标签：#AR

I shipped a plugin to the WordPress.org directory. It got zero installs. That is not a complaint, it is the normal outcome. Roughly 19% of all plugins in the directory never pass zero installs , which is more than 10,500 of them. But I wanted to know why , and whether the answer was "your plugin is bad" or something structural. So instead of reading marketing advice, I queried the directory API and counted. Everything below is reproducible. The API is free, needs no key, and every query I used is in the article. The short version Search is a two phase system, and phase one is a hard filter , not a ranking. If a single word of the user's query is missing from your listing, you are excluded from that search entirely. Phase two is where you lose, and it is ranked partly on active installs . That is the cold start trap. Of the plugins that broke out recently, 88% had distribution before they started . The two behaviours that actually correlate with breaking out from nothing are release cadence and resolving support threads , which are two of the five phase-two ranking inputs and the only two a plugin with no installs can move. WordPress.org gives plugin authors no analytics whatsoever . No listing views, no impressions, no click-through. Anyone who tells you confidently what makes people click install is guessing. How search actually works The best-documented account traces to WP Tavern's 2017 coverage of the directory relaunch, quoting Greg Brown, the Automattic data engineer who built it. It runs on Elasticsearch, and it has two phases. Phase one builds the candidate pool. It matches against title, excerpt, description, tags, slug, author name and contributor names. Critically: all search keywords must appear somewhere, or the plugin is excluded from the result set. Not ranked low. Excluded. Phase two sorts that pool by last update date, compatibility with the current core version, active installs, percent of support tickets resolved, and average rating. That split ma

A comprehensive, production-ready checklist for reviewing data validation, ETL testing, and automated reconciliation codebases. Code reviews for data engineering tools need more rigor than standard web apps. A subtle bug in a data validation framework can cause silent pipeline failures, false positive test passes, or accidental execution of unbounded SQL queries on production warehouses. Whether you are building a custom data framework or maintaining automated ETL tests, use this generalized checklist during code reviews to keep your test suites secure, performant, and reliable. 1. Test Case Configuration (YAML / JSON) TC ID Matching: Ensure the tc_id value matches the configuration filename exactly. Schema Validity: Verify that type (e.g., count, data, recon, file) and source/target drivers are valid and supported. Explicit Enablers: Confirm the enabled field is explicitly set (true or false) rather than omitted. Relative File Paths: For file-based validation, ensure paths are relative to defined source/target data directories. Non-Empty Queries: Confirm SQL sources and targets include non-empty query strings or valid template paths. Unique Case IDs: Ensure test case identifiers are unique across the test suite directory. Documented Rationale: If a test case has enabled: false or uses numeric tolerance thresholds (validation_tolerance), ensure a comment explains the business reason. Dependency Order: Verify that basic structural checks (COUNT) run prior to deep comparisons (DATA / RECON). 2. SQL & Query Logic Explicit Projections: No SELECT *. All columns must be explicitly listed to avoid schema drift breaks. Alignment: Source and target queries must return compatible data types and matching column ordering. Environment Isolation: Check that query strings contain zero hardcoded hostnames, schema names, or environment paths. Secret Hygiene: Ensure queries contain no hardcoded credentials or connection strings. Warehouse Pushdown: Confirm filtering and heavy aggrega

Hi everyone, I am heading into my final year of my BTech at a tier 1 college in India and just wrapped up a Physical AI internship at a MNC, working heavily with NVIDIA Isaac Sim and OpenFOAM. My background is fully focused on robotics and autonomy. My tech stack includes: Simulation & Middleware: Isaac Sim, Gazebo, ROS / ROS 2, PX4 Autopilot. Perception & Control: VIO, SLAM (RTAB-Map), Nav2, depth perception, and reinforcement learning. Hardware: Strong hands-on experience building autonomous drones and rovers for national competitions. I really enjoy bridging simulation and physical systems, and I want to pursue Physical AI full-time. I’d love some advice from engineers in this space: Job Market: How is the entry-level hiring market looking for Physical AI roles right now? Global Opportunities: As a new grad based in India, what is the best path to target international roles? Skill Gap: What specific frameworks or skills should I double down on during my final year to stand out? Any candid advice would be hugely appreciated! Thanks submitted by /u/avianbob [link] [留言]

Dario Amodei is pushing back against the idea that he's been painting an overly pessimistic picture of AI.

