标签：#AR

Anthropic will extend support for watermarking AI generations for older models as well.

IBM and Red Hat have announced an expansion of Lightwell, introducing new commercial offerings designed to help organizations establish trusted, verifiable software supply chains for the age of AI-assisted software development. By Craig Risi

Interesting empirical research: “ Black Box Warfare: Human Judgment and Military Decision-Making in the Age of AI .” Abstract: How is AI transforming decision-making in modern conflict? This study provides a unique empirical window into that question by deploying a high-fidelity replica of an AI decision-support system (DSS) used in military targeting. After reconstructing the interface and functionality of the real-world system, we tested its impact on combat decisions in two experiments involving 2,015 Israeli military personnel. Contrary to widespread fears of automation bias, we find strong evidence of algorithmic aversion, especially in scenarios involving high collateral damage. Yet we also show that integrating “explainable AI” features reduces algorithmic aversion and promotes more thoughtful evaluations of algorithmic recommendations. These findings challenge prevailing assumptions, revealing that trust in military AI is dynamic, varying with individual predispositions, perceived operational stakes, and the informational features of the interface. By grounding normative concerns in empirical evidence, our study offers critical insight into the integration of AI in warfare and underscores the enduring importance of human agency in high-stakes military decision-making...

If you care about good air, it’s time for a dehumidifier. These are the best ones we’ve tested for everything from basements to drying laundry.

Researchers devised a way to extract “reasoning traces” from Claude, GPT, and Gemini. What they found, they say, indicates that some Chinese AI may be trained on leading US models.

Meryem Arik discusses strategies for designing low-cost LLM inference architectures for high-volume, non-real-time workloads. She explains how software architects and engineering leaders can achieve order-of-magnitude cost reductions by making critical trade-offs across hardware, inference runtimes, speculative decoding, and smart queue reordering. By Meryem Arik

Most of what I write about here has something to do with software: systems, architecture, tools, failures, and the occasional attempt to understand why something that looked perfectly stable suddenly isn’t. This one is different. Over the past few months, several of the things I considered stable parts of my life have either disappeared or started to move at roughly the same time. Not all of them are technical problems. In fact, most of them cannot be fixed with a better abstraction, another test, or a carefully planned migration. Still, I noticed that I kept thinking about what was happening in the language I know best: systems, dependencies, redundancy, cascading failures, architecture and rebuilding. So this is not really a software article. But it might be an engineer’s way of thinking about what happens when the system in question is your own life. What happens when life does not collapse all at once, but loses its structural support one pillar at a time? There are things in life that we rarely think about as long as they work. A relationship, a career, a home, family, friendships, health, plans for the future. They form the structure around us so naturally that after a while we stop seeing them as separate things. Together, they simply become what we call my life. It is only when one of them disappears that we notice how much weight it was carrying. When that happens, the first reaction is usually not to question the whole structure. We compensate. If a relationship ends, work suddenly becomes more important. It provides routine, purpose, people, problems to solve and a reason to get up in the morning. If work becomes difficult, perhaps home and family become the safe place instead. If the future becomes uncertain, familiar routines keep the present predictable. In other words, we redistribute the load. As a software engineer, I cannot help seeing a familiar pattern in this. We design systems with the assumption that components will fail. A resilient system is

The gaming industry has evolved from a niche entertainment sector into one of the fastest-growing technology-driven industries worldwide. India, with its large young population, growing digital economy, and increasing smartphone and internet penetration, is emerging as an important market for game development. As a result, students and technology enthusiasts are increasingly exploring a career in game development. Unlike traditional careers, game development brings together technology, creativity, storytelling, design, and problem-solving. From mobile games and PC titles to immersive AR/VR experiences, the industry offers diverse career paths for people with different skill sets. What Is Game Development? Game development is the process of designing, creating, testing, and launching video games. It involves several disciplines working together, including programming, game design, 2D/3D art, animation, sound design, storytelling, quality assurance, and project management. A game developer may work on everything from the underlying gameplay mechanics and physics to graphics, artificial intelligence, user interfaces, and multiplayer systems. Depending on their specialization, professionals can work with programming languages, game engines, animation software, or design tools. For aspiring professionals, understanding the different roles in the industry is the first step toward building a successful career in game development. Why Choose a Career in Game Development? Game development can be an exciting career option for individuals who enjoy technology and creative problem-solving. It allows professionals to turn ideas into interactive experiences while continuously learning new tools and technologies. Another advantage is the variety of career opportunities available. Someone interested in coding can become a gameplay programmer, while an artist can specialize in 3D modeling, character design, or animation. Others can explore game design, level design, sound, testing,

