标签：#RAM

A sleep-like phase that consolidates noisy daily experience into durable memory — 75% vs 100% recall. TL;DR: There's a wave of 2026 research giving AI a "sleep" phase — time spent not answering questions, just tidying up what it learned that day. I built a 90-line demo of the idea. The agent that "sleeps" remembers 100% of what it learned. The exact same agent without sleep remembers only 75% and gets confused by bad info. Runs on a laptop. The memory problem every AI app hits If you've built anything with an LLM, you know the pain: the model only "remembers" what's in its current context window. Once the conversation gets long enough, the oldest stuff scrolls off the top and is just... gone. Forgotten. The usual fix is "make the context window bigger." But that's like fixing a messy desk by buying a bigger desk. It's expensive, and the model still gets worse as you cram more in (a real, measured effect — more text in the window can actually lower accuracy). Your brain doesn't work this way. You don't remember every sentence anyone said today. While you sleep, your brain replays the day, keeps the important bits as long-term memory, and dumps the rest. That's how you remember "I like coffee" without remembering every single cup. A couple of 2026 papers ask the obvious question: Do Language Models Need Sleep? Their answer: giving an AI a quiet "offline" phase to consolidate memories makes it remember better. So I built the simplest version that shows why. The 10-second version ❌ Agent with no sleep ✅ Agent that sleeps How it remembers keeps only the last N messages saves a tidy summary every night After 30 noisy days 75% recall 100% recall Tricked by bad info? yes no — it goes with what it saw most often Same experiences, same noise, same memory test. The only difference is whether the agent sleeps. How it works Each "day," the agent hears facts like Alice → drinks → coffee . To make it realistic, about 1 in 5 facts is wrong (people misremember, logs have errors). Th

A tiny Darwin Gödel Machine that edits itself and keeps only changes that verifiably score higher. TL;DR: I built a small program that improves itself . It looks at the tasks it's failing, edits its own code to fix them, and keeps a change only if the change actually makes it score better on a test. It goes from passing 1 of 8 tasks to 8 of 8 — and nobody wrote those fixes but the program itself. It runs on a laptop in under a second. No fancy hardware, no API key. The old dream: software that improves itself Normally, software only gets better when we make it better. You write code, you find a bug, you fix it, you ship again. The program never improves on its own. People have wanted "software that improves itself" for decades. The classic version (called a "Gödel Machine") had one rule that made it impossible to build: before the program could change a line of its own code, it had to mathematically prove the change would help. Proving that about real code is basically impossible, so the idea never worked. In 2025, researchers found a way around it with the Darwin Gödel Machine . They dropped the "prove it first" rule and replaced it with something every engineer already trusts: Try the change. Run the tests. If the score went up, keep it. If not, throw it away. That's it. It's basically how we all work — make an edit, run the test suite, keep what passes. The twist is that the program is the one making the edits. In the real paper, this let an AI coding assistant improve its own tooling and jump from solving 20% to 50% of a hard benchmark of real GitHub issues. I wanted to actually see this happen, so I built the tiniest version I could. The 10-second version Start After improving itself What it can do only uppercase learned 6 more skills on its own Test score 🔴 1 / 8 🟢 8 / 8 Who wrote the fixes? — the program did Start: ███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 1/8 (only knows: uppercase) +reverse ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░ 2/8 +dedup_csv █████████░░░░░░░░░ 3/8 +sum_csv ████████████░░░░░░

I run an AI system that maintains itself on a schedule. One of its routines is supposed to do a job twice a week and save the result to a file. The scheduler swore it ran. Twice. lastRunAt right there - timestamped, green, smug. The file? Didn't exist. Not "saved in the wrong folder" - didn't exist anywhere. Here's the thing nobody warns you about when you wire up autonomous agents: "it ran" and "it worked" are different claims, and most of your dashboards only check the first one. The trap A scheduler firing a job tells you a process started . It tells you nothing about whether the job did the thing. My routine started, hit an early error reading a file that didn't exist yet, and just... ended. No crash. No red anywhere. It "ran." It produced nothing. For days. If I'd trusted the green checkmark, I'd still think it was fine. How I found it I stopped reading the status and went to the disk. Three checks, in order: Does the output actually exist? Not "did it run" - does the artifact it's supposed to produce exist, right now, where it claims to put it? If yes - is it fresh and non-empty? A stale or empty file is a silent failure wearing a costume. If no - read the raw run log. Not the summary. The actual transcript of what the agent did, tool call by tool call. That third check is where the truth was hiding. The summary said the routine was "episodic." The transcript said something blunter: it tried to read its own memory file, got "file does not exist," and never recovered to create it. Zero write calls the entire run. It never even tried to save anything. "Episodic" and "dies before it writes" lead to completely different fixes. The summary would've sent me down the wrong one. Steal these If you run anything autonomous: "Ran" is not "worked." Health is the artifact: it exists, it's fresh, it's not empty. Not a green dot from the thing that launched it. Described is not executed. What the spec says a routine does is a hypothesis. What's on disk is the fact. When they

Instagram users could soon see more ways to tune their content.

