标签：#AR

I am currently doing a research internship (2 months) in VLA and I have come across the Hopfield network based on the paper Hopfield Networks is All You Need and seeing the potential advantages of using this as a memory module over the transformer architecture based HAMLET module, I have decided to implement this on top of a SmolVLA backbone to see how it works in comparison to the current memory modules which we have now. How is the feasibility of this idea and would this even work in VLAs? (I was previously working on Equivariant VLA based on equivariant CNN , but it was already published so I moved to this) submitted by /u/No_Mixture5766 [link] [留言]

A longtime pro barista’s favorite tools for dialing in the perfect shot at home.

TL;DR -DevRelCon NYC returns to Industry City in Brooklyn on July 22–23, 2026. It's the flagship...

We built a monokernel that runs the full decode sequence as one GPU-resident program on AMD MI300X, with some neat optimizations. The die topology is central to the result, we map memory access patterns to the physical layout, compute units group by their associated IOD, and the hardware runs at its full design performance. Up to 3,300 output tokens/s per request, batch size 1, no speculative decoding, no quantization, on 8x MI300X. This preview runs a small 2B coding model, and we plan to support large frontier MoE in the future. Technical deep dive: https://blog.kog.ai/building-a-single-kernel-latency-optimized-llm-inference-engine-on-amd-mi300x-gpus Try it: https://playground.kog.ai submitted by /u/averne_ [link] [留言]

GitHub reports cutting token costs in agentic CI workflows by up to 62% by pruning unused MCP tools, swapping some MCP calls for gh CLI, and running daily “auditor” and “optimizer” agents. A token-usage.jsonl artefact and an Effective Tokens metric help track spend across models and spot regressions. By Mark Silvester

For a while, my starter kits didn't include any Docker configuration. The foundation was solid with auth, roles, MFA, Horizon, Logs Viewer, but the deployment side was left to whoever cloned the project. That was a deliberate choice at first. Docker setups vary a lot depending on the infrastructure: some people use a reverse proxy, others have Cloudflare in front, some run on bare metal, others on managed platforms. I didn't want to ship something that would need to be ripped out immediately. But over time I changed my mind. Here's why and what the process taught me. The problem with "just configure it yourself" Leaving deployment out of a starter kit sounds reasonable. In practice, it means every project starts with the same 4-6 hours of Docker work that never really changes. Multi-stage Dockerfile. PHP-FPM config. Nginx with HTTPS. PostgreSQL and Redis wired up. Horizon and the scheduler running as proper services. Healthchecks everywhere so Docker knows when things are actually ready. None of it is so complicated. But it's time-consuming, easy to get subtly wrong, and almost identical from one project to the next. Once I admitted that, the question wasn't whether to include Docker, it was how to do it in a way that's actually useful without being too opinionated about production infrastructure. What I ended up building The setup I settled on covers the full local development stack: A multi-stage Dockerfile : separate stages for Composer dependencies, Node assets, and the final PHP-FPM image. Keeps the production image lean. Nginx with HTTP-to-HTTPS redirect and a self-signed certificate for local dev, already included, no setup needed. PostgreSQL and Redis as services with proper healthchecks. Horizon and the scheduler as dedicated services, not crammed into the main app container. A bootstrap service that runs php artisan migrate --force before the app starts. The Dockerfile uses three stages to keep the final image as lean as possible: FROM php:8.4-fpm-alpine A

