标签：#an

Understanding unique photochemistry of such materials will help in conservation, storage, and exhibition.

El chatbot va último: cómo ordeno las cinco automatizaciones que más me piden Tengo 16 flujos en producción para pymes y la lista de pedidos se repite casi siempre igual. Lo que no se repite es cuál conviene hacer primero. La discusión habitual las ordena por dificultad de construcción, y esa es la métrica equivocada. Construir es la parte barata: el modelo escribe la mayor parte. Lo que se paga después es el mantenimiento, y ahí el orden se da vuelta. Van las cinco, ordenadas por lo que cuesta sostenerlas, de la peor a la mejor. 5. Responder consultas frecuentes La que todos piden primero y la que más mantenimiento tiene. Parece contenida: son las mismas veinte preguntas. No lo es, porque el contexto que necesita se mueve todo el tiempo. Cambia el catálogo, cambian los precios, cambia el horario en verano. Meta cambia requisitos de la API. El modelo se actualiza y el mismo prompt deja de comportarse igual. Y sobre todo: es la única de las cinco donde el error lo ve el cliente . Un bot que inventa un precio no genera un ticket interno, genera un reclamo. Si igual va primera —y a veces va, porque es la que se ve—, presupuestala con el abono adentro desde el día uno. 4. Turnos y reservas La más engañosa de la lista. Tomar un turno es trivial; el problema es todo lo demás. Cancelaciones, reprogramaciones, dos personas pidiendo el mismo horario con cuatro segundos de diferencia, el turno que se cargó a mano en el sistema y el bot no vio. Es estado compartido con escritura concurrente , que es un problema viejo y conocido, disfrazado de chatbot. Si la agenda vive en un sistema con API decente, baja bastante. Si vive en un Google Calendar que además tocan tres personas a mano, no la subestimes. 3. Mover datos entre sistemas La que más valor devuelve y la que menos depende de vos. El trabajo real casi nunca es la transformación de los datos: es el sistema del otro lado. Y en pymes ese sistema suele ser uno de gestión local, sin API pública, sin documentación, y con un prov

Dreame, the Chinese vacuum company that aspires to be a global technology giant, is reportedly shutting down its automotive project after funding from the government dried up. According to CarNewsChina, the company's automotive division called "Project Starry Sky" once employed over 1,000 people, but now only a handful legal and HR staffers remain, charged with […]

A polished update to Google’s foldable brings real improvements, but the price bump and rampant competition make it a tough sell.

It's currently only appearing on Pixels running Android 17.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but there's a lot of software that just isn't very good. This isn't to say that I make the best software or am somehow better than the people who created all of this software. It's just an observation that the standards of what is deemed "shippable" seems to be at an all time low. We are so used to errors and interactions not working the first time that we all have a personal troubleshooting loop. Bugs and broken interactions are just becoming the norm because, as users, we've learned to accept them. One experience yesterday made this point especially poignant to me. Since my wife and I just moved, we're approaching our first bill cycle. I have six or seven different services that I needed to set up my online accounts with. This was an onslaught. Misconfigured form inputs. Forms getting cleared on errors. Logins not persisting. Disabled paste for bank account numbers (I think this one might be more standard, but paste will always be more accurate than me typing it manually, and I will die on this hill). Pages straight up crashing. Some companies already had an online account for us at our old house, and trying to get that user account to point to a new service account number was a trial out of the fifth circle of hell. I did eventually get everything set up the way that I needed to. But, it was a harrowing experience. Amidst the muck, our trash company of all services had an excellent user experience. The website looked like something from the early 2000s. It had un-styled form inputs and full page loads when navigating (*gasp*). But, I created a new account using my account number and paid our first bill, with some helpful error messages that didn't wipe out all of the inputs that I'd already entered, all in about three minutes. I don't have a bow to put on this rant, but I do think that it's ironic that in the name of UX, we've adopted systems that are so complex and abstract that it's perfectly acceptable for a form submission to w

MyAnimeList Module This module is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by MyAnimeList. All data returned by this module is provided by MyAnimeList. Version 1.0.5 Installation Install myanimelist-module with npm npm install myanimelist-module Usage/Examples const { MyAnimeList } = require ( ' myanimelist-module ' ) const mal = new MyAnimeList ({ client_id : `YOUR_MAL_CLIENT_ID` // Get it here: https://myanimelist.net/apiconfig }) async function test () { const response = await mal . getAnimeInfo ({ name : " Anime name " }) if ( response . error ) { console . error ( response . error ) } else { console . log ( response . datas ) } } test () All functions new MyAnimeList() Parameter Type Description client_id string Required . Your MAL Client ID getAnimeInfo() Parameter Type Description name string Required . fields [array] Optional. More information in the "Available fields" section. limit number Optional. Number of items in the response. (Maximum of 100) offset number Optional. Default : 0 nsfw boolean Optional. Default: false getAnimeInfoByURL() Parameter Type Description api_url string Required . You must use any valid MyAnimeList API link. It also works with older responses via response.datas.paging.next and response.datas.paging.previous . getSpecificAnimeInfo() Parameter Type Description name string Required . fields [array] Optional. More information in the "Available fields" section. nsfw boolean Optional. Default: false getAnimeInfoByID() Parameter Type Description id string Required . fields [array] Optional. More information in the "Available fields" section. nsfw boolean Optional. Default: false getAnimeRanking() Parameter Type Description type string Optional. More information in the "Available ranking types" section. fields [array] Optional. More information in the "Available fields" section. limit number Optional. Number of items in the response. (Maximum of 500) offset number Optional. Default : 0 nsfw boolean Optional. Default: false getSeasonalAnime(

