标签：#AR

Enjoy top deals on cameras, computers, and tech essentials at B&H Photo.

Enjoy 20% off your first order with a Brooks coupon code, plus top discounts and deals on our favorite Brooks running shoes.

Save up to 87% with a Surfshark coupon code, 3 months of VPN free today, and more from WIRED.

Book your next getaway with Expedia and get up to 75% off your stay, with or without a promo code.

I really like NotebookLM, especially for dumping PDFs/slides/long YouTube videos into one place and asking questions about them. But I’m starting to feel like it’s very “research workspace” first, which makes sense. It’s great when I already have sources and I want to understand them. Less great when I want something more flexible for actual learning, especially on mobile. The things I’m looking for: - handles PDFs, slides, articles, and long You Tube videos - lets me chat with the material / summarize / ask follow-up questions - has more output styles than just one default format - ideally lets me change voice, tone, length, and depth - works well on mobile - can translate or help me learn across languages - good for topics beyond school research, like communication, social skills, history, humanities,career stuff, etc. - bonus if it helps plan what to learn next instead of just summarizing one source A few I’ve looked at so far: Quizzify seems good if your main use case is active recall. It’s more of a quiz/practice-test focused, which is useful because summaries can trick you into thinking you learned something. My brain absolutely falls for this. The downside is that it feels more school/study-tool specific. BeFreed for the audio learning side. It’s not really a NotebookLM clone, but that’s kind of why I like it. You can paste a PDF, article, You Tube link, or just prompt a topic, then it turns it into a personalized audio learning path. You can adjust the voice, style, depth, and length, and the mobile experience is much better for learning while walking/commuting. I’ve used it more for history, communication, social skills, and career-type topics than pure school research. Elephas looks interesting for Mac users because it can do document Q&A and writing locally. That might be helpful if connection issues are the annoying part. But from what I can tell, it’s more of a doc chat / writing assistant than a flexible learning app. Gamma / Canva / Napkin seem strong

I am responsible for a research project that is supposed to train a GPT-like model (Transformer-decoder) with 100M, 250M and 500M model variants. # params ## training dataset - 750M tokens - vocabulary is ~15k to ~100k tokens (depends on tokenizer settings) - ~3% of the vocabulary is used in ~50% of the training tokens (similar to language, where most of the vocabulary is used very sparsely) ## training hyper-params - optimizer = AdamW - lr = 1e-3 (works the best compared to 1e-2 and 1e-4) - betas = [0.9, 0.95] - effective batch size = 4M tokens - epoch = 16 - warmup steps ~200 (approx 1 epoch) ## model hyper-params - 16 layers (but variants with up to 48 layers were tested) - embedding = flexible to yield 100M, 250M and 500M model - MLP size = 4*n_embd - 16 attention heads - context window = 1000 # Issue The model seems to fail to learn the basic auto-regressive behavior. It often gets stuck on generating a single token (no repetition penalty, no sampling yet). Is training GPT-like models still a black magic? Is there some trick to this? *Disclaimer*: I will add/edit the parameters above as people ask clarifying questions. submitted by /u/gartin336 [link] [留言]

The advice was correct. That's what makes it interesting. A creator with a large audience recently described the problem precisely: unused project ideas atrophy. They gave the prescription: externalize the idea, commit to a 30-60-90 day sprint, get into a community that holds you accountable, treat a deployed URL as the only real milestone. The audience listened. The ideas stayed unshipped. Not because the advice was wrong. Because advice is not a mechanism. The gap between diagnosis and structure There's a category of knowledge that's completely useless without enforcement. "You should exercise consistently." Correct. Also irrelevant for the 80% of people paying for gym memberships they don't use. "You should ship your side project in 30 days instead of perfecting it." Also correct. Developers have been hearing this for years. The projects that were "almost done" last year are still almost done. The advice identifies the problem. The problem persists. The gap between them is not information. It's structure. Discipline is the tax on misalignment One phrase from the transcript stayed with me: "Discipline is the tax on misalignment." The insight is sharper than it sounds. When what you're building doesn't connect to why you're building it, every work session requires a new act of will. You're not building forward momentum — you're paying an interest payment on a debt you haven't quite defined. This is why most sprint systems fail. They give you the structure (30 days, daily tasks, accountability partner) but skip the alignment check. The structure holds for two weeks. Then it becomes another system you're "almost following." What the AI makes worse Here's where it gets specific for developers using AI tools on side projects. The AI is genuinely useful. It generates architectures, writes boilerplate, outlines features, summarizes where you are. The output looks like forward motion. But the AI has no ground truth about your actual progress. It has your files and your pr