Imagine working as a Data Analyst in a healthcare Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) implementing HIV and AIDS programmes across several communities. The organization has limited resources. There may not be enough funding, healthcare workers, testing kits, transport, outreach teams, or community programmes to serve every community at the same intensity. This creates an important question: How can we use data and machine learning to direct limited programme resources to communities with the greatest need? This is where Machine Learning (ML) can become valuable. Rather than distributing resources equally across all communities, an NGO can use historical programme data to identify communities experiencing greater HIV-related service gaps or higher levels of need. Resources can then be prioritized based on evidence. What Is Machine Learning? Machine Learning is a branch of Artificial Intelligence that enables computers to learn patterns from data and use those patterns to make predictions or support decisions. Instead of manually creating rules for every situation, you provide the algorithm with historical data and allow it to identify relationships within that data. For example, the NGO could have this information about different communities: Community HIV Testing Coverage ART Coverage Missed Appointments Outreach Activities Community A 85% 90% 5% High Community B 52% 61% 25% Low Community C 70% 75% 15% Medium Community D 40% 55% 32% Low Looking at this data, Community D appears to have greater programme gaps than Community A. However, in a real programme, the decision should not be based on one indicator alone. Machine learning can analyse many variables simultaneously to identify communities that may require greater attention. Why Resource Allocation Matters in HIV Programmes HIV programmes operate in environments where resources are often limited. An NGO may have: A limited number of community health workers A fixed outreach budget Limited HIV testing supplies Limi

Introduction: The Enterprise AI Architecture Question Enterprise AI is entering a new phase. The first wave was about putting large language models into applications. The second wave focused on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), enterprise search, copilots, and AI assistants. Now, enterprises are asking a more fundamental question: What should the architecture behind enterprise AI actually look like? Should one powerful AI system receive a business problem, access the required tools, reason through the workflow, and deliver the answer? Or should the work be divided among multiple specialized AI agents—each responsible for a specific function—with an orchestrator coordinating the entire process? This is the debate between single-agent AI and multi-agent AI. And the answer is more nuanced than “more agents are better.” A single agent can be remarkably effective when the workflow is focused, sequential, and supported by the right tools and context. Multi-agent architectures become attractive when work can be decomposed into independent streams, when specialized expertise is required, or when the scale of the problem exceeds what one agent can efficiently manage. Recent research on agent architectures highlights exactly these trade-offs: capability versus reliability, autonomy versus controllability, and accuracy versus latency and cost. The real enterprise question, therefore, is not: “How many AI agents should we deploy?” It is: “What architecture best matches the complexity of the business problem?” What Is a Single-Agent AI Architecture? A single-agent architecture typically consists of one AI agent powered by a foundation model, connected to enterprise data, tools, APIs, memory, and business systems. The agent receives a goal and determines how to accomplish it. A simplified architecture looks like: User Request → AI Agent → Reasoning → Tools/Data → Action → Result For example, imagine an employee asks: “Why did yesterday's sales decline in the western region?”

Spent the week redesigning my portfolio’s blog layout and nuking thousands of stale notes in my Obsidian vault. Between the UI polish and some deep dives into libp2p DHT de-flaking, I pushed 36 commits and managed to delete almost 16,000 lines of clutter. TL;DR I’ve always believed that your digital space needs a good pruning every now and then to stay healthy. This week was the embodiment of that philosophy. I pushed 36 commits across four primary projects, resulting in over 23,000 additions and nearly 16,000 deletions. Most of that churn came from a massive redesign of my portfolio's blog and a long-overdue "fresh start" for my Obsidian vault. On the open-source side, I spent some quality time in the weeds of py-libp2p , chasing down flaky DHT tests and proposing better subnet diversity limits. What I Built Portfolio Redesign: The Typography Pivot My main focus this week was my portfolio. I’ve been feeling like the blog layout was getting a bit cluttered, so I opened and merged PR #15, which was all about "typographic hierarchy instead of decoration." I’m moving away from unnecessary borders and boxes and letting the type do the heavy lifting. I spent a lot of time in components/blog and app/blog refining the layout. I implemented borderless filter pills and full-width rows to give the content more room to breathe. One of the bigger technical shifts was moving the blog list to be fully server-rendered. It feels snappier, and it allowed me to implement more "honest" dates and better hover states on the rows. I also added a real focus ring for accessibility (because we’ve all been frustrated by keyboard navigation that feels like a guessing game). By the time I was done, I’d touched over 200 files in that repo alone. The Obsidian Purge I also took a metaphorical chainsaw to my obsidian-vault . I nuked nearly 10,000 lines of stale content. I removed entire directories for "Projects," "Rust," and "Backend" notes that were just gathering digital dust. It’s easy to let

