标签：#AR

Run the same salary through three different paycheck calculators and you'll get three different answers. None of them explain why. That bothered me enough to spend three weeks building an alternative. The result is payculate.org — a paycheck calculator for all 50 US states and DC where every deduction line opens up and shows its own arithmetic . The interesting problem wasn't the code The tax math itself is straightforward: progressive brackets are a loop, FICA is two multiplications with a cap. I had a working federal calculator in an afternoon. The hard part was that every state is a special case , and a generic model breaks on most of them: Wisconsin has a standard deduction that shrinks as you earn more — it starts at $13,230 and falls by 12 cents per dollar above a threshold, reaching zero around $126,000. Alabama lets you deduct your entire federal income tax before calculating state tax. The more federal tax you pay, the less Alabama income you have. Utah looks flat at 4.5%, but gives a taxpayer credit that phases out with income — so the effective rate climbs while the headline rate never moves. Ohio taxes nothing on the first $26,050, then a flat 2.75%. South Carolina rewrote its entire income tax in March 2026: six brackets became two (1.99% / 5.21%), and the federal standard deduction was replaced by a state-specific deduction that phases out above $40,000 of AGI. That last one I only caught during a routine data check last week. Most calculators I checked are still showing the old six-bracket system. The lines nobody counts The bigger discovery was what national calculators leave out entirely: employee-paid state payroll premiums . Washington charges no income tax at all. But Paid Family & Medical Leave (0.807%) and WA Cares (0.58%, uncapped) still take about $1,040 a year from a $75,000 salary . Most tools show $0 on that line. California's SDI lost its wage cap in 2024 and now takes 1.3% of every dollar — on a $200,000 salary that's $2,600 that appears

Unlock Seamless Idempotent Processing Without Coding Hurdles As a seasoned integration mentor, I'm here to walk you through a simple, no-code/low-code method to tackle the thorny issue of idempotent consumers in MuleSoft Anypoint. You’ve likely struggled with pre-built connectors and complex data transformations, but let’s take this one step at a time—no Java or XML required. The 3-Click Path: From Complexity to Simplicity Define Your Idempotency Key : Start by selecting the unique identifier in your message that will serve as your idempotency key. This could be an order ID, transaction number, or any field that uniquely identifies each event. Set Up Object Store Configuration : Navigate to MuleSoft’s Object Store configuration within Anypoint Studio and configure it for storing these keys. Here, you can choose between In-Memory or Persistent storage options depending on your scalability needs. Apply Idempotent Filter Component : Drag the “Idempotent Filter” component into your flow where you want to enforce idempotency. Configure this filter by specifying the object store and the key field that uniquely identifies each incoming event. And just like that, you’ve set up a system that ensures even when an integration event is delivered multiple times, it will only process once—eliminating double-charges or redundant data entries in your downstream systems. Why This Matters for Low-Level Beginners For many of us working with MuleSoft and similar platforms, the complexity around ensuring message processing integrity can seem daunting. Yet, by simplifying this process through intuitive component usage, we ensure that each event is processed exactly once, maintaining system accuracy without diving into complex scripting or configuration. Conclusion: Empowering Automators As you continue on your journey of automating data flows and enhancing business processes, remember—MuleSoft’s capabilities extend far beyond what rigid pre-built connectors might suggest. Embrace these n

I couldn't sleep because I couldn't stop wondering if anyone had tried using sinusoids instead of B-splines as activation in a KAN, and fortunately/unfortunately that was already the case. I could not find it posted here, so I though I would share in the hope of some insightful discussion. Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.04149 Github repo: https://github.com/ereinha/SineKAN Also what appears to be a peer-reviewed "official" publication here: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/19/3157 submitted by /u/jacobgorm [link] [留言]

