: - A delay-corrected Bellman operator using an adaptive effective discount learned from the consequence-delay distribution. Contraction proof holds under unknown stochastic delay. - An Interventional Consequence Net (ICN), pretrained on structural-causal-model labels, estimating marginal causal contribution per action for attribution rather than penalizing based on temporal proximity. Limitations, to be upfront about them: - The ICN currently requires access to the environment's structural causal model to generate pretraining labels it's not learned end-to-end from observational or interventional data alone. That's a real constraint on applicability outside benchmark settings where the SCM is known or can be reasonably specified. Open to contributions and collaborators, especially if you work in constrained/safe RL or causal inference feel free to open an issue or reach out directly. submitted by /u/No_Cauliflower7923 [link] [留言]

With two cameras and built-in climate sensors, the Birdfy Nest Duo let me watch an entire nesting season unfold.

Looking to better protect your Kindle or add a little personality to your favorite e-reader? From cases and covers to page turners and even charms, this is the guide for you.

Home theater projectors are getting better and better, and have quickly become my favorite way to enjoy movies.

Andrew Swerdlow shares how Roblox scales autonomous software development from prompt to production. He discusses building robust security sandboxes, extracting institutional knowledge via code review exemplars, updating engineering infrastructure, and redefining productivity metrics around feature velocity and long-running AI turns to achieve trusted, automated deployment at scale. By Andrew Swerdlow

Asgaut Mjølne Söderbom and Ola Hast discuss the evolution of their software engineering practices past continuous deployment and pair engineering. The conversation continues where it left off in the previous episode and focuses on the experiments in adopting Claude Code and the reasons why they consider it good for everything else, but not coding. By Asgaut Mjølne Söderbom, Ola Hast

Shift-left and DevOps have impacted how we flow changes from inception to production, but at the cost of increased cognitive load and duplication of effort across testing, security, and maintenance. This article explores the real-world challenges of rightsizing developer platforms and finding a cultural match for engineering teams who use them to reduce cognitive load and deliver change faster. By John Keates

Tethered display glasses are truly practical face computers. They trade bulky spatial computing for simplicity: Plug in, recline, and get a massive screen right in front of your nose.

These WIRED-tested dual-purpose air purifiers also function as heaters, fans, art pieces, and more, offering the best of both worlds.

The Problem I was staring at my terminal during a deploy, waiting for the build to finish, when I realized something: I'd been typing figlet "Hello World" into my terminal for years to generate ASCII art for commit messages and README files. But every time I wanted to share that art with someone who wasn't a developer, I hit a wall. "Just install figlet," I'd say. "Install what now?" they'd reply. The problem wasn't that ASCII art tools don't exist online. The problem was that the ones I found were either bloated with ads, required JavaScript frameworks that made the page take forever to load, or couldn't handle non-Latin characters gracefully. I wanted something that just worked in a browser tab, no installation, no server, no fuss. So I decided to build my own. Because apparently I enjoy reinventing wheels. The AI-Assisted Development Journey Here's where things get interesting. I've been using AI pair programming for a while now, and this project felt like the perfect test case: it's well-defined, has clear requirements, and involves a lot of repetitive font data that would be tedious to type manually. The Initial Prompt I started by describing the requirements to an AI assistant in pretty specific terms: Build a single-file HTML tool that converts text to ASCII art. Must have multiple fonts (Block, Slant, Small, Standard, Mini). Real-time preview. Copy to clipboard. Download as .txt. Support dark mode. Chinese/English i18n. Vanilla JS only. The AI came back with something surprisingly decent. It had the basic structure right, the font data was embedded, and the rendering logic was clean. But there were issues. Where AI Got It Wrong The first problem was character handling . The AI assumed that all input would be uppercase English letters. When I tested with lowercase, numbers, and special characters, it just... broke. Not crashed, but silently dropped characters. // What the AI initially wrote (simplified) function getChar ( char , font ) { return font [ char .

