标签：#AR

Meta seems to be making big bets on AI-powered hardware.

Event sourcing gets sold on immutability. You don't update, you don't delete, you only append, so the history is permanent. It mostly isn't. The events are immutable because your code agrees not to touch them, not because anything actually stops it. Underneath they're still rows in Postgres, and rows have a DBA with write access. A migration that "cleans up" old data. A 2 a.m. query run against the wrong connection. A backup restored with slightly different bytes in it. Change one of those rows and a replay won't blink. The aggregate rebuilds, the projections rebuild, everything looks fine. Usually the first person to notice is a customer whose balance is off, and by then the trail is cold. Chain each event into the next The trick is small. Give every row two extra columns: a hash of its contents, and the hash of the row before it. #1 AccountOpened prev=00000… hash=70be4f… │ ▼ #2 AmountDeposited prev=70be4f… hash=796018… │ ▼ #3 AmountWithdrawn prev=796018… hash=6a0260… The hash is SHA-256(previousHash || json(payload)) . Nothing exotic. The point is that each hash depends on the one before it. Edit a payload and its hash stops matching. Rewrite that hash to cover for the edit, and now the next row's pointer is wrong. You can't fix one without breaking the next. About forty lines of it Appending an event hashes it together with the previous one: public HashChainedEntry Append ( object payload ) { var previousHash = _entries . Count == 0 ? GenesisHash : _entries [^ 1 ]. Hash ; var hash = ComputeHash ( previousHash , payload ); var entry = new HashChainedEntry ( _entries . Count + 1 , payload , previousHash , hash ); _entries . Add ( entry ); return entry ; } internal static byte [] ComputeHash ( byte [] previousHash , object payload ) { var payloadJson = JsonSerializer . SerializeToUtf8Bytes ( payload , payload . GetType ()); var combined = new byte [ previousHash . Length + payloadJson . Length ]; Buffer . BlockCopy ( previousHash , 0 , combined , 0 , previousHash .

It’s hard to believe how quickly the tech landscape is evolving, especially with AI/ML at the forefront. Just the other day, I had the chance to attend the Mistral AI Now Summit, and wow, what an experience! I walked in with a notebook full of questions and a mind buzzing with curiosity. I left with a treasure trove of insights, a few new friends, and even more questions. Ever wondered what it’s like to dive deep into the world of AI with some of the brightest minds? Let me take you on a journey through my day at the summit and the lessons I picked up along the way. A New Era of AI Walking into the venue felt electric. The air was thick with excitement, and the buzz was palpable. I’ve been exploring AI for a few years now, and it feels like we’re at the cusp of something monumental. Mistral’s focus on open-weight models really got me thinking. What if we could democratize AI further? Imagine a world where innovation isn't locked behind corporate walls but accessible to everyone. I remember a speaker discussing how open models can help small startups compete against big players. It hit home because I’ve been that small developer trying to fight the good fight. Real-World Applications One of the discussions that resonated with me was about real-world applications of large language models (LLMs). I’ve dabbled in a few projects where I used Hugging Face's Transformers library to create chatbots, but hearing actual use cases from businesses was enlightening. For instance, a startup shared how they used a fine-tuned model to improve customer service response times by 50%. Can you imagine the time and money saved? It got me thinking about how I could implement something similar in my own projects. Here’s a quick code snippet that I’ve found useful when fine-tuning a model for a chatbot: from transformers import Trainer , TrainingArguments training_args = TrainingArguments ( output_dir = " ./results " , evaluation_strategy = " epoch " , learning_rate = 2e-5 , per_device_tra