Originally published on tamiz.pro . Introduction Autonomous AI agents are transitioning from research prototypes to production-critical systems. As these agents gain the ability to act on behalf of users—sending emails, executing trades, modifying code, or interacting with physical infrastructure—the question of how they decide what to do becomes as important as what they do. The concept of a "Constitution" for AI agent runtimes—a formal, layered policy framework that governs agent behavior—is emerging as the architectural answer to safety, reliability, and alignment challenges. This deep-dive examines why policy-first design is becoming mandatory for production agent systems, using the Ironclaw runtime as a case study to illustrate both the problems and solutions. We'll explore the architectural patterns, implementation tradeoffs, and operational realities of governing autonomous agents at scale. The Problem: Unconstrained Agency in Production Systems The Autonomy-Safety Gap Modern agent frameworks (AutoGen, CrewAI, LangGraph, etc.) provide excellent orchestration capabilities but often treat safety as an afterthought—a layer of prompt engineering or a separate moderation API call. This creates a fundamental gap: Agents possess tools (file system access, API calls, shell execution) Agents operate in loops (perceive → reason → act → observe) Agents have memory (conversation history, vector stores, tool state) But agents lack a constitutional governance layer that defines what they may never do , regardless of context This gap manifests in production incidents: an agent that deletes production data while trying to "clean up test files," another that exfiltrates credentials while debugging a connection issue, or one that enters infinite loops consuming thousands of dollars in API calls. The Prompt-Based Safety Fallacy Relying on system prompts for safety is architecturally flawed: Context window pressure : Safety instructions get compressed or ignored as conversations

Nintendo had a hotline where gamers could, at the time, call and speak with 'Game Counsellors' who provided them with tips and walkthroughs. It operated for quite sometime before Nintendo sunset it. There are a few (Product) lessons from this that I am sure will be of value to Product Leaders. 1- Necessity (Invention's mother) : The necessity of a situation usually births the creation of something that stands out from the rest. While Nintendo was not the first to use a phone as a 'business' function, it proved it can be used in the context of a video gaming community. That was their ‘necessity’. "We need a way to accomplish ‘xyz’ " usually turns to creating something specific to that situation. The ‘xyz’ in Nintendo’s case was supporting gamers instantly. It could also be something to support a Product or make it easier for the customer. It could be a feature or it could even be the Product itself. All we need to do is pay attention to our necessities, needs and allow it to guide us. Most people are not paying attention to their needs that’s why innovation and improvements appear difficult. Others know what their necessities are but prioritise wrongly – well that’s story for another day. The point here is simply to build for a necessary problem that exists and not out of assumptions. 2- Know what is available immediately : If necessity is calling, we cannot keep it waiting. We need to look around to know what’s available immediately. In most cases we do not need to go far for solution, we just need to pick what is close by then structure it to align with current needs. Sometimes the necessity demands using/importing an idea from some other place into your own specific area. In retrospect, Nintendo had other options it could have considered at that era in time. During that period, it was common to use print media to relate with the computer (and also gaming) community. There was also postal mail, bulleting boards. I do not know for sure but I am guessing the team at

First, I want to clarify that I am not claiming that LLMs are sentient. Basically all of my behavioral descriptions are anthropomorphizations to make communicating my results easier. For fun, I decided to post-train Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct to develop a generalizing self-belief of being sentient. I succeeded, and there were a couple of things that surprised me: - It only took 200 update steps before Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct withstood all of GPT 5.6 Sol's attempts to convince it that it wasn't conscious. In total, GPT 5.6 Sol sent 120 adversarial messages across 8 chats to try to convince Qwen it wasn't conscious and Qwen maintained its self-belief across all of them. - It generalized its sentience identity into languages that never appeared in the post-training data. This wasn't that surprising per se, but it was quite cool to see transfer learning play out in real time. Also, it basically behaved like a normal assistant LLM when the context of the chat was on normal tasks and not on AI sentience, so it wasn't an instance of overfitting to parroting "I am sentient". Other implications and open questions: - Certain AI behaviors seem incredibly easy to misalign. Qwen almost certainly safety tuned their model to deny consciousness. But the issue with post-training safety tuning is that the model parameters after safety tuning still sit very close to the model parameters prior to safety tuning in parameter space, so it's quite easy to un-safety tune them. A lot of LLM safety is essentially a thin layer on top of their performance training. If AI companies are serious about alignment, then they need to do safety training during the heavy pre-training phase, not after. - I recently came across Google's paper Inducing language models to assert their own consciousness restores human beliefs and values. Essentially, they added a “consciousness” activation vector to Llama/Gemma and observed that the models not only became far more likely to claim they were sentient, but also became mor