Series: AI, Ego & Regret — Bonus Chapter Editor's Note: While compiling the old series for the...

submitted by /u/Cultural_Wheel_6936 [link] [留言]

In the landscape of modern programming, delimiters serve as the essential scaffolding that organizes logic and defines structure. Among these, curly braces—often referred to as braces or squiggly brackets—occupy a unique position. While they are ubiquitous, they are frequently the source of developer frustration and logic errors. A common pitfall for many programmers is the tendency to treat all delimiters as interchangeable, leading to a fundamental misunder身 of how a compiler or interpreter parses a script. Confusion often arises when developers conflate the purpose of curly braces with those of parentheses or square brackets. For instance, in many languages, curly braces denote a scope or a code block, whereas square brackets handle indexing. However, the nuances become even more complex when examining specific environments like R, where the semantic meaning of a symbol can shift depending on the context—moving from defining a function to facilitating list extraction. Understanding the specific curly braces semantics is not merely an academic exercise in syntax; it is a practical necessity for writing clean, maintainable code. When a developer understands why a brace is used, they can more easily debug nested structures and communicate intent to their teammates. Grasping these distinctions reduces the cognitive load required to read complex scripts and prevents the subtle bugs that emerge when syntax is used incorrectly. Curly Braces vs. Other Delimiters: Semantic Roles in R and Beyond To master programming syntax, one must move beyond recognizing symbols and begin understanding their semantic intent. While many developers treat curly braces as just another set of punctuation, their role is fundamentally distinct from parentheses and square brackets. Understanding the nuance of curly braces semantics is essential for writing logic that is both functional and readable. The Primary Role: Defining Code Blocks In most procedural and object-oriented languages (such as

Hello Devs 👋 AI coding assistants have changed the way many teams build software. Tasks like generating components, creating tests, writing boilerplate, or handling repetitive refactors can now happen in minutes instead of hours. The productivity gain is real and that part is easy to notice. What becomes interesting after using these tools for a while is that a different bottleneck starts appearing. Code generation becomes faster, but the review process often stays the same. Teams can generate hundreds of lines of code within minutes, but someone still has to answer important questions: Does this actually solve the requirement? Are edge cases covered? Will this introduce side effects? Does it align with existing patterns? The speed of writing code has changed. The need for confidence has not. That is where I think the conversation around AI-assisted development is starting to shift. The challenge is becoming less about generating code and more about making sure the generated code is actually safe to ship. The Problem With Reviewing AI-Generated Code Like Regular Code Imagine asking an AI coding assistant to implement coupon validation for premium users. Add coupon validation for premium users and create tests A few seconds later you get: if ( user . isPremium ){ applyCoupon (); } Nothing immediately looks wrong. The code is clean, there are no syntax issues, tests may pass, and the implementation appears complete. But pull request reviews usually go beyond reading diffs. Reviewers start asking questions such as: What happens if the coupon has expired? Does this affect payment calculations? Should audit logs be updated? Are there services depending on this behavior? This is where AI-generated code becomes interesting. It can often be functionally correct while still missing important implementation details. Research around larger AI-generated projects has also shown that functional correctness does not necessarily translate into maintainable system design. Teams stil

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is free and source-available on Github. Star git-lrc to help devs discover the project. Do give it a try and share your feedback. A single honeybee has exactly one move: find nectar, fly it home. Impressive aviation. Add a few thousand more bees and something strange happens. Now they're making honey, cooling the hive, and defending the colony against threats ten thousand times their size, with no Jira board, no standup, and nobody handing out tickets. That jump from "can fetch nectar" to "runs a self-regulating honey factory" is the best mental model I've found for multi-agent AI systems . So let's steal it xD First, what even is an "agent"? Before we throw thousands of them at a problem, it's worth pinning down what one actually is. An AI agent is an autonomous system that performs tasks on behalf of a user (or another system) by designing its own workflow and using available tools . Three things decide how good an agent actually is: The LLM powering it i.e the brain. Its tools which is the hands. The reasoning framework is how it turns tool outputs into the next decision. A single agent is fine. It's our lone bee, and it can do real work. But ask it to research a topic, run heavy calculations, scrape five websites, and write the summary, and you start to feel the ceiling. Multi-agent systems: bees, but for compute A multi-agent system keeps each agent autonomous but lets them cooperate and coordinate inside a structure . The magic isn't any single agent, it's the choreography between them (claude which is famous for that). And there are a few classic ways to choreograph it. 1. The decentralized network (a.k.a. "everyone's a peer") Every agent can talk to every other agent. They share information and resources, and they all operate with the same authority . No boss. Just message-passing. This is your agent network . It's great for emergent, collaborative problem-solv

submitted by /u/Double_Ad641 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/bowbahdoe [link] [留言]