Last week a company nobody can name spent $500 million in a single month on Anthropic's Claude API. Not $500K. Not $5M. Half a billion dollars. In one month. Because nobody set a spending limit. Uber burned through its entire 2026 AI coding budget by April . Four months into the year, done. Microsoft quietly cancelled its internal Claude Code licenses and told engineers to go back to GitHub Copilot. All three stories broke within days of each other, and they all point to the same thing. Token-based billing, when given to an ungoverned team, is a financial weapon pointed at your own company. Every prompt, every context window, every agentic loop gets billed. An engineer running Claude Code seriously can rack up $500 to $2,000 a month just by doing their job well. The answer is not stricter policies. The answer is owning the infrastructure and making tokens free. This article breaks down exactly how to do that for a 100-person engineering team for under $1 million, with real 2026 hardware prices and honest tradeoffs. The Root Problem: You Are Renting the Meter When your team uses Claude Code or any external AI API, you do not own anything. You rent compute by the token. The model is not yours. The data leaves your building on every single request. The bill scales with how well your engineers actually use the tool. That last part is the trap. The better your engineers get at using AI, the more it costs you. Uber's Claude Code adoption jumped from 32% to 84% of their 5,000-person engineering org. That is a success story that turned into a budget crisis. Owning the infrastructure flips this completely. The better your engineers get at using AI, the more value you extract from hardware you already paid for. The Solution: Private On-Premise AI The setup is straightforward: Buy GPU server hardware once Download a state-of-the-art open-source model (free) Run an inference server that speaks the OpenAI API format Point Claude Code, Cursor, or any agent at your local endpoint

I'm a builder. I taught myself to run servers because freelancers kept burning my money. West London, 2021. I was standing on a site holding a cup of tea that had gone cold an hour earlier, watching a crew argue about where a wall should go. That's my actual job. Schedules, suppliers, the kind of problems that only exist at 7am when half the crew hasn't shown up and the client is already phoning. But my head was somewhere else. I'd been chewing on an idea for a classifieds platform for months. Not a grand vision, nothing with a business plan and projections. Just a gap I could see — a way to connect buyers and sellers that felt easier and more global than what was out there. The problem was that I knew nothing about programming. And I mean nothing. I didn't know what a database was. I'd never written a line of code. My entire technical CV was "reasonably good at not breaking my own phone." So I did what most people in my position do. I tried to buy my way in. The expensive year I found a ready-made classifieds script online. Looked professional, had features, didn't cost the earth. The smart shortcut, I told myself. Then I hired a freelancer to customise it. Then another one, when the first disappeared mid-project. Then another, when the second delivered something that worked on a good day and fell over on a bad one. Here's the thing nobody warns you about hiring freelancers when you can't read code: you can't judge the work. You can't tell the difference between someone who wrote something clean and someone who duct-taped it together to last until the invoice clears. Both show you the same thing — a screen where the button does what the button's meant to do. So you pay, you say thanks, you move on. And three months later the button stops working and the freelancer's gone. Meanwhile the bots had found me. Within weeks of going live, automated scripts were hammering the contact form, then the registration page, then the login. "It's normal," a freelancer told me. "Ha

I have been doing URL redirect work for client sites for some time now. It’s one of those jobs that’s never quite urgent enough to automate, but tedious enough to dread, especially after a migration when you have hundreds of them. Recently tried it. Connected my AI agent with MCP to handle it. I told it to build a set of redirects and it did. No dashboard, no wrestling with CSVs, no clicking through settings. Teaching in plain language. In seconds. And what I was surprised by was not the speed, but the amount of mental overhead such a task involves. You’re not just doing the task you’re context switching into a tool, remembering where things are, making sure nothing breaks. Giving it to an agent removes all of it. What really made me trust it for real client work was the dry-run feature. See exactly what is changing, before it changes. No surprises here. Curious if anyone else has been using MCP for infrastructure tasks, redirects, DNS, workspace management. I think we are at the start of something that is going to quietly gobble up a lot of tedious technical work. submitted by /u/Scary_Bag1157 [link] [留言]

I have an ECCV paper main conf. Can I submit the same to a workshop at some other place happening before ECCV? The other workshop (non archival) will be after the final decisions of eccv come. Under any result in eccv- acceptance or rejection, how will this affect it? Im not the main author at eccv. Workshop is women event and I submitted the abstract for the workshop. How do things work here, educate me pls. submitted by /u/Active-Tip3130 [link] [留言]

