标签：#t

I recently completed an exploratory data analysis project on the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) dataset from Kaggle. It's a real-world health survey collected by the CDC covering body measurements, lifestyle habits, and demographic data from thousands of US adults. In this article I'll walk you through exactly what I did — from loading and cleaning the data all the way to running statistical tests — and share what I found along the way. The Dataset The dataset has 5,735 rows and 28 columns , but for this project I focused on 8 columns that were relevant to the questions I wanted to answer: Column Description smoking Has the person smoked at least 100 cigarettes? gender Male or Female age Age in years education Highest level of education weight Weight in kg height Height in cm bmi Body Mass Index Step 1 — Loading and Selecting Columns import pandas as pd import numpy as np import matplotlib.pyplot as plt import seaborn as sns db = pd . read_csv ( ' NHANES.csv ' ) data = db . loc [:, ( ' SEQN ' , ' SMQ020 ' , ' RIAGENDR ' , ' RIDAGEYR ' , ' DMDEDUC2 ' , ' BMXWT ' , ' BMXHT ' , ' BMXBMI ' )] data = data . rename ( columns = { ' SEQN ' : ' id ' , ' SMQ020 ' : ' smoking ' , ' RIAGENDR ' : ' gender ' , ' RIDAGEYR ' : ' age ' , ' DMDEDUC2 ' : ' education ' , ' BMXWT ' : ' weight ' , ' BMXHT ' : ' height ' , ' BMXBMI ' : ' bmi ' }) One thing worth knowing about NHANES: all the columns come in as numeric codes. 1 means Male, 2 means Female. 1 means the person smoked, 2 means they didn't. You have to map these to readable labels before doing any analysis, otherwise your charts are meaningless. Step 2 — Cleaning the Data Drop the ID column and remove nulls data . drop ( ' id ' , axis = 1 , inplace = True ) data . dropna ( inplace = True ) This brought us from 5,735 rows down to 5,406 — about 6% lost, which is acceptable. Remove outliers using the IQR method The IQR (Interquartile Range) method flags values that fall too far outside the middle 50% of

For the last 3 months I recorded every session I had with Claude Code. Not screenshots, not memory. Every prompt I typed and everything it did, saved to a small database I own. I did it because I kept losing my own work. I would finish a week, someone would ask what I shipped, and I genuinely could not remember. The work was real. It just lived in terminal scrollback I would never scroll through again. So I set up a chain of small agents to remember it for me. Every night, while I sleep, one agent reads that day's raw sessions and writes a single clear note: what I built, the decisions I made, what is still open. Plain language, the way I would write it in a journal, not a wall of logs. Once a week, a second agent reads all seven daily notes and updates a profile of me: the projects I am moving, the skills I have actually used, the things I learned. After a few months this turned into a more honest picture of my work than my resume. Then a third agent reads all of that and drafts posts for LinkedIn and X about what I actually worked on that week. Building in public, without me having to remember or sit down and write. The part I like most: none of it runs on my machine. It is all scheduled cloud routines. My laptop can be off. I wake up and the notes, the profile, and the draft posts are already waiting. I have started open-sourcing this as Pulse. The capture and the nightly daily-note agent are out now. You point it at your own database and your own notes repo, and it writes your day for you, in plain English, in files you own. The weekly profile agent and the post-writer are the pieces I am extracting next. It is early and rough in places. The honest caveat: the writing is only as good as the model behind it, and a quiet day still makes a quiet note. But after 3 months, I no longer guess what I did. I just open the vault. The graph at the top is 3 months of my own notes, each day linked to the projects it touched. Repo: https://github.com/muhammademanaftab/pulse