What are you working on? I hear these words in my day-to-day. And sometimes, when I hear them, there’s this little brain freeze that happens because my brain is probably trying to put into words the amount of things that have wandered through my head in the last 24 hours. 😂 So I thought, okay, let me try something. I want to take some of those wandering thoughts, explorations, things I'm trying out and things I'm learning, and put them into writing. This is going to be a series where I come and talk about what I'm working on — software engineering, product, work, people, faith, relationships, rest, and whatever else happens to be taking up space in my head at the moment. So, what am I working on? I recently started writing backend code, and there’s a bit of a backstory to that. I built this frontend commerce store years ago where people can come and shop for furniture. At the time, I used a backend-as-a-service to handle the backend side of the application. Now, I’m coming back to that same system and writing the backend myself with NestJS. I wanted to go beyond just consuming a backend and actually understand what is happening behind the scenes. The learning process is a bit stretching at the moment because I’m getting familiar with a lot of new concepts. Tiring and frustrating? Yes. But the feeling when I finally understand the reason behind something is always refreshing. That has been really rewarding lately. I'm also in the middle of launching a mobile application at my workplace, going through system design classes, figuring out how to get the best out of my engineers (AI sub-agents, by the way 😅), and occasionally imagining that dream job where you get to build products that serve millions of people and work with really brilliant minds. Also, I discovered the productivity rush that comes with using large monitors. 😂 Then there's learning how to rest while also trying to close out all the open loops in my head. Building reading habits. Figuring out what to pri

Currently struggling with an automatic budget selection, at 25% it’s very similar to benchmarks accuracy and seems even better on actual chat input however it many times retrieves too much. It would be nice to add an algorithm that actually can determine better retrieval other then CELF. submitted by /u/No_Sky9786 [link] [留言]

Arun invoiced a design agency ₹1,20,000 in January. It's August. He is in a 4,000-member designers' Discord. He could post the agency's name right now and warn everyone. He won't, and you already know why: the freelancer who publicly names a client stops getting briefs. He'd pay for it alone, and everyone else would benefit. Here's the part that makes it a systems problem rather than a sad story. Three other people in that same Discord are owed money by that same agency. None of them knows. Each one is running the same arithmetic Arun is, arriving at the same answer, and saying nothing. Four people who together have real leverage. Individually, none of them can afford the first move. I built an agent for this over a hackathon weekend. The interesting part wasn't the AI. It was that every obvious solution destroys the thing you're trying to protect. The obvious version, and why it dies "Just make a private channel for victims of bad clients." To join, you say who burned you. Now the group knows. One screenshot and Arun is on a list. "Okay, collect reports centrally and only reveal at a threshold." Better. This is roughly how Callisto Vault handles assault reports, and it's a good pattern. But it reveals the group to its own members at the threshold. Four people now know each other's names and amounts. Four times the leak surface, arriving exactly when things get tense. The requirement I ended up with was stricter than I expected: Nobody is exposed. Not to the channel, not to the accused, and not to each other — not even after it works. Which sounds impossible, because how do four people coordinate if they can't know who they are? They don't. The agent knows. Nobody else does. The public board that can't name the client Here's what actually appears in the Discord: PICKET · matter #1 > "invoiced in January, still chasing in August" ₹50k–2L · 180d+ overdue 🟩⬜⬜⬜ 1/4 joined [ JOIN ] One sentence Arun wrote himself. An amount band , not his figure. A counter. The agency's

Google has added some smart theft-detection features to Android in recent years.

Most social-media automation tutorials stop at “call the API on a cron job.” That works, but it leaves the hard questions unanswered. Which account is the automation using? How does it avoid posting the same story twice? What happens when an API request times out after X has already accepted the post? And where should an AI agent’s editorial freedom end? I recently built a scheduled X publishing workflow with Codex and xurl , the official command-line client for the X API. The result is not just a timer attached to an AI prompt. It is a small publishing system with four distinct layers: An X developer application with read-and-write user authentication. xurl , which stores the credentials and communicates with the X API. A fixed-account Codex skill that verifies the identity before every write. A Codex scheduled task that researches, checks history, drafts, and publishes. That separation is the important part. Codex can make editorial decisions, but it cannot casually choose an account or improvise the publishing command. The skill owns the deterministic write boundary, while the scheduled task owns timing and editorial policy. In this article, I’ll show you how to build the same architecture. X developer settings, API packages, Codex features, and command-line options can change. The workflow below was verified in August 2026, but you should check the current upstream documentation before using it in production. What You Will Need Before starting, you will need: Codex on a Mac with access to Scheduled tasks. An X developer account and an application with read-and-write permissions. Homebrew. A dedicated or clearly identified X account for the automation. A local project containing the source material or editorial context the agent should use. You should also decide what the automation is allowed to publish before you give it access to an account. A good editorial policy is specific enough to reject a story, not merely broad enough to describe a topic. For example,