Ive subscribed and operated with the notion of build, fail, grow, and it has always been a humbling process, but recently I have been hearing about a “new” feeling of failure. "I tried my best and it didn't work." -> Move on "I had this super intelligent tool and STILL failed."-> Rinse and repeat Its like AI accelerates idea failure and because it is embedded in a hyper rinse & repeat, the feeling of failure is amplified. Is anyone else feeling or seeing this? submitted by /u/Outrageous-Pop-2853 [link] [留言]

I want to develop an LLM that can solve open-ended math problems (such as proof-only problems). This means that RLVR where we use the final answer alone as reward signal is not enough. Since SFT is useless here and GRPO/PPO methods will not have an appropriate reward function, what kind of fine-tuning can I do? For data, I will use the MathNet dataset. submitted by /u/TechNerd10191 [link] [留言]

has many of you know Their are a growing number of CEOs who are looking too replace human workers. We need too start Boycotting companies who replace Human workers with ai. People start calling your elected officials and demand they support legislation restricting Ai and how companies can use it. submitted by /u/thegreatdouchebag69 [link] [留言]

The Fitbit Air isn't the only Whoop alternative that you can buy without a subscription.

I want 1-2 AI/ML related pirated course. If anyone has it please comment. submitted by /u/hassan21018 [link] [留言]

The Ninja Artisan Outdoor Pizza Oven is aimed at people who want delicious pizza nights without having to deal with things like propane or wood pellets, unlike many other pizza ovens.

We’ve compiled an overview of some of the top alternative browsers available today aiming to challenge Chrome and Safari.

> TL;DR — I run four different domains off one Next.js codebase: a marketing site at pagestrike.com , an authenticated app at app.pagestrike.com, a public publishing domain at pagestrike.app, and customer-owned domains. The trick isn't deploying four apps — it's a single proxy.ts that reads the host and rewrites/redirects/passes-through per-request. This post walks through why I chose this shape, the parts I got wrong, and the cookie-domain trick that makes it all stick. Stack: Next.js 16 App Router , Supabase , Vercel , one proxy.ts file (~370 lines). This is the second post in my build-in-public series on PageStrike . Last week I wrote about the 6-CTA architecture — modeling conversion intent as a discriminated union so one launch could be a checkout, a COD form, or a calendar booking. This post is about a different primitive: modeling host as routing context so one codebase can serve four very different audiences. Why four domains, not one Most SaaS apps live at one domain — say myapp.com with /dashboard under it. That works until you grow into edge cases that don't fit: Marketing pages get spammed by your own dashboard headers. Your marketing nav says "Sign in / Pricing / Blog". Your dashboard nav says "Launches / Contacts / Settings". You either A/B them with conditional logic everywhere or you live with the noise. Public user-generated pages share your domain reputation. When a customer publishes a landing page at myapp.com/p/[slug] , every spammy LP from a free-tier user drags down myapp.com 's sender reputation, search trust, and ad-account standing. Google and Meta penalize the host, not the path. Custom domains don't route cleanly. A customer who buys acmewidgets.com and points it at your app expects their LP at acmewidgets.com/ — not myapp.com/p/acme-widgets . You need a rewrite that's transparent to the visitor, doesn't 404 on _next/static/* , and survives RSC prefetches. I split PageStrike — a free AI landing page builder — across four hosts to solve al