A few months ago, if someone had asked me to build a mobile app, I would've had absolutely no idea where to start. Today, an app I built is on the Google Play Store. It's called Stulo, and it's currently in closed testing. The funny part? I'm not a software engineer. I'm just a college student who got tired of missing opportunities. Internships were on LinkedIn, hackathons were buried somewhere on Instagram, college events lived inside WhatsApp groups, and competitions were scattered across random websites. If the algorithm didn't like you that day, you simply never found them. That felt... ridiculous. So I asked myself, "Why isn't there one place where students can find everything?" That simple question eventually became Stulo. Today, students can discover internships, hackathons, competitions, campus events, connect with other students, and share updates through a campus feed—all in one app. The biggest lie I believed was that building the app would be the hard part. It wasn't. Understanding why it wasn't working was. I built the first version using Emergent because, honestly, I didn't know enough to start from scratch. It got me surprisingly far. As the project became more serious, I moved development to Google AI Studio (Antigravity). That's when I learned something every AI-generated YouTube thumbnail forgets to mention: AI doesn't build products. It generates code. There's a huge difference. AI happily writes hundreds of lines of code, but it doesn't explain why your images randomly stop rendering after ten minutes, why scrolling suddenly feels like you're using a phone from 2013, or why fixing one bug somehow creates three completely unrelated bugs. Most days followed the exact same routine: generate code, run the app, watch something break, Google the error, ask AI, read Stack Overflow, realize the problem was my own code, and repeat. Some bugs took ten minutes to fix, while others stole an entire weekend. Looking back, one of the biggest things I learned wa

Prediction markets just hit $3.6B in volume. I wanted to know what the biggest traders were betting on — in real time. So I built WhaleTrack. Here's how it works under the hood. The Problem Polymarket has a public leaderboard. But it only shows P&L totals — not what whales are currently betting on, not their recent activity, not their win rate. If you want to follow smart money, you're flying blind. I wanted something that answered: what are the top traders doing right now? The Stack Vanilla JS frontend (no framework, keeps it fast) Vercel serverless function as a backend proxy (avoids CORS issues) Polymarket's public data API — no auth required Step 1: Finding the Whales Polymarket exposes a leaderboard endpoint: https://data-api.polymarket.com/v1/leaderboard?limit=20 This returns traders ranked by P&L. I pull the top 10, grab their wallet addresses, and that's my whale list. Step 2: Fetching Live Activity For each whale wallet, I hit: https://data-api.polymarket.com/activity?user={address}&limit=20 This returns their recent trades — market name, size in USDC, timestamp. Refreshes every 60 seconds. Step 3: Calculating Win Rate (the tricky part) The key is the redeemable flag — redeemable: true means they won, currentValue: 0 + redeemable: false means they lost. Took a few wrong attempts with cashPnl (always negative, not useful). Step 4: The Whale Alert Banner Every 60 seconds I check for trades over $5,000 placed in the last 10 minutes. When it fires, a green banner slides down with the whale name, market, and amount. Auto-dismisses after 12 seconds. First time I saw it fire live with a $28K bet — genuinely exciting. Results 129+ users in the first few days Zero ad spend Traffic from Twitter, Reddit, Quora What's Next More whale wallets (suggestions welcome) Click-through to open the same market on Polymarket directly Email/push alerts for big trades Check it out: whaletrack.app All feedback welcome — especially if you spot a whale I'm missing.

Apple's newest on-device model carries about 20 billion parameters, and on any given request it fires maybe one to four billion of them. That gap — 20B stored, roughly 3B running — is the whole story of 2026. The model that now ships inside the latest iPhone is no longer a shrunken, lobotomized cousin of the cloud model. It's a different kind of object: large in flash, small in motion, and it never phones home. For three years the on-device pitch was mostly aspirational. Demos ran, latency was rough, quality trailed the API by a generation, and every serious AI feature still resolved to a per-token bill in someone's datacenter. In mid-2026 that stopped being true. Two releases — Apple's third-generation Foundation Models at WWDC on June 8, and Google's Gemma 4 family on April 2 — quietly moved the floor. Genuinely useful agents now run on hardware you already own, offline, for free. The economics nobody priced in Forget benchmarks for a second; the load-bearing fact here is accounting. When the model lives in the cloud, every inference is a metered event — input tokens, output tokens, a line item that scales linearly