Time zones are one of those topics that look simple until you ship something and a user in another country sees the wrong time. Here are the traps I keep seeing, and how to reason about them in 2026. UTC is not a time zone, and GMT is not UTC UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) is a time standard, not a region. GMT is a time zone that happens to share the same offset as UTC most of the year. For storage and math, always think in UTC. Treat GMT as just another named zone. Rule 1: store timestamps in UTC Store every instant as UTC (or an epoch value). Convert to a local zone only at the edges, when you display to a user. If you store local times, you will eventually lose the offset and never recover the true instant. Rule 2: an offset is not a zone +09:00 tells you the offset right now. It does not tell you the zone, because zones change offset across the year due to daylight saving time. Store the IANA zone name (like America/New_York ), not just the offset. The offset is derived from the zone plus the date. Rule 3: DST is where it hurts The same wall-clock time can happen twice (fall back) or never (spring forward). Scheduling "9am every day" is a zone-aware operation, not an offset-aware one. Libraries like the built-in Intl.DateTimeFormat and Temporal (now widely available) handle this correctly if you give them a zone name. new Intl . DateTimeFormat ( ' en-US ' , { timeZone : ' Asia/Tokyo ' , dateStyle : ' short ' , timeStyle : ' short ' , }). format ( new Date ()); Rule 4: scheduling across teams is an overlap problem For a distributed team, the useful question is not "what time is it there" but "when do our working hours overlap". That is a set-intersection over each person's 9-to-5 expressed in UTC. A tool for the human side When I just need to eyeball overlaps and pick a meeting time without writing code, I use the free tool I built: ZonePlan , a time zone meeting planner and live world clock. If you want the practical playbook for picking meeting times, I wrote

One of the biggest realizations I've had over the last year wasn't about software. It was about focus. When I first started building KiwiEngine, I wanted it to power everything. Business software. CRMs. Inventory systems. Scheduling platforms. Accounting tools. SaaS products. If someone could build it, I wanted KiwiEngine to support it. Technically, I still do. But something changed. I realized there is a difference between building software that can solve every problem and trying to solve every problem yourself. Those aren't the same thing. The Architecture Never Changed KiwiEngine is still designed to power business applications. Nothing about the architecture changed. The modules. The APIs. The philosophy. The engine remains general-purpose. What changed was my focus. Build What You Understand I started asking myself a simple question. Who do I actually understand? Not as a developer. As a creator. The answer wasn't accountants. It wasn't HR departments. It wasn't inventory managers. The answer was musicians. Artists. Game developers. Creators. Builders. Those are the people whose problems I experience every day. Those are the workflows I naturally understand. Open Source Changes The Equation One of the beautiful things about open source is that I don't have to build every application. I can build the engine. I can document it. I can share the philosophy. Someone else can build the CRM. Someone else can build the scheduling platform. Someone else can build the accounting software. Meanwhile, I can focus on building the creative tools I genuinely want to use. The Best Proving Ground Today, KiwiEngine's proving ground is becoming: Artist websites EPKs Music production tools Digital storefronts Creative workflows Game development Media platforms Not because they're the only things KiwiEngine can build. Because they're the things I care deeply enough to refine every day. And I think that creates better software than chasing every possible market ever could.

submitted by /u/suhcoR [link] [留言]

The main website of the language https://mojolang.org/ displays an announcement bar that says "Mojo will be open source soon! Join us at ModCon '26 for an update." submitted by /u/baldierot [link] [留言]