Pulling together this week's major AI releases for anyone who didn't have time to track every blog post. Sticking to substantive changes, not hype. Anthropic — Claude Opus 4.8 Released this week. Headline pricing unchanged, but Fast Mode dropped from $30 input / $150 output per million tokens to $10 / $50 — a 3x reduction on the premium tier. Reported improvements in "judgment" and longer autonomous runs. Also shipped 20+ legal MCP connectors and Microsoft 365 add-ins (Excel, PowerPoint, Word) in GA. Alibaba — Qwen 3.7 Max Launched May 20 at Alibaba Cloud Summit. 1M-token context. Reported to top Claude Opus 4.6 Max on Terminal-Bench 2.0, SWE-Bench Pro, and MCP-Atlas. Pricing $2.50 / $7.50 per million tokens — roughly half of Opus 4.7. Alibaba claims autonomous operation up to 35 hours without performance degradation. Alibaba is now ranked #6 lab globally on Arena text leaderboard. OpenAI — GPT-5.5 Instant Now default in ChatGPT. Reports 52.5% fewer hallucinated claims than GPT-5.3 Instant on high-stakes prompts (medicine, law, finance). OpenAI also shipped a ChatGPT sidebar inside Excel and Google Sheets, plus a personal finance dashboard for Pro users (US only). Google — Gemini 3.5 Flash Reported to beat Gemini 3.1 Pro on coding and agentic benchmarks at ~4x faster output token rate. Ultra subscription cut from $250 to $200/month; new $100/month Developer tier introduced. xAI — Grok Build 0.1 Coding agent moved to public API beta May 28. Custom Skills feature added for reusable user-defined tasks. Connectors for SharePoint, OneDrive, Notion, GitHub, Linear, plus bring-your-own MCP support. Mistral Launched Vibe (unified work + code agent, replaces Le Chat). Acquired Emmi AI for physics-based simulation. Targeting €1B revenue in 2026; new 10MW inference DC announced. Hugging Face Launched an app store for the Reachy Mini robot. ~10,000 units shipped. Also reported a malicious repo masquerading as an OpenAI release that accumulated 244K downloads before takedown — r

Look at your modern Agentic AI stack. An agent wants to execute a tool, trigger a deployment, access a database, or call an external API. Because nobody fully trusts a probabilistic black box, many teams now use a second probabilistic black box to validate the first one. Think about what is actually happening. You are running hundreds of billions of parameters, consuming tokens, burning GPU resources, and adding hundreds or thousands of milliseconds of latency just to answer a simple operational question: PASS HOLD RED Or in plain English: Continue Verify Stop For many production systems, that's the only decision that matters. Yet we often spend orders of magnitude more compute determining whether an action should execute than executing the action itself. That feels dangerously close to architectural bankruptcy. The Illusion of Prompt-Based Safety We've all done it. You create a prompt: "You are a security validator. If the action appears unsafe, return RED." Then reality arrives. Prompt injections appear. Edge cases appear. Different model versions behave differently. The same input occasionally produces different outputs. And your cloud bill keeps growing. At some point, a difficult architectural question emerges: Can a probabilistic system reliably govern another probabilistic system? Many teams assume the answer is yes. I'm not convinced. The Problem Isn't Intelligence This is where I think the industry may be looking at the problem incorrectly. The challenge is not intelligence. The challenge is governance. LLMs are exceptional at: Reasoning Summarization Code generation Natural language interaction But governance is a different problem. Governance is not asking: "What is the best answer?" Governance is asking: "Should this action be allowed to proceed?" Those are fundamentally different questions. A Different Architecture While exploring this problem, we ended up building a separate deterministic governance layer internally. Instead of generating text, it perf

AI placement latency is not the problem most teams think they are managing. The default framing treats it as an optimization variable — pick the cheapest compute that meets the SLA, centralize inference, optimize for utilization, revisit locality later when the architecture matures. That framing is wrong in a way that compounds over time. AI placement decisions are not continuously reversible optimization choices. They are architectural commitments that harden incrementally — through inference path configuration, data gravity, routing dependencies, and runtime behavior that normalizes around whatever topology you chose first. By the time latency SLAs begin failing, the placement topology is already embedded across routing, observability, and application behavior. The remediation cost is not an optimization exercise. It is a re-architecture. The First Optimization Becomes the Permanent One Cost is the default optimization axis for AI placement decisions. Centralized GPU clusters are cheaper to operate per token than distributed inference endpoints. Utilization density justifies centralization on paper. Procurement processes reward it. FinOps tooling measures it. So teams centralize. They optimize the compute economics. They defer locality decisions to a later phase when requirements are better understood. That later phase rarely arrives before the architecture has already made the locality decision implicitly — through the inference paths built against a centralized endpoint, the data gravity that formed around it, and the application behavior that normalized against the latency profile it produced. The pattern this creates is latency debt: accumulated runtime latency overhead from placement decisions that optimized for cost before locality requirements were operationally visible. It accrues gradually, stays invisible until something triggers it, and is significantly more expensive to resolve after the fact than it would have been to avoid at design time. It does not