Clean architecture in Flutter is the single biggest reason the production apps I ship stay maintainable after a year of feature churn. Over 4+ years building iOS and Android apps, I've watched "just put the logic in the widget" turn setState spaghetti into a codebase nobody wants to touch. This guide walks through how I actually split a Flutter app into domain , data , and presentation layers with BLoC — using one concrete feature so you can copy the structure into your own project today. I'll build a small "Todos" feature end to end: an entity, a use case, a repository with a DTO mapper, and a Cubit that drives the UI. The point isn't the todo list — it's the boundaries between layers and why each one earns its keep. Why clean architecture in Flutter pays off The core idea is the dependency rule : source-code dependencies point inward . The UI knows about the domain; the domain knows about nothing. Your business rules never import Flutter, Firebase, Dio, or Supabase. That inversion buys three things I care about on every project: Testability. Domain logic runs in plain Dart unit tests — no widget pump, no emulator, no network. Swappable infrastructure. Move from REST to GraphQL, or Firestore to a local SQLite cache, by rewriting one data-layer class. The domain and UI don't change. Parallel work. Once the domain contract exists, one person builds the API client while another builds the screen against a fake. Here's the layer breakdown I use, and what's allowed to live in each: Layer Knows about Contains Depends on Domain Nothing external Entities, repository interfaces , use cases Pure Dart only Data Domain + the outside world DTOs, mappers, repository implementations , data sources Domain Presentation Domain Blocs/Cubits, states, widgets Domain Notice the data and presentation layers both depend on domain, and domain depends on neither. That's the whole game. Folder structure that scales I organise by feature first, then by layer . A flat models/ , services/ , scr

Your agent calls get_weather(city="London") . The provider ships a new model version. Now it calls get_weather(location="London, UK") , your downstream parser breaks, and nothing in CI told you. I built a small library for exactly this failure: pip install toolcontract GitHub: https://github.com/Divyansh2202/toolcontract PyPI: https://pypi.org/project/toolcontract/ You pin a golden set of expected tool calls as a contract, re-run them against the live model, and get pass / fail / inconclusive with a diff showing what changed. It is not an eval framework. promptfoo, DeepEval and the rest score whether an output is good — semantic quality, usually judged by another model. toolcontract asks a narrower, cheaper question: is the tool call structurally the same as the one I pinned? Same tool, same argument shape, same trajectory. That is a regression test, not an eval, and it is the question that matters when a provider bumps a version under you. Details: pass / fail / INCONCLUSIVE — anything the structural comparators cannot resolve is never silently turned into a pass or a fail trajectory matching: strict, unordered, subset, superset optional argument support, so you can assert a field must stay absent works with OpenAI, Anthropic, anything OpenAI-compatible, or via LiteLLM thin pytest plugin, and a CLI that produces the same verdicts without pytest MIT Happy to hear where this breaks. It's v0.1.

With all the hype in the past several years around AI (or more specifically GenAI), I'm not afraid to say – I'm an AI skeptic. It doesn't mean that I don't believe that some day AI may have a huge impact on human beings' lives, but at the moment, all I can see is irrational hype. In my background, I came from infra-security; I am not a developer, nor do I consider myself an AI expert. I am a cloud architect, meaning I'm looking at proposed architectures, seeing how they suit business requirements, and whether they are deployed in a secure, resilient, and perhaps cost-effective way. I don't see value in adding AI to every design, just for the sake of saying "our application now includes AI". I've been watching the industry since 2023 go nuts. Suddenly, everyone is eager to add AI capabilities, chasing some unexplained FOMO before the machines replace our jobs. I'm not against the use of AI. As a matter of fact, I've been using Grammarly for many years (since, for most of us, English is not our first language). In the past several years, I've been using chatbots such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, and recently Gemini daily, asking questions about various topics and aspects of my life. From asking the bot to provide me an answer about a specific character in a favorite TV show, to "how do I resolve an alert shown on my car's dashboard," and up to "summarize this blog post for my newsletter". It's great that I can ask Gemini to create me a LinkedIn post based on an article I just read, add some emojis and hashtags, and at the end create me a cover image for the post. For a probabilistic system, this is great. I am expecting the system to be creative and produce me attractive results, sometimes even funny images. For a home consumer, this is great, but far from been ground breaking technology. I truly believe that the "big money" will come from enterprises paying a lot of money for AI-based solutions, once the industry can actually make something good from a non-deterministic s