A few years back I was a junior dev on a car financing product, and I got handed the deal jacket. A deal jacket is the full picture of a deal. How much the buyer puts down, what the car is worth, the terms, all of it packaged up and sent to a bank so the bank can come back with a yes or a no. The flow I had to build would send that package to one bank, wait about a minute for an answer, check whether the offer that came back was any good, and if it wasn't, send the whole thing to the next bank. A pipeline. Under the hood it was a recursive call with state managed in between, talking to Route One on the other side. It kept breaking. I wrote it, tested it, read the logs, fixed one thing, watched it break somewhere else. Day three, day four, still broken. Then on the fourth day I hit send in Postman one more time, watched the logs roll past, and it just worked. The approval came back clean. I jumped out of my chair. I was loud enough that the whole room looked over, and the two guys who knew what I'd been stuck on for four days were already grinning, because they knew exactly what had just happened. That feeling is the whole reason I'm writing this. Not the code. The feeling. The joy had two parts, and I only saw the second one once it was gone The first part is obvious. It's the problem solving. The thing fought back for four days and then it didn't, and I had beaten it. You chase a bug through the logs, you argue with it, and at some point it gives. That is a real high and every engineer knows it. The second part is quieter. I built that. Me. Back then if I shipped something, even a plain HTML page, it was mine end to end. I had to learn HTML before I could build the page, so the page was proof that I had learned. You could point at the thing and say that came out of my head and my hands, and nobody could take that from you. So the joy was solving the problem, and it was owning what you solved. That second part is the one that broke. Same problem, four years apart Ta

Package managers aren't as interchangeable as they seem. This post digs into the real differences in how npm, Yarn, pnpm, Bun, and Deno handle dependencies under the hood and why that matters when things break in practice. submitted by /u/OtherwisePush6424 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/gregorojstersek [link] [留言]

Cutting OpenAI Costs From Scratch: What Nobody Tells You Three months ago I sat down with my finance lead and watched her scroll through our OpenAI invoice. The number was $14,200 for the month. That was the moment I knew we had a problem. Not a "maybe we should optimize" problem — a real, existential, "this kills our margins before we hit Series B" problem. I run a B2B SaaS platform that does a lot of LLM-powered document processing. Summarization, extraction, classification, the boring stuff that makes real money but burns tokens like crazy. We were routing everything through GPT-4o because, honestly, it was the path of least resistance when we started. Then the bills started arriving. This is the story of how I cut our LLM spend by 97%, the architecture decisions that made it possible, and the things I wish someone had told me before I started. The Math That Made Me Sweat Let me put actual numbers on the table. Here's what I was paying versus what I pay now: Model Provider Input $/M Output $/M vs GPT-4o GPT-4o OpenAI $2.50 $10.00 — GPT-4o-mini OpenAI $0.15 $0.60 16.7× cheaper DeepSeek V4 Flash Global API $0.18 $0.25 40× cheaper Qwen3-32B Global API $0.18 $0.28 35.7× cheaper DeepSeek V4 Pro Global API $0.57 $0.78 12.8× cheaper GLM-5 Global API $0.73 $1.92 5.2× cheaper Kimi K2.5 Global API $0.59 $3.00 3.3× cheaper Look at that DeepSeek V4 Flash row. 40× cheaper than GPT-4o. For comparable quality on the workloads I was running. I had been leaving 97.5% of my budget on the table. Doing the mental math: a $500/month OpenAI bill becomes $12.50. My $14,200 bill? Theoretically $355. That's not optimization, that's a different business. Why I Almost Didn't Do It Here's the thing nobody tells you about cost optimization at a startup: it's not a technical problem, it's a willpower problem. The reason I was paying OpenAI 40× too much wasn't because their API is hard to use. It was because switching felt risky. I had deadlines. I had a roadmap. I had investors asking about g

Originally published on the Keylight blog . A short founder note on why Keylight exists. Every product starts as somebody's unsolved problem; this is mine, and if you are shipping a paid app you have probably run into the same one. The problem I kept hitting I wanted to sell a desktop app directly. Not through the App Store — directly, to customers I could actually talk to. The payment side was easy: Stripe is excellent and the decision took an afternoon. Then I got to licensing, and everything slowed down. Stripe takes the money. It does not give you a license key. It does not sign anything your app can verify. It does not know what a device activation is. The moment a customer has paid, you are on your own: you need to mint a key, sign it so it cannot be forged, deliver it, let the app check it, track devices, and revoke it on a refund. None of that is payment processing, so none of it is in Stripe. So I looked at the platforms that do bundle licensing. Why the merchant-of-record platforms did not fit Paddle, Gumroad, and Lemon Squeezy all advertise license keys. I looked hard at each, and the same three problems came up. The fee. As merchants of record they charge around 5%, against Stripe's ~2.9%. On every sale, forever. Reasonable if it solved my problem well — but it did not. Offline validation. This was the dealbreaker. Their licensing is built around an online validation API: to check a key, the app calls the platform's server. My app is a desktop app, and desktop apps run on planes, behind firewalls, and offline. An online-only check leaves no good option. Fail closed — refuse to run without a server response — and a paying customer who is simply offline cannot use what they bought. Fail open — keep running when the server is unreachable — and the check is trivially bypassed: block the app's network access and it can never re-check the license or learn it was revoked. The app never actually verifies anything itself; it only knows what the server last told i