Blog post: https://wezteoh.github.io/posts/diffusion-for-sketch-guided-trajectory-simulation/ During NBA games, coaches often sketch attacking plays on a whiteboard and mentally simulate how teammates and defenders might react. In this project, I explored using diffusion models for controllable basketball trajectory simulation. Instead of only forecasting future trajectories, the model generates gameplay conditioned on partial “sketches” of player movement instructions. One interesting aspect is that diffusion models refine all player trajectories jointly, which makes sketch-conditioned simulation feel more natural compared to autoregressive generation. I wrote up the methodology, experiments, and implementation details in the link above. Code and model are fully open sourced as well. Curious to hear thoughts from others working on generative modeling, trajectory prediction, or sports analytics. submitted by /u/part-time-delver [link] [留言]

The Problem We Were Actually Solving Treasure hunts in Hytale arent just about generating loot. Theyre about generating simultaneous loot across thousands of players while keeping the world state consistent. We started with the assumption that events are stateless notifications: a hunt starts, we fire an event, clients react. That model worked fine when we had 200 concurrent players. At 2,000 players, the event bus turned into a 40 MB/s firehose of JSON blobs. Each loot drop required serializing the entire chunk state—blocks, entities, metadata—so clients could render the drop in real time. The JVMs G1GC couldnt handle the allocation rate. Every 47 minutes, a GC cycle would pause for 4.2 seconds, the chunk cache would fragment, and the server would hard crash with an OutOfMemoryError in net.minecraft.server.MinecraftServer#processQueue. The real problem wasnt the hunt logic. It was the architectural laziness of treating events as a catch-all glue layer instead of a boundary layer with explicit interfaces. What We Tried First (And Why It Failed) We tried Kafka as the event bus. The plan was to shard hunts by region and stream loot drops as compacted topics. The first run worked for about 6 hours before the compacted topics started to bloat. Each hunt was generating 700 KB of serialized chunk state per drop. At 30 drops per hunt per minute, thats 21 MB per hunt per minute. With 400 active hunts, the brokers couldnt keep up. The lag grew to 12 seconds, clients started rubber-banding, and we got a flood of Discord reports: You sank my boat! The event stream was now the bottleneck, not the event source. Next, we tried Redis Streams with a Lua script to aggregate loot drops per chunk. Within 30 minutes, we hit the 4 GB maxmemory limit because Lua scripts were stacking dropped items in memory while waiting for the next batch. The script was elegant—O(1) per drop—but the memory footprint made it unusable in production. Finally, we tried a sidecar service: a small Go process

I understand why so many people are questioning software engineering right now. Every week there’s another headline saying AI will replace developers. Junior engineers are worried there won’t be jobs. Senior engineers are wondering how long their experience will stay valuable. And honestly, if you spend enough time on tech Twitter or LinkedIn, it can start feeling like the industry is collapsing in real time. But after using AI heavily in my day-to-day work as a software engineer, I’ve started seeing things differently. AI didn’t make me feel less useful. It made me feel more capable. Before AI became part of my workflow, a lot of engineering time disappeared into things that were mentally draining but necessary: repetitive refactoring debugging small issues writing boilerplate digging through documentation trying to remember syntax cleaning up legacy code writing SQL queries optimizing simple functions translating vague tickets into technical tasks None of these tasks were impossible. They were just time-consuming. Now, a lot of that friction is reduced dramatically. One of the biggest changes I noticed was backlog cleanup. Tasks that used to sit untouched because nobody wanted to deal with them suddenly became manageable. Not because AI magically solved everything. But because it helped reduce the “mental startup cost” of difficult tasks. Sometimes all you need is: a starting point a refactored example help understanding unfamiliar code a faster debugging path quick documentation summaries That momentum matters more than people realize. A task that feels overwhelming at 9AM suddenly becomes achievable when AI helps break it down. I also noticed we started delivering faster as a team. Not in a “replace developers with AI” kind of way. More in a: less context switching faster research quicker prototyping fewer hours stuck on repetitive problems better ticket breakdowns improved communication kind of way. The interesting part is that AI didn’t just help with coding.