In November 2023 we ran our first global Hytale servers on Google Kubernetes Engine using Veltrix 3.2 as our configuration orchestrator. The Treasure Hunt Engine—a service that fans spawn to claim event loot—started crashing every time search volume exceeded 12 k RPM. Grafana showed a steady climb of 503 errors on /hunt/claim until the autoscaler maxed out at 32 G1 CPU cores and still couldnt keep up. Operators kept filing tickets that boiled down to one sentence: We click the map, nothing happens. We never saw the actual error because the ingress controller was swallowing it and returning a generic Too many requests. What we tried first (and why it failed) Our first move was to crank up the nginx-ingress-controller replicas from 3 to 12 and switch the load-balancer tier from GKE Standard to Premium. The 503 rate dropped to 8 k RPM, but now the p99 latency on claims spiked from 80 ms to 420 ms. The culprit was a recursive call in the hunt service: every claim required a round trip to the player-profile service to validate tier eligibility, and that service was on a shared Postgres 15.4 cluster with 3 k TPS of unrelated traffic. The error stack in Jaeger was literally tracing_id=7f3a1c8… server=profile-db pool_timeout . We tried adding connection pooling with PgBouncer, but the hunt service was using raw libpq and refused to reuse connections—no matter how many times we told it. The Architecture Decision We ripped the validation out of the synchronous path and made the hunt engine publish an event called HuntTierCheckRequired to a dedicated Kafka topic player-events-tier . The hunt service would respond to the client with a 202 Accepted immediately, then the loot-claim worker would listen to that topic and, if the tier passed, publish HuntLootReady . The worker ran in the same pod but on a separate goroutine with a 60-second TTL so we didnt leak memory if the tier service hung. We moved the player-profile service to an SSD-backed CloudSQL instance and gave it 32 GB R

Ps. Not pitching anything; Just trying to understand where reality differs from the narrative We're a couple of ML students, mostly worked on ML/software before, but over the last few months we've been playing with VLAs, robot datasets, and trying to understand where the field is heading. After spending a few weeks downloading robotics datasets, we were surprised by how much effort went into just getting data into a usable format. Maybe we're missing something, but it felt like every dataset had different assumptions, schemas, sensors, coordinate frames, metadata standards, and tooling. That got us wondering: How do robotics teams actually think about data sharing? Do people genuinely want access to more robot data, or is the industry moving toward "collect your own data because nobody else's transfers"? Our current (possibly very wrong) hypothesis is: The robotics ecosystem doesn't have a data scarcity problem. It has a data interoperability problem. We're considering running a pretty large experiment: Take essentially every public robot-learning dataset we can get our hands on, normalize it into a common schema, enrich it with metadata, and see how much of it is actually reusable across tasks, embodiments, and learning pipelines. Before we spend months doing that, we'd love to hear from people actually building in robotics. Where is this hypothesis wrong? Is finding data not actually a problem? Is embodiment mismatch the real blocker? Is quality the issue? Is labeling the issue? Is everyone just collecting their own data anyway? Would you ever use robot data collected by another team? If I gave you access tomorrow to every public robotics dataset through one API, what would you actually do with it? Or would you ignore it completely? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Edit: One clarification We're not thinking about a marketplace, proprietary format, or closed platform. The experiment we're conside