Here are two scenes. They look unrelated. They're not. Scene 1 Two people at a café, talking about a restaurant they want to try. A stranger walking past stops: "That place closed six months ago. The one on the corner is better." A brief nod, and they walk on. The two people exchange a glance, taken aback. Why did that person stop? What did they want? A few steps away, the stranger is also confused. They had useful information. They shared it. Why did these people react so strangely? Scene 2 A colleague is visibly stressed, describing a difficult situation at work. One friend pulls their chair closer, puts a hand on their arm: "That sounds really hard." Another opens their laptop: "I found something that might help — HR has a process for exactly this, I'll send you the link." The colleague leans into the first. Glances uncertainly at the second. The second person doesn't understand why sitting close and saying "that sounds hard" counts as helping. You haven't solved anything. The first doesn't understand why anyone would respond to distress with links. Both scenes end the same way: people on both sides convinced they did the right thing, confused by the other's reaction. The mismatch is mutual and invisible from the inside. Two survival instincts, two empathy systems For many autistic people, information is a survival mechanism. Uncertainty is threat, missing information is a vulnerability, and the drive to correct and share runs below conscious awareness. Empathy, expressed through that system , looks like giving someone what keeps you safe: accurate information, solutions, resources. The social preamble before sharing — announcing yourself, softening the approach — doesn't arise as a concept. Why would useful information require an introduction? For many neurotypical people, social safety is a survival mechanism. Group cohesion and reading others accurately are what keep people safe. Empathy, expressed through that system , looks like presence: mirroring distress,

If you've ever built or set up a subscription experience on Shopify for a coffee brand, you've probably run into the same problem most merchants face: The signup flow works great. The first order goes out. And then subscribers start quietly disappearing before the third delivery. This isn't a coffee problem. It's a subscription infrastructure problem — and it's almost always caused by the same handful of missing pieces in the system underneath the storefront. In this guide I'll walk through the practical setup decisions that actually move the needle on retention for coffee subscription businesses on Shopify — from choosing the right model and pricing structure to the fulfillment calendar, dunning logic, and cancellation flow that most setups skip entirely. Why Coffee Works So Well as a Subscription Product Before getting into setup, it's worth understanding why coffee is genuinely one of the better products to build a subscription around — when the infrastructure supports it. Predictable consumption cycle. A 12-oz bag of whole beans lasts roughly two to three weeks for a single drinker. That natural rhythm makes it easy to design a billing and delivery schedule that matches actual usage patterns. Daily habit. Roughly two-thirds of American adults drink coffee every day. A subscription removes the friction of reordering, and that convenience compounds into real retention over time. Freshness as a retention argument. Coffee quality degrades noticeably after roasting. Subscribers who care about quality genuinely prefer a recurring shipment over buying retail — which means freshness becomes a built-in reason to stay subscribed that most product categories simply don't have. The global coffee subscription market reached $808.8 million in 2024 and is projected to surpass $2.2 billion by 2033. The infrastructure opportunity for developers and merchants building on Shopify is real and still early. Step 1 — Choose the Right Subscription Model Before You Build The model choic

Agentic AI coding tools are transforming how we build software. But they share a fundamental constraint: context windows are finite, and as chat sessions grow, AI performance degrades, a phenomenon Anthropic calls context rot . The model loses its grip on early instructions, leading to a frustrating "fix-it loop" where the agent fixes one thing but breaks another. Most of us prompt an agent, let it write code, review it, and repeat. This works beautifully for prototypes. But when you need to build a stable, full-featured product with hundreds of mission-critical acceptance criteria (AC), "vibe-coding" breaks down. The reality is that you get better behavior from agents the same way you get it from humans, by explicitly capturing what good and bad look like, and checking against it . Coming from a systems engineering background in regulated industries, I knew we needed to stop treating agents like conversational chat buddies and start treating them like engineering assets. That's why I built DevCortex : a purpose-built structured intelligence layer that brings systems engineering discipline to agentic workflows. What is DevCortex? DevCortex is an agentic development platform built on one core idea: AI agents work best when they have structured, queryable access to a database of requirements they can interrogate on demand, not a wall of text in a prompt. It sits between the human specification and AI execution using three components: 1. An Agentic-V Model Database: A structured hierarchy mapping your high-level vision (ConOps) to system specs (Specs), individual requirements (Reqs), linked defects (Issues), and an auto-generated Traceability Matrix. 2. An MCP Server: Delivers just-in-time, high-signal context to tools like Claude Code or Open Code. Instead of dumping requirements upfront, the agent queries exactly what it needs, when it needs it. 3. Human Control Planes (Web UI & CLI): A multi-user Web UI with real-time WebSocket feeds to watch your agent work, plus a