I've seen this happen a lot. A developer builds a fast website, gets the Core Web Vitals into a good range, adds proper metadata, creates a sitemap, fixes broken links, and makes everything responsive. Then they wait for Google traffic. And... almost nothing happens. The problem is that technical SEO is only one part of SEO. A technically clean website can still struggle if Google doesn't clearly understand what the site is about, which searches it should appear for, or why its content deserves to rank. Start With Search Intent One of the easiest mistakes is creating a page around a keyword instead of a user's actual problem. For example, imagine someone searches: "how to reduce JavaScript bundle size" They probably don't want a 2,000-word definition of JavaScript bundles. They want practical answers: What is making the bundle large? How do I find the problem? What can I remove? Which tools should I use? What does a good result look like? That's search intent. Before creating a page, ask: "If I were searching this, what would I actually want to accomplish?" Then build the page around that. Don't Ignore What Your Competitors Are Doing When a page isn't ranking, don't immediately add more keywords. Look at the pages already ranking. Not just their word count. Look at: Questions they answer Topics they cover Examples they provide Tools they recommend Content structure Missing information on your own page Sometimes the biggest opportunity isn't "write more." It's cover something useful that the current results don't cover well. Developers Have a Huge SEO Advantage Developers can do something many content teams struggle with: show the actual thing. Instead of writing: "Improve your website performance." You can show a Lighthouse result, explain what caused the problem, provide the code change, and show the result afterward. That's much more useful. The same idea works for SEO. If you explain an SEO problem , include the actual query, page, code, Search Console data, expe

Take time to enable these features today before you need them; they could help save your life in an emergency.

LLMs can be surprisingly useful for company research. But I kept running into a strange split: parts of the reasoning were useful, while the financial facts underneath them were much harder to trust. A model could identify an accounting risk in one paragraph, then mix fiscal periods, accounting scopes, or currencies in the next. Missing values might quietly become zeros. A deterministic calculation could be performed probabilistically. A citation could point to a real filing without actually supporting the claim. Those are different failure modes, and treating all of them as one giant prompting problem did not feel like a reliable architecture. So I started building OpenThesis , an Apache-2.0 desktop system for evidence-first, AI-assisted company research. The project is not a stock picker or a trading bot. The idea is simpler: use ordinary software for work that should be deterministic, and give the LLM a bounded evidence set for the reasoning work where it can actually help. The monolithic prompt is doing too many jobs A common company-research workflow looks roughly like this: company question ↓ LLM ↓ answer That single model call is implicitly responsible for remembering reported values, selecting the right fiscal period, recognizing the accounting scope, finding sources, performing calculations, comparing scenarios, identifying risks, and writing a conclusion. Some of those tasks are probabilistic by nature. Others are not. Qualitative reasoning, connecting evidence, forming scenarios, and challenging an assumption are reasonable uses of a language model. Remembering an exact reported value, deciding whether a value is missing, and calculating a margin or valuation are poor places to accept probabilistic behavior. My design rule became: Deterministic work should stay deterministic. Use LLMs for reasoning, not as the database and calculator underneath the reasoning. Evidence before reasoning OpenThesis starts from official filings rather than from model memory o

The results should be out soon. Let’s share them, guys. From my batch (Applied Track) Total 13 submissions: - 2 full papers - 1 short paper accepted Cheers! submitted by /u/d_edge_sword [link] [留言]

An object observed by the James Webb Space Telescope lends credence to a strange explanation for the mysterious red spots in the early universe.

Nearly a decade after its debut, Samsung’s Galaxy Fold finally comes into its own.

With automatic mapping, Spot Mode functionality, and smart AI cameras, the TerraMow V1000 is the complete package.

The installation utility EasyDMG makes it so you never drag and drop an icon again.

In 2027 and 2028, there will be two spectacular, long-duration solar eclipses. Here’s what you need to know about them.