The Trusted Computing Group has established a new set of requirements to help organizations determine if Trusted Platform Modules are prepared for the era of post-quantum cryptography. This guidance provides a technical benchmark for evaluating whether hardware vendors can protect electronic devices against the future threat of quantum-enabled cyber attacks. Establishing the Post-Quantum Baseline The newly released guidance provides a framework for businesses to verify the security claims made by hardware manufacturers. By creating a standardized set of requirements, the organization ensures that companies can demand proof of protection. This prevents a situation where vendors might claim their products are compliant without offering the full suite of necessary security features. A primary focus of this initiative is the PC Client Platform TPM Profile 1.07. This profile serves as the minimum technical requirement for any module to be considered ready for the next generation of cryptographic challenges. It builds upon the existing TPM 2.0 Library Specification Version 1.85 to include specific elements for quantum-safe protection. Organizations must understand that security in the quantum age involves more than just swapping out one mathematical algorithm for another. True resilience requires a comprehensive approach to hardware-anchored trust. This includes maintaining the integrity of platform identities and attestation over very long periods. Data and identities established today may need to remain secure for several decades. If the underlying hardware is not built to withstand quantum decryption methods, that long-term security is at risk. Current statistics indicate that a vast majority of businesses still lack a formal roadmap for this transition. The Trusted Computing Group president, Joe Pennisi, emphasizes that businesses must look at the broader picture of security. Individual algorithm support is only one piece of the puzzle. Real security comes from a hard

FP8 gave us a clean 1.5x on Qwen3-8B serving throughput on an RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (1,725 to 2,597 tok/s at concurrency 32, vLLM). The uncomfortable question is always the same: did the model get dumber. This post is the exact check we ran before recommending the switch, with numbers, so you can run the same one. Why "run an eval suite" is usually the wrong first answer Standard benchmarks (MMLU and friends) are noisy instruments for quantization deltas at 8B scale. Score movement inside the error bars tells you nothing about whether YOUR prompts changed behavior. What you actually want to know is narrower: on the workload you serve, does the FP8 checkpoint produce materially different outputs than BF16, and are any of the differences wrong. That is answerable directly, cheaply, and per prompt. The method Both configurations run the same fixed workload: 20 prompts covering reasoning, code, summarization, translation, extraction, classification, math, and instruction following. Greedy decoding, temperature 0, 256-token cap, streamed. Greedy matters: it removes sampling noise, so any output difference is attributable to the numerics. Then a three-stage comparison: Byte equality. outputs_bf16[i] == outputs_fp8[i] . Anything identical is settled. Similarity triage. For non-identical pairs, difflib.SequenceMatcher.ratio() sorts near-identical wording drift from real divergence. Side-by-side review under a written rubric. Every non-identical pair gets read. The rubric asks one question: is there a factual or numerical claim that one precision gets right and the other gets wrong. Wording changes, reordering, and equally-defensible readings are recorded but not counted as regressions. The core loop is small: import difflib , json bf16 = json . load ( open ( " vllm_bf16_conc1.texts.json " )) fp8 = json . load ( open ( " vllm_fp8_conc1.texts.json " )) for i , ( a , b ) in enumerate ( zip ( bf16 , fp8 )): if a == b : print ( i , " identical " ) continue r = difflib . Sequenc

Anthropic is giving Claude a shared memory across chat and Cowork, so users no longer have to repeatedly brief the AI on projects, preferences, and other context.

"[P]eople are not familiar with this disease and don’t fully understand the potential severity."

Germany's autonomous vehicle regulations have made it a hotspot for autonomous vehicle testing and eventual commercial robotaxi deployment.

"This will be a project like no other."

With the new design of Nothing OS 5.0, app icons and widgets can use adaptive color to get color tints pulled from your wallpaper, which update whenever your wallpaper changes. Alongside Android's built-in Dynamic Colors, the company says it allows you to have specific elements change to match your wallpaper "while Nothing's predominantly monochrome character […]

Image changes that would get a paper retracted are widespread among suppliers.

Polestar said the Trump administration strung it along for months before finally rejecting its request to continue selling its electric vehicles in the US under a rule outlawing vehicles with connected software from China. In an August 18th letter sent to dealers and obtained by The Verge, Polestar said it doesn't have a clear answer […]

Waymo has set up subsidiaries in several European countries this summer as it prepares to expand.

If someone has ownership, when should you check on their work? Too little involvement can mean discovering problems too late. Too much involvement becomes micromanagement. I think the difference is what the checkpoint is trying to achieve . A useful checkpoint asks: “Are we still solving the right problem, and do you need anything from me?” Micromanagement asks: “Why did you do it this way? Change this. Then do this next.” The first keeps ownership with the person. The second gradually takes it away. A checkpoint can be as simple as: Agree on the approach before starting. Share an early draft. Discuss progress after a meaningful milestone. Review the result before it becomes difficult to change. The important part is that the checkpoint should happen early enough to change the outcome , without requiring the person to get approval for every decision. The amount of checking should also change with the situation. A new engineer working on an unfamiliar problem may need frequent checkpoints. Someone experienced and familiar with the problem may need very little intervention. So the goal isn’t: “Never check.” It’s: “Check enough to reduce risk without taking away ownership.” A checkpoint should help someone succeed without making them dependent on you.

The funding, Gatik's largest so far, was led by Qatar Investment Authority and Koch Disruptive Technologies.

Ian Nowland discusses why conventional CI/CD practices break down for stateful, core infrastructure. Drawing from his leadership at AWS and Datadog, he shares actionable techniques for safe progressive deployments, synthetic testing in production, and mitigating blast radius in complex software platforms. By Ian Nowland