Disclaimer Este texto foi inicialmente concebido pela IA Generativa em função da transcrição de um vídeo do canal Dev Eficiente, apresentado por Alberto Souza. Se preferir acompanhar por vídeo, é só dar o play. Introdução O vídeo que deu origem a este texto foi gravado há quase três anos. Na época, o que me incomodava era simples de descrever: log é um tema comum no dia a dia, mas resolvido de forma artesanal. Cada pessoa da equipe decide, no momento em que escreve o código, se aquela linha merece registro, se o nível é info ou debug, e quais informações vão junto. A comparação que eu fazia era com testes automatizados. Você juntava dez pessoas para escrever testes sobre o mesmo conjunto de classes e saíam baterias completamente diferentes, com abordagens diferentes, às vezes deixando uma branch de fora. Cada pessoa tinha uma opinião sobre o que era importante, e não havia um modelo de pensamento compartilhado por trás disso. Com log eu sentia algo parecido. Como a resposta não estava clara para mim, passei uns dois dias procurando o que o mercado discutia e o que a pesquisa acadêmica tinha investigado sobre práticas de log. Reuni umas cinco ou seis referências e é isso que este post organiza: o que cada referência contribui e quais práticas dá para extrair delas. Mantive as referências e as conclusões como estavam na época. Acrescentei apenas uma seção sobre algo que mudou bastante desde a gravação e que torna esse assunto mais relevante hoje do que era então: a quantidade de código escrito com apoio de IA e a investigação de problemas feita com apoio de agentes. Por que log bem feito importa mais hoje Nos últimos anos mudou bastante quem escreve o código e, principalmente, quem investiga o problema quando ele aparece. Quando parte relevante do código é gerada com apoio de IA, a familiaridade de quem mantém aquele trecho com cada decisão tomada ali tende a ser menor. Você definiu a intenção, revisou o resultado, aprovou. Mas não construiu, linha a linha, o modelo m

The deepfake epidemic in schools is affecting more than students. Four teachers tell WIRED about becoming targets of sexualized, AI-generated content—and how difficult it was to find accountability.

In one test clip, the auto subtitles looked almost perfect. Then one auto subtitle showed gp where the speaker had actually said HP . It was one token in a long transcript, and that was exactly the problem: nothing in the editor made it look more dangerous than the clean words around it. Disclosure: AI helped me edit and structure this article. The gp / HP mistake came from my own build, and I checked the technical details against the code and the working editor. I ran into this while building a subtitle editor. The ASR system already returned word-level timing and confidence values, but a polished block of text made every word look equally trustworthy. The model exposed uncertainty; the interface hid it. That led me to a narrower engineering conclusion: Auto subtitles are drafts. An accuracy score describes a model result; it does not define a finished review workflow. Why auto subtitles need more than one accuracy percentage Speech-to-text systems are often evaluated with word error rate , or WER. In its simplest form: WER = (substitutions + deletions + insertions) / reference words That is useful for comparing transcripts against a known reference. For auto subtitles, trouble starts when a model-level metric is turned into a product-level promise. Suppose a 100-word transcript contains one wrong word. Its word accuracy may look excellent. But a single auto subtitle can carry very different consequences: Changing “and” to “an” may be harmless. Changing a person’s name damages trust. Changing 15 to 50 changes the meaning. Changing HP to gp made my test caption look careless. Dropping “not” reverses the sentence. WER counts errors. It does not price their consequences. Good auto subtitles also depend on things that a transcript-only score does not fully describe: whether words appear at the right time; whether cue boundaries follow the sentence; whether a line is readable before it disappears; whether punctuation helps or hurts comprehension; whether the user knows

The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope is expected to discover as many as 200,000 new planets and reveal details about the elusive nature of dark matter and dark energy.