ECA was positioned as a successor to SE . The idea behind ECA is quite simple. Unlike SE which reduces the channel means into a smaller hidden layer, it directly uses a 1d convolution kernel on the channel means themselves, avoiding the need for dimensionality reduction. The results are undeniable: ECA is a clear improvement over SE. The authors claim that cross-channel interaction is a key ingredient. But on a conceptual level, the design of ECA doesn't make much sense. Let's take a step back. Why do we use convolutions in the first place? Convolutions are fundamentally designed for data with an underlying topology (e.g. space or time). They assume locality (adjacent elements interact) and translation invariance (the same kernel applies everywhere). Sliding a kernel across a 2D image works because coordinates have meaning, and the statistical properties of an image are largely stationary across the frame. This isn't perfectly true - which is why modern CNNs have moved towards dynamic convolutions - but it's still good enough to be useful. If you randomly permuted the pixels in an image, a convolution would be meaningless. Now consider tabular data. Suppose we have 32 channels e.g. [cost, weight, material, colour, volume, speed, ...]. Using a CNN architecture for this kind of data is clearly inappropriate. A 1d kernel of width 3 would be moved across the channels, so that [cost, weight, material] was input and also [ weight, material, colour] was input and so on, and have to somehow output something meaningful. ECA is doing exactly this type of computation. ECA does a 1d convolution over the channel dimension. It is a cursed convolution because tabular data does not have a topology to suit it. In practice, if you did use a CNN on tabular data, I would expect better than random performance because neural networks are ridiculously good at fitting to the dataset given their constraints and would reorganise the channel order (using the initial 1x1 projection layer) to s

​ Scaled dot-product attention (SDPA) computes its Attention by computing the similarity-scores of all image-tokens with all query tokens which results in O(N²·d) complexity. SSOG (Sum Of Separable Gaussians) instead learns a few Gaussian atoms for each head and only geometrically steers them based on the query token. Since the atoms can be factorized into a separable sum of Gaussians this leads to a reduced complexity of O(N·√N·d). Experiments show that SSOG clearly beats SDPA on small data (cifar100), and delivers equivalent performance and much faster convergence on bigger datasets like IN1k. All that while being much faster and memory efficient with increasing scale. Have a look at the full blog-post and repo to see more results and ablations and let me know what you think. Blog-post: https://pisoni.ai/posts/ssog Repo: https://github.com/4rtemi5/ssog *AI was used for some of the code and some of the blog-post but I put a lot of effort into this project and stand behind every word. submitted by /u/4rtemi5 [link] [留言]

Observatories have been built in mines, deep under the Antarctic ice sheet, and elsewhere in an effort to detect the fleeting particles.

When many people are first learning how to code, they find it difficult and when they ask, "How can I get better at coding?" they are usually told, "With time and practise it will get easier." . But instead of using so much time and effort to get better at coding using hard programming languages, what if coding could get better for you instead of you getting better at coding ? Well, this is the reason that inspired me to make a new programming language called Sofya . Sofya is designed to be so simple (even simpler than Python ) so that anyone can find programming easy and fun. But to prove my point, let us use an example. Let us say that we want to make a program that will show us all the numbers from 1 to 20 . Let us compare how this program will look like in Python and Sofya . The Python Program for number in range ( 1 , 21 ): print ( number ) The Sofya Program Variable Number is 0 Do this { Increase Variable[Number] by 1 Write Variable[Number] on the screen } Until Variable[Number] = 20 From this example, we can see that the Sofya program is easier than the Python program, for a beginner in programming, for the following reasons: Sofya uses simpler commands than Python: It is easier for a beginner in programming to remember the command Do this...Until Variable[Number] = 20 , which is used for making a loop, as compared to the command for number in range(1, 21): . Sofya's syntax is closer to English as compared to Python's syntax: When we are making a loop variable in Sofya, we simply say Variable Number is 0 rather than saying number in range(1, 21) in Python. The Sofya program can easily be understood by anyone even if it is the first time that they are seeing it as compared to Python: A beginner in programming can easily tell that in the line where we say Increase Variable[Number] by 1 , that we are increasing the value of the variable called 'Number' by 1 as compared to the line number in range(1, 21) in Python. If you would like to try out Sofya for yourself