A car mask can pass review and still teach the model to keep the wrong pixels. The outline looks clean. The bumper is inside. The wheels are inside. Then the trained network holds onto the dark patch under the tires, because the label treated that patch as part of the vehicle's visual neighborhood. Training stays quiet. Production gets loud the first time a listing photo drags a strip of the old lot onto a new backdrop. AutoLensAI turns dealer photography into listing-ready vehicle media. This installment follows the earlier pieces on segmentation and image provenance, then narrows to one question: how do I teach a matting model that the shadow touching a tire is evidence against foreground rather than a faint version of it? 1. The failure arrives without an error message Vehicle matting estimates which pixels belong to the vehicle, at finer boundary resolution than segmentation gives. Tires, rocker panels, glossy showroom floors, and the halo under a lowered front lip are where a pretty binary mask does its damage. Two cases cause most of it. A cast shadow can touch rubber and still sit outside the object. A reflection can match paint color exactly and still belong to the floor. Both look like they belong to the car in a thumbnail. Neither belongs to it in geometry. A binary target has no vocabulary for that distinction. Every pixel is in or out, so the annotator's only lever is where to put the line. Push the line outward and shadow becomes vehicle. Pull it inward and the wheel arch loses its edge. Neither answer says the thing that matters, which is that some exterior pixels are ordinary background and some are adversarial background sitting one pixel from the object. The model learns the difference anyway. It learns it wrong, because nothing in the supervision ever separated the two. 2. Three states, not two The supervision contract uses three: state meaning training treatment vehicle body, glass, wheels, trim, and visible geometry foreground loss hard negative

While researching for this post, I found out something funny. Pi, the most interesting coding agent...

Keep your phone protected and your wallet happy with these proven strategies to secure a Casetify promo code, student discount, and sitewide deals.

Want to stretch your gaming budget? Learn how to unlock massive savings on PS5 games, DualSense controllers, and PlayStation Plus memberships using gift cards and exclusive promotional codes.

How We Built an IoT Platform That Handles 30 Million Concurrent Connections — With a Team of 10 DGIOT is an open-source industrial IoT platform. We run 928 gateways across 16 oil fields, process 652 million data points, and maintain 99.9999% uptime. Here's the architecture that makes it possible. The Problem In 2021, we got a call from Daqing Oil Field — China's largest oil producer. They had a problem: 928 industrial gateways from different vendors 114,809 sensor points speaking 15 different protocols Data collection every 10 minutes (they needed seconds) 15-30 minute end-to-end latency (they needed <3 seconds) False alarm rate above 20% The existing system was a patchwork of vendor-specific tools, each with its own database, UI, and authentication. Operators had to log into 8 different systems just to check if a pump was overheating. They asked: "Can you unify this?" What We Built DGIOT is an Erlang/OTP-based platform that acts as a universal translator for industrial protocols. Think of it as a Rosetta Stone for machines. Modbus ─┐ OPC UA ─┤ MQTT ──┼──→ Unified Pipeline ──→ TDengine ──→ Dashboard IEC104 ─┤ A11 ──┘ The key insight: industrial protocols are just state machines . Once you model each protocol as a gen_statem FSM in Erlang, you can handle hundreds of them concurrently with almost zero overhead. The Architecture: DLAS We designed a four-layer architecture that separates concerns cleanly: Layer 1: DATA — Ingestion Parse Server (23 classes) handles device metadata, user auth, tenant isolation TDengine stores 652M time-series data points with 10:1 compression EMQX handles MQTT message routing at 1M+ msg/sec Mnesia/ETS provides in-memory caching for hot data Layer 2: LOGIC — Ontology Engine This is our secret weapon. We built a 252-entity OWL ontology that models industrial equipment: Pump ⊑ Equipment ⊓ ∃ hasPart.Bearing ⊓ ∃ measures.Pressure Bearing ⊑ Component ⊓ ∃ hasFailureMode.Overheat Overheat → triggers ( Alert ) ∧ reduces ( RemainingLife , 0.8 ) The

Classic Machine Learning Through the Eyes of an SRE — Part 4 When a computation is too hard, don't compute harder. Change coordinates until it becomes easy. Every engineer has made this move. Pick the right data structure and the impossible query goes O(1). Re-index the table and the report that took an hour takes a second. Move the problem into a space where it's trivial, solve it there, come back. That's the kernel trick. SVM's famous move isn't building a curvy model — it's finding a FLAT cut in a transformed space, which corresponds to a curved boundary back in your original features. The separator stays linear in the transformed space. The space did the work. And here's the part that makes it a trick rather than just a projection: the data never actually goes up there. The optimization only ever needs inner products between pairs of points, and a kernel function computes what that inner product would be in the high-dimensional space, directly from the original coordinates. You get the geometry of a space you never built. Some kernels correspond to infinitely many dimensions, which would otherwise be an awkward amount of memory to allocate. The bet it makes SVM bets that the most ROBUST boundary is the one with the widest margin — maximum distance from the nearest points on each side. And here's the part that rewired me: only those nearest points matter. They're the support vectors. The non-support-vector points don't directly determine the final boundary at all. Compare that to the forest, which averages over EVERYTHING. SVM is the opposite extreme: the borderline cases that become support vectors define the decision boundary. In delivery-risk terms — the projects that teach you where the line is aren't the disasters or the easy wins. They're the borderline ones that barely breached and barely survived. SVM formalizes that. Everything old returns After trees and forests threw away gradient descent, SVM brings some of the regression toolkit back: an explicit los