Overview This is my first real-world cybersecurity VAPT experience inside an enterprise insurance company environment. I worked across network infrastructure, web applications, internal devices, and physical security — and learned how professional security assessments are actually performed beyond labs and CTFs. Introduction I am a cybersecurity enthusiast focused on SOC operations, web application penetration testing, and vulnerability assessment. In this engagement, I worked on assessing the security posture of an insurance company across its network infrastructure, devices, web applications, and physical security controls. This was my first real-world experience working in an enterprise environment, and initially I was not fully confident about the workflow. However, with the guidance and support of my senior, I was able to understand the process step by step and actively contribute to the assessment. Objective Identify security vulnerabilities across network, web, and internal systems Assess exposure of critical assets Analyze potential attack paths in the environment Evaluate basic physical security controls Scope of Work Network infrastructure assessment Web application security testing Device-level security review Basic physical security evaluation Tools Used Nessus (vulnerability scanning) Burp Suite (web application testing & request interception) Nmap (network discovery & port scanning) GVM / OpenVAS (vulnerability assessment) OWASP ZAP (automated web scanning) Wireshark (packet analysis & traffic inspection) Approach / Methodology Performed network discovery using Nmap to identify active hosts and open ports Conducted vulnerability scanning using Nessus and GVM to detect known security issues Analyzed web application behavior using Burp Suite and OWASP ZAP Intercepted and inspected HTTP/HTTPS traffic to understand request/response flow Used Wireshark to analyze packet-level communication and detect anomalies Evaluated system exposure across internal devic

Genuine curiosity question. When you navigate from one page or topic to another online — by clicking links, searching, or just drifting — there's an intuitive sense that you've "gone far" from where you started. But I keep getting stuck trying to think about what that actually means in a measurable way. A few candidates I've considered: Hop count (links or search steps between origin and current): simple, but coarse — one hop can take you across an enormous topic gap. Embedding cosine distance (sentence transformers, BERT-style): captures semantic drift, but feels fuzzy and threshold-dependent. Knowledge graph distance (Wikipedia link graph, ConceptNet): clean when both endpoints exist in the graph, breaks down otherwise. KL divergence between topic distributions (LDA-style): theoretically elegant but compute-heavy. Information gain / surprise (how unexpected the current content is given the start): same trade-off — clean in theory, expensive in practice. Each captures something different — semantic relatedness, structural connectedness, surprise/novelty, raw effort. None feels like THE answer. Is there established literature that's thought about this carefully? Or do practitioners just pick whichever proxy fits the use case (recsys uses embeddings, search engines use something else)? Would love to hear how folks in IR, graph theory, recsys, or web crawling actually approach this in practice. submitted by /u/retarded_770 [link] [留言]

Most software projects focus on producing outputs. Most AI projects focus on producing predictions. But real organizations don't operate on outputs or predictions alone. They operate on decisions. A decision has consequences. A decision creates risk. A decision consumes resources. A decision changes the future state of a system. Over the last few months, I've been studying and building systems around a simple question: How can we make decisions more explainable, auditable, and repeatable? This led me toward concepts such as: event-driven architectures decision logging risk evaluation pipelines audit trails feedback loops operational intelligence systems Instead of asking: "Can we predict what will happen?" I'm becoming more interested in asking: "Can we explain why a decision was made?" and "Can we reproduce that decision six months later?" Current areas I'm exploring: Financial decision systems Risk infrastructure Event-driven architectures Blockchain compliance workflows Operational intelligence platforms One of the projects I'm currently building is an Event-Driven Decision Logging System (EDDL), designed to explore how organizations can record, audit, and replay critical decisions over time. Still learning. Still building. Still refining my understanding of how complex systems operate under uncertainty. Looking forward to sharing the journey here. systemsdesign #architecture #backend #fintech #softwareengineering #eventdriven #riskmanagement

submitted by /u/esporx [link] [留言]