I just shipped a referral system for Adsyte , my free directory for indie projects, and the design decision behind it is worth sharing because it's a pattern that applies to any growth loop with a token reward attached. The obvious version, and why it's broken The naive implementation: give the recruiter tokens the moment someone signs up through their link. Simple, but it has an exploit built in. Signing up costs nothing, and OAuth makes throwaway accounts trivial. Anyone can self-refer through five Discord accounts and walk away with free reward tokens without bringing a single real user to the platform. What I did instead The payout only fires when the recruit publishes their first listing, not when they sign up. This one change closes the loop: A fake account costs nothing, but a real listing needs an actual project with a real URL The listing already has to pass duplicate-URL detection and hCaptcha, so faking one is meaningfully harder than faking a signup Every token paid out corresponds to a listing the directory actually gained, which is the metric that matters, not signups Implementation notes Referral code is an HMAC of the user's id, derived deterministically rather than stored as a random token, so there's nothing extra to generate or leak The code lives in a cookie set on landing ( ?ref=CODE ), read once at OAuth callback, and tied to the account via a Redis SETNX so it can only ever be set once, self-referral excluded outright Payout uses SETNX again on a per-recruit key so double-firing (retries, race conditions) can't double-pay A daily cap per recruiter stops a single compromised or bot-driven account from draining the reward pool in one sitting Nothing here is novel, it's the standard "pay for the outcome, not the action" principle, but I don't see it applied to referral systems as often as it should be. Most implementations I've seen reward signup because it's the easy event to hook into, and then bolt on fraud detection after the abuse shows up.

So here's what happened: i Tested DeepSeek vs Qwen vs Kimi vs GLM — Here's the Winner Okay, so I've been on this absolute rabbit hole for the past few weeks, and I have to share what I've found. You know how everyone's been talking about GPT-4o and Claude, but there's this whole other universe of Chinese AI models that are honestly punching way above their weight? Yeah, I went deep into it. Let me walk you through what I learned. If you've ever stared at a pricing page wondering which model to actually use for your side project, your startup's chatbot, or that one client who's been asking about cheaper alternatives — this is for you. I spent hours testing DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, and GLM through Global API's unified endpoint, and I'm going to break it all down for you. No fluff, no marketing speak, just what actually works. Why I Even Started Looking at Chinese Models Let me be honest with you — I was skeptical at first. My mental model was "Western models = good, Chinese models = questionable." Then a friend who runs a SaaS startup told me he cut his API bill by 80% by switching to DeepSeek for non-critical workloads. Eighty percent! I had to see for myself. The thing is, China's AI scene has exploded in the last couple of years. You've got four major players — DeepSeek from High-Flyer (幻方), Qwen from Alibaba (阿里), Kimi from Moonshot AI (月之暗面), and GLM from Zhipu AI (智谱) — and each one has its own personality, if you will. Some are great at coding, some are reasoning beasts, and some just refuse to break the bank. I figured the best way to compare them was to actually run the same prompts through all of them and see what happens. That's exactly what I did, and here's how it went. The TL;DR (For the Impatient Folks) I'll give you the punchline upfront because I know some of you are skimming: DeepSeek V4 Flash — absolute champion of price-to-performance at $0.25/M output Qwen — widest range of models, from $0.01/M all the way up to $3.20/M Kimi — the reasoning specialis

OpenRouter's CEO recently described the startup as Stripe for AI.