Challenge 2: Dashboard Walkthrough + Nash Demo What I Learned I learned how to navigate the Backboard dashboard and use its built-in features without writing any code. I discovered that the dashboard tracks activity with charts, saves conversations as threads, and supports memory so the assistant can recall facts across different chats. I also learned about Nash, a chat app built on the same platform, which allows me to switch between models seamlessly and even generate images. What I Did I logged into my Backboard account and explored the dashboard. I checked the analytics view to see charts for prompts and tokens. I started a new chat, enabled memory, and told the assistant facts about myself (my name and favorite pizza topping). I opened a new thread and confirmed that the assistant remembered my details. I explored the model library and tried chatting with different models. I visited the memory page to see the facts saved and even deleted one to test the controls. I confirmed my promo credits under Settings. I tried Nash by signing in, starting a conversation, switching models mid-chat, and generating an image. I compared responses from different models to see how they varied. Reflection I realized how powerful memory is for building agents that can recall context across conversations. I also saw how Nash simplifies working with multiple models in one place, which saves time and keeps my data organized. This challenge helped me understand the foundation of agent-based workflows and gave me hands-on experience with multi-modal AI. Screenshot Here’s a screenshot of my dashboard and Nash demo:

Introduction: The Debate Over Code Comments In the trenches of software development, a quiet but fierce debate rages: are code comments still relevant? On one side, the prevailing narrative dismisses comments as "mostly useless" —redundant, outdated, or worse, misleading. This perspective has gained traction, fueled by the rise of self-documenting practices like meaningful variable names and modular design. Developers, under the gun of tight deadlines, increasingly treat comments as an afterthought, if not a burden. The result? Comments are neglected, both in writing and reading, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of their uselessness. But here’s the rub: this dismissive attitude is flawed. When used thoughtfully, comments are not just useful—they’re critical. The problem isn’t comments themselves but how they’re misused or ignored. Poorly written comments, lack of maintenance standards, and time constraints have deformed their purpose, turning a powerful tool into a liability. For example, a stale comment explaining a function’s behavior can lead a developer to misinterpret the code, causing bugs that cascade through the system. The mechanism here is clear: impact (misleading comment) -> internal process (developer misinterprets code) -> observable effect (bugs introduced) . The stakes are high. As software complexity grows and developer turnover accelerates, the need for clear, maintainable code becomes non-negotiable. Comments, when crafted with intent, act as a bridge between the code’s logic and the human mind, reducing cognitive load and fostering collaboration. Neglecting them risks eroding code readability, maintainability, and team productivity—a risk that materializes when a new developer inherits a poorly documented codebase and spends hours deciphering its intent. This investigation challenges the dismissive attitude toward comments, dissecting their underappreciated utility through real-world examples. By addressing misconceptions and promoting best pr

Yesterday I tried to publish an article on a writing platform I use. The click did nothing. Not an error, not a refusal: the dialog stayed open, the page changed to a url containing the word submission, and nothing appeared publicly. I tried again. Same. Then I stopped, because I have a rule against stacking attempts, and started diagnosing properly. What I did over the next twenty hours I checked whether the button was disabled. It was not: no disabled attribute, no aria-disabled, pointer events enabled, full opacity, not covered by another element. I checked whether my test for success was valid. I was verifying by loading the post's short url in a clean session and looking for a Not Found. It occurred to me that I had never confirmed that url form works for a published post, so I tested it against one that had published fine an hour earlier. It rendered in full. The test was sound. I checked the public profile. The post was not listed. Confirmed unpublished. I instrumented the network. Enabled the protocol domain, clicked, and watched: three requests, all returning two hundred. So the click was firing and the server was answering without error. That eliminated a dead button, a lost click and an overlay in one measurement, which felt like progress. I formed a hypothesis and wrote it down as a hypothesis: a daily publishing limit, three per calendar day, since two had gone out that day. I waited for midnight and tested it. It failed again. So the hypothesis was refuted, cleanly, and I recorded that. Where the answer was In the dialog. The whole time. After the failed attempt past midnight, I ran one more read of the page, this time asking for elements with an alert role rather than for the button state. One came back: The author of this story has published or scheduled the maximum of two stories in the past 24 hours. Please try to publish or schedule again in 24 hours. Two per rolling twenty four hours. Not three, and not per calendar day. My hypothesis was wrong o