People have been talking to each other for at least 100,000 years, as best we can tell. And in all that time, there has been only one thing in the world that could learn a human language to perfect fluency: a human child. Now there are two. Four short years after the release of ChatGPT,…

Communication and Stakeholder Management Successfully executing enterprise architecture projects requires more than just technical expertise. The key to success lies in effective engagement management, where communication and stakeholder management play a central role. In this post, we’ll explore strategies and tactics for successfully engaging stakeholders in complex IT projects and enterprise architecture initiatives. The Challenge: Complexity and Different Perspectives Enterprise architecture projects are often characterized by high complexity. They span various business units and teams, from IT to management and external service providers. These projects are not only technologically demanding but also require close collaboration between all involved parties. Each stakeholder brings their own perspectives, priorities, and objectives, which increases the risk of misunderstandings, delays, and misaligned outcomes. The Key to Success: Engagement Management Effective engagement management ensures that all stakeholders are involved from the start and that their needs and expectations are understood. This involves not only regular communication but also a structured and strategic approach. Below are some proven strategies to achieve successful engagement: 1. Early and Comprehensive Stakeholder Mapping Successful engagement begins with a clear understanding of the involved stakeholders. Stakeholder mapping helps identify all relevant actors, their interests, and their potential influence on the project. The following questions should be considered: Who are the internal and external stakeholders? What are their expectations for the project? How much influence do they have on decision-making? What are their communication needs? A comprehensive stakeholder mapping allows for the establishment of clear communication paths and consideration of specific needs from the start. 2. Transparent Communication One of the most common causes of project failure is insufficient or ineff

The shifts that actually matter for builders - late May to mid-August 2026 The last three months did not produce a single "GPT-5 moment." There was no single release that reset the conversation the way earlier step-changes once did. Instead, the ground moved in several places at once: a wave of frontier and open-weight model launches in July, growing candor about how badly long-context windows actually hold up, and a genuinely uncomfortable security story out of xAI's new agent product. Here's the short, opinionated version of what actually changed for people who ship AI systems. 1. Models & Capability GPT-5.6 (OpenAI) shipped in three tiers - Sol, Terra, and Luna after a government review, with the fastest tier reportedly hitting 750 tokens/sec on Cerebras hardware and a new "Ultra" mode for maximum reasoning effort. Anthropic's lineup grew fast: Opus 5 landed at unchanged Opus pricing ($5/$25 per million tokens), reportedly within half a point of a rival's benchmark peak at half the per-task cost, alongside a new Sonnet 5 and a higher "Fable 5" tier. xAI iterated twice: July's Grok 4.5 (1.5T parameters, trained partly on coding-agent interaction data) was followed by Grok 4.6 on August 12 - a 500K-token-context model aimed at coding and long-running agents, priced at $2/$6 per million tokens standard and $4/$12 for long-context requests. Google's Gemini Flash line saw three releases in quick succession - 3.5, 3.6, and then 3.7 Flash - each undercutting the last on price. 3.6 Flash alone cut output pricing from $9.00 to $7.50 per million tokens. Open-weight competition intensified: Kimi K3 (Moonshot) became the largest open release yet at 2.8T parameters (104B active via MoE) with a 1M-token window, and it was joined by DeepSeek V4-Pro, the Qwen3.8 series, and GLM-5.3 - plus Inkling (Thinking Machines), a 975B open-weight MoE trained on 45 trillion multimodal tokens. One-line interpretation: The capability ceiling is still rising, but the more interesting number th