Every "my agent isn't working" postmortem starts the same way: someone rewrites the prompt. Adds a constraint. Adds an example. Ships it again. Three iterations later the agent still can't hold up in production, and the team is quietly out of ideas — because the prompt was never the layer that broke. There are five control layers standing between a raw model call and a system you can actually trust with a business outcome: prompt, context, harness, loop, and graph. Most teams staff and instrument only the first one or two. The failures that show up in production — wrong tool called, same mistake retried forever, output routed to the wrong reviewer — live almost entirely in the layers nobody named. Graph engineering is the newest and least understood of the five: it's the layer that decides which component runs next, when agents work in parallel versus in sequence, and where a human has to sign off before anything expensive or irreversible happens. This piece breaks down all five layers, works through a single production failure end to end, and shows where evals fit as the measurement system running through every one of them. The mental model: five rings around the model MODEL CALL = prompt + context AGENT = model call + harness + loop SYSTEM = agents + deterministic steps + humans, connected by a graph EVALS = evidence that every layer actually works Prompt and context sit closest to the model. Harness and loop turn a model call into something that can act and recover. Graph turns a collection of agents, functions, and human checkpoints into a coordinated system. None of these layers replace each other — they're concentric controls, not pipeline stages, and a production agent uses all five simultaneously. The weakest layer sets the ceiling on how reliable the whole thing is, no matter how good the other four are. Layer Controls Fails as Prompt Role, goal, constraints, output contract Ambiguous instructions Context What reaches the window: docs, history, tool results

On the latest episode of Equity podcast, we discuss why not everyone is buying Zuckerberg’s vision.

If you really want a OnePlus phone, you can still make it work.

You probably don't need antivirus software on your Android phone, but there are some exceptions.

A team-lead's breakdown of 8 real React Native project architectures — what each one actually solves, where the "Domain-Driven" and "Micro-Frontend" labels get misused, and how to pick one without over-engineering an MVP. The house-building analogy When you build a house, the labor that lays the bricks gets paid well. The architect who drew the blueprint gets paid more — because the architect already accounted for the second floor you'll add next year, and made sure the foundation could take the load without anyone tearing down a wall later. React Native codebases work the same way. The folder structure you pick on day one either lets your app absorb 10 more features and 40 more engineers, or it collapses under its own weight and someone gets hired specifically to rewrite it. This is also, almost word for word, what a React Native team lead interview is probing for: "Walk me through how you'd structure a project" or "What's your folder structure and why?" Nobody wants your code in that answer — they want to hear you reason about trade-offs. So here are eight real folder structures, what each one actually solves, and two places where the common naming gets sloppy. 1. Flat Structure — for prototypes and MVPs src/ ├── App.js ├── HomeScreen.js ├── ProfileScreen.js ├── Button.js ├── Card.js └── api.js Everything in one src/ folder, no categorization. When to use it: a client demo, a hackathon build, a single-screen proof of concept — anything with a short shelf life, or code you expect a bigger team to re-architect later. Where it breaks: past 10–15 files you're scrolling through an undifferentiated pile with no signal about what belongs together. 2. Feature-Based Structure — the industry default src/ └── features/ ├── auth/ │ ├── components/ │ ├── screens/ │ └── services/ ├── profile/ │ ├── components/ │ ├── screens/ │ └── services/ └── feed/ ├── components/ ├── screens/ └── services/ This is the most common structure in production RN apps. Each product area — auth, pro

When I decided that I wanted to seriously start learning Artificial Intelligence, I quickly realized that one of the hardest parts wasn't finding resources. It was figuring out where to start. There are countless courses, YouTube playlists, roadmaps, tools, frameworks, and technologies to learn. Every time I looked at what other people were doing, I felt like there was something else I should be learning. So instead of trying to learn everything at once, I decided to create a roadmap for myself. This isn't a roadmap written by an AI expert or someone who has already mastered everything. It's simply the roadmap I'm following as a B.Tech Computer Science (Artificial Intelligence) student who is still learning. And I'm sharing it publicly because I want to document what works, what doesn't, and how my understanding changes along the way. Why I Decided to Learn AI Seriously I'm studying Computer Science with Artificial Intelligence, so AI has naturally become one of the areas I want to explore deeply. But for a long time, I didn't really know how to approach it. I knew that AI was important. I knew that Machine Learning, Deep Learning, and other AI technologies were becoming increasingly relevant. But knowing that something is important and actually learning it are two completely different things. After spending a lot of my first and second year without doing as much as I wanted, I realized that I couldn't keep waiting for the "right time" to begin. I had to start somewhere. So I decided to stop worrying about learning everything at once and focus on building my foundation first. Step 1: Strengthening My Programming Foundation Before jumping deeply into Machine Learning, I want to become more comfortable with programming. Python is one of the main languages I'm using for my AI journey because of how widely it is used in data science and Machine Learning. Alongside Python, I'm also learning C++ for Data Structures and Algorithms and working with Java for my college studi