Hey everyone, I am not trying to sell or self promote mainly just wanted to showcase a big project I've been working on ever since I started studying data science and artificial intelligence and integrating AI into workflows and using it as an augment to create things that were previously out of reach for so many people, because if used right it can become a second brain and not a crutch. I’m the solo dev behind Void Runner , an isometric ARPG/MOBA hybrid built in Python. I recently hit a wall with traditional procedural quest generation. Hand-crafting templates gets repetitive fast, and players quickly learn the patterns to these things whether you like it or not. To solve this, I built the "Void Caller AI" , a system that uses a local, quantized Llama 3.2 model to act as a dynamic Dungeon Master. Instead of just generating random flavor text, the system uses a lightweight RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) pipeline. It reads live server telemetry (who died, what items were looted, which bosses were defeated recently) and weaves those actual server events into the narrative of the quests it generates. Because it runs locally via Ollama on our backend, there are no crazy cloud API costs, and latency is kept completely manageable. Here is a simplified look at how the Python backend bridges the SQLite telemetry with the Llama 3.2 prompt: import json import ollama from sqlalchemy import text from database import SessionLocal def generate_dynamic_quest(difficulty: str, target: str): db = SessionLocal() # 1. Fetch recent server telemetry for context (RAG-lite) lore_context = "" try: # Grab recent server events to weave into the narrative recent_events = db.execute(text( "SELECT username, event_type, dungeon_type FROM ai_events ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 3" )).fetchall() if recent_events: events_str = "; ".join([f"Runner '{r[0]}' triggered a '{r[1]}' in '{r[2]}'" for r in recent_events]) lore_context = f" Incorporate this recent live server telemetry into the lore: {events_

Just wanted to share my research regarding probe-targeted fine-tuning (LoRa) for verbal confidence calibration., If you probe the hidden states of an instruct-tuned LLM, it can tell correct from incorrect answers at 0.76–0.88 AUROC. But when you ask it directly it tends to respond with confidence at 99% for everything. The model knows if it actually knows but it won't admit it. I took the probe's output and used it as fine-tuning targets. This teaches the model to say out loud what it already knows internally. LoRA, few hundred examples, under 10 minutes on an M3 Ultra. I tested on 8 models across 4 families (7B–70B). Activation patching shows it's actually causal. Not just a correlation. If you swap hidden states at the confidence position you can watch confidence shift (ρ = 0.976 layer gradient). If swap occurs at a random position then nothing happens. At 70B, the softmax distribution carries valid metacognitive signal but the argmax text is still stuck at 99% confident. The model learned the routing internally but can't get pass the text bottleneck. Seed-level replication across 3 models . The discrimination is stable, but the shape of the confidence distribution is seed-sensitive. I pre-registered this across 2 studies (with noted deviations) and have all my code available (Code: github.com/synthiumjp/metacog-engineering). I tried to make it as rigourous and replicable as possible. The pre-print is here: https://zenodo.org/records/20436841 submitted by /u/Synthium- [link] [留言]

Upgrade your home bar with the latest Bartesian coupon codes and discounts. Save on the Professional Cocktail Maker, enjoy subscription discounts, and get free shipping on your favorite capsules.

Save up to 60% on a selection of items at eBay, including electronics, home products, card games, car parts and more.

Get $50 off your next order or up to 50% off site wide with Target coupon codes and Circle deals.

Experience cutting-edge VR and save up to 20% with coupons for the latest games, Meta Quest 3, Ray-Ban AI glasses, and more deals.

Save up to $400 on top air purifiers and filters with verified AirDoctor promo codes and special offers for May 2026.