AI-Powered Privacy Policy Generators LLM‑driven privacy policy generators have moved from experimental prototypes to production‑grade services in 2026, offering on‑demand, jurisdiction‑aware drafts that can be directly embedded into compliance pipelines. Tools such as PrivacyGPT and PolicyCraft combine retrieval‑augmented generation with rule‑extraction models, turning natural‑language privacy intents into enforceable policy clauses that can be exported as JSON‑LD or plain‑text templates. Deep Dive Architecture PrivacyGPT leverages a hybrid architecture: a domain‑specific transformer fine‑tuned on 10 million privacy statements, paired with a deterministic rule engine that maps extracted obligations to GDPR, CCPA, and emerging AI‑Act provisions. PolicyCraft adds a feedback loop where the generated draft is automatically validated against an internal compliance knowledge graph; mismatches trigger a self‑correcting prompt that iteratively refines the text until a confidence score above 92 % is achieved. Real-World Engineering Examples A fintech startup integrated PrivacyGPT via its CI/CD pipeline; each pull request that modifies data‑collection code triggers an API call that updates the “Data Retention” clause, keeping the public policy in sync with code changes. A multinational e‑commerce platform deployed PolicyCraft to generate locale‑specific consent banners; the system produced 27 variants in under five minutes, each certified against the EU’s Digital Services Act. Zero‑Trust Architecture for Rule Enforcement Zero‑trust architecture (ZTA) starts from the assumption that no network segment—whether on‑prem, cloud, or edge—can be implicitly trusted. Instead of a perimeter, every request is evaluated against a continuously refreshed identity profile that fuses user credentials, device posture, and behavioral risk scores. In practice, this means deploying a Policy Decision Point (PDP) that consumes attributes from an identity provider, a device‑trust service, and a tel

📚 This is part 2 of a series. Part 1: The Origin Story Part 2: [Current Article] Part 3: Coming soon... Let me tell you about the day my crash reporting UI crashed. The Grey Screen One afternoon, my Android app's crash screen rendered all-grey. No content. No report button. Just a blank slate where the app's last line of defense should have been. The root cause? A stale file from Gradle's build cache after a major refactor. The compiled resource IDs no longer matched the packaged resource table. ViewBinding inflated the wrong layout, and a silent NullPointerException killed the crash screen itself. It was invisible in CI. It only appeared in specific rebuild scenarios. And it took hours to trace. That bug taught me something important: The fix isn't done when the patch ships. It's done when the lesson becomes automated. So I wrote a build-time task that reads the compiled class files directly, compares them against the final packaged resources, and verifies every constant matches. It runs automatically after every packaging step. You never have to remember to invoke it. That was the first of many incident-driven tools I built. The FAB That Disappeared A few weeks later, a developer tools Floating Action Button vanished from consumer apps. Debug menus inaccessible. Secure screens incorrectly enabled. Turns out, my shared library's BuildConfigUtils was reading the library's own BuildConfig —which is baked as "release" at publish time. An AAR can never know the consumer's build type. 25 files across 34 call sites were silently broken. I built a Gradle plugin that generates a SskBuildConfig object per consumer module, per variant, using AGP's onVariants callback. It registers generated source via KotlinCompile.source() —not reflection, which broke across AGP versions. It detects Android plugins by extension type, not hardcoded IDs, so it works with com.android.application , com.android.library , com.android.dynamic-feature , and any future Google plugin. Same package as

Recently, the AAAI 2027 organizers sent an email regarding collusion occurring during the review process, especially in the 2-cycles category (i.e., an author of Paper A reviews Paper B, while an author of Paper B reviews Paper A). Given the fact that most submissions come from a single country, there are higher chances that the assignment algorithm will naturally create 2-cycles among authors from that country. This, in turn, means that most authors involved in collusion could be from that country. I will not name that country; otherwise, I would be labelled as racist. By the way, did AAAI release statistics about the number of submissions, like they did last time? It is also good news that a major and prestigious conference like AAAI is acknowledging that collusion is happening. We all knew that this kind of collusion had been happening for years. There are papers accepted at top conferences such as NeurIPS, ICLR, AAAI, and ICML that do not even have their code published on GitHub. This forces other researchers in the community to spend substantial time reimplementing the code themselves if they want to reproduce the reported results. What are the views of other authors on this? submitted by /u/Fragrant_Fan_6751 [link] [留言]