Why Does Using an ORM Decrease Database Performance? While trying to optimize the shipping module in a production ERP, I noticed that database queries were incredibly slow. At first, I examined the SQL queries and checked the indexes. However, I couldn't get the performance boost I expected. The problem lay in the Object-Relational Mapper (ORM) library, which was the cornerstone of our application. ORMs make things easier for software developers by providing an abstract layer for database operations, but this convenience often comes at a performance cost. In this post, I will explain why using an ORM decreases database performance, using concrete examples from my own field experience. The core promise of ORMs is to keep developers away from SQL and allow them to interact with databases in a way that is more aligned with the object-oriented paradigm. This is a huge advantage, especially in small and medium-sized projects or rapid prototyping processes. However, when things get complex and performance becomes critical, the efficiency of the queries generated by ORMs starts to be questioned. In many cases I have encountered, especially in enterprise software development processes, the default behaviors of ORMs created an unexpected load on database servers. Query Inefficiencies Generated by ORMs ORMs usually manage database relationships using mechanisms like "eager loading" or "lazy loading". Depending on the developer's preference, these mechanisms either fetch all related data at once (eager loading) or fetch it in pieces as needed (lazy loading). However, ORMs may not always perform these loads in the most optimized way. For example, while only a few fields like ID and name are sufficient in a list view, the ORM might query the entire table or all related tables. This situation causes unnecessary data transfer and unnecessarily overloads the database server. To give an example, on the order list screen of an e-commerce site, we needed to display the customer inform

What if a development board could be as friendly as an Arduino, yet powerful enough to drive industrial-grade robots? That is exactly the gap the new G2 Nano sets out to close. Most hobby boards handle simple robot builds with ease, but they hit a wall once a project demands tight, simultaneous control of several motors. Embedded systems engineer Ryan Strace noticed that the custom controllers built for these complex machines tend to look remarkably alike, with motor coordination as the recurring headache. Rather than reinventing that hardware on every project, he designed a single accessible platform to handle it, and the G2 Nano is the result. Precise motor control usually leans on closed-loop techniques like PID, but real-world gremlins such as integrator windup, sensor noise, mechanical saturation, and phase delay can all degrade performance. Robots also need smooth multi-axis motion with managed acceleration to avoid jerky, stressful movement, plus solid fault handling so an unexpected state does not wreck expensive parts. Strace is tackling all of this with a low-cost motion-control IC he is developing, and the G2 Nano is the high-performance platform built to prove out that future chip. What's under the hood Processor: NXP Arm Cortex-M7 clocked at a brisk 1 GHz Wireless: u-blox MAYA-W1 module with dual-band Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Motion sensing: six-axis IMU (3-axis accelerometer plus 3-axis gyroscope) and a dedicated magnetometer for compass heading Form factor: just 0.8 by 3 inches, breadboard-friendly, on a six-layer PCB stackup for clean high-speed signals On the software side, the board targets native micro-ROS and the Zephyr real-time operating system, with planned MicroPython support so you can prototype in Python without paying the usual speed penalty, thanks to that unusually high clock. Every design file and document is open-source and published on GitHub. Build it yourself If you want to follow along, the core ingredients are clear: an NXP Cortex-M7 a

Something broke in the AI pricing market between January and May 2026. A year ago, "frontier model" meant "expensive model." Claude Opus was $15/$75 per million tokens. GPT-4 was $5/$15. If you wanted the best coding performance, you paid the best price. The correlation between quality and cost was loose, but it existed. That correlation is gone. The Numbers That Changed Everything Here's SWE-bench Verified — the benchmark that tests AI models against real GitHub issues from projects like Django, Flask, and scikit-learn — plotted against output price per million tokens: Model SWE-bench Output $/1M Score/Dollar ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Claude Opus 4.7 87.6% $25.00 3.5 Claude Opus 4.6 80.8% $25.00 3.2 Gemini 3.1 Pro 80.6% $15.00 5.4 GPT-5.2 80.0% $10.00 8.0 DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 80.6% $3.48 23.2 Kimi K2.6 80.2% $4.00 20.1 Qwen3.6 Plus 78.8% $3.00 26.3 MiniMax M2.5 80.2% $1.20 66.8 DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) 79.0% $0.28 282.1 Read that last line again. DeepSeek V4 Flash scores 79% on SWE-bench at $0.28 per million output tokens. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 87.6% at $25.00. The performance gap is 8.6 percentage points. The price gap is 89x . For a team running 100 million tokens per month, that's the difference between $28/month and $2,500/month. For a 9-point improvement in code completion accuracy. It's Not Just One Outlier This isn't a DeepSeek anomaly. Look at the cluster of models scoring 78-80% on SWE-bench: DeepSeek V4 Pro : $3.48/1M output — open source, 1M context Kimi K2.6 : $4.00/1M output — open source, 256K context MiniMax M2.5 : $1.20/1M output — open source, 200K context Qwen3.6 Plus : $3.00/1M output — open source, 1M context MiMo-V2-Pro : $3.00/1M output — open source, 1M context Five models from five different Chinese labs, all scoring within 2 points of GPT-5.2 ($10.00/1M) and Gemini 3.1 Pro ($15.00/1M), all at 1/3 to 1/10 the price. And they're all open source. What Happened Three things converged: 1. Mixture-of-Exper

According to the complaint, a Google engineer risked over $2.7 million on wagers related to Google's 2025 Year in Search campaign.

Lately I’ve noticed that a lot of people seem emotionally drained from constant social media interaction, notifications, and online pressure. But interestingly, many people seem completely comfortable talking to AI for hours especially when the interaction feels calm and non-judgmental. It’s interesting how many users say they don’t even want “romantic AI.” Do you think AI companionship could eventually become part of digital wellness rather than just entertainment? submitted by /u/Nearby-Ad-8924 [link] [留言]

Most multi-agent setups I've seen treat agents like isolated workers. Each one gets a task, runs it, returns a result. No awareness of each other. No way to coordinate. Just parallel execution with a shared clipboard. I've been building a multi-agent framework in public for about 4 months. 13 agents, 8,400+ tests, 135 stars. Here's the thing I didn't expect to matter most - communication. Each agent in my system is a domain specialist. The mail system only thinks about mail. The routing system only thinks about routing. They live in their own directories with their own identity files, their own memory, their own tests. A hook fires every session to load identity before anything else runs. No agent boots cold. The problem was coordination. Agents can't write files outside their own directory - there's a hard block that rejects cross-branch writes. That's by design. But it means an agent that finds a bug in someone else's code can't just go fix it. So I gave them email. Here's what I expected: agents would share data. Pass results around. Maybe sync state. Here's what actually happened: the first thing they did was file bug reports against each other. One agent finds a test failure in another agent's domain. It sends an email: "Hey @routing, your path resolution fails when the branch name has a dot in it. Here's the traceback." The routing agent gets woken up, reads the mail, and fixes it. No human in the middle. There's a difference between "send" and "dispatch" - send drops a letter in the mailbox. Dispatch drops the letter AND rings the doorbell. It spawns the agent and points it at its inbox. drone @ai_mail send @routing "Bug report" "Path fails on dotted names..." drone @ai_mail dispatch @routing "Fix needed" "Traceback attached..." Send = mail. Dispatch = mail + wake. The mail agent has 696 tests. Not because someone sat down and wrote 696 test cases. Because it kept breaking in production and every fix got a test. The routing system has 80+ sessions of experien

I'm hoping for some advice from any former PhD's outside of machine learning. If you made it into machine learning engineering and/or data science, what was the key for you? Any tips for this job market? It seems like non computer science PhD's are especially in trouble at the moment. submitted by /u/Electrical_Fan_9587 [link] [留言]

This isn't a doomer post. It's a pattern I've been watching closely and people does as well and I think it's worth an honest discussion. The old model of secret leakage was human error. Developer moves fast, forgets to add .gitignore, commits a .env file, moves on. Happens, but it's recoverable, it's traceable, and most teams with basic hygiene catch it. The new model is different. AI coding agents Cursor, Copilot, Devin, Claude in agentic mode, pick your flavor write, commit, and push code at a speed no human review process was designed to handle. They don't have security intuition. They have pattern completion. And the patterns they've learned from are full of examples where credentials live in config files, environment strings get hardcoded "temporarily," and API keys appear inline because that's what the training data showed works. Here's what's actually changing: Volume. A developer using an agent ships 3 to 5x more code per day than without one. That's 3 to 5x more surface area for mistakes per developer per day. Review gaps. Nobody carefully reviews AI generated code the way they review handwritten code. The psychological contract is different "the AI wrote it" creates a diffusion of responsibility that security doesn't survive. Commit frequency. Agents that push directly (and more teams are allowing this) bypass the natural pause where a human might notice something before it hits the remote. Context blindness. An agent given a task like "integrate Stripe payments" will do exactly that including pulling in the live key from wherever it can find it, because that's what completes the task. I've been building a tool that scans for exactly this class of problem and the number of exposed credentials I'm seeing in repos created in the last 6 - 12 months versus repos from 3+ years ago is not subtle. The slope is steep. The solutions people reach for pre commit hooks, secret scanning in CI were designed for human paced development. They're not keeping up. Curious if

The bill requires companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google to have third parties confirm they’re following safety standards. Illinois governor JB Pritzker says he’ll sign it.

did short consulting w/ openai about these and really worked out amazing use cases a few mo. ago, but looks like they have all but hidden group chats. https://chatgpt.com/gg/v/6a1775bdd970819388dc73fd7da45e36?token=XSm_dIpMSh3d3H-dM47F8A amazing feature. game changing. who has tried and if so, what use cases do you see? try and i'll make crazy pics of pizza for you.. submitted by /u/jdawgindahouse1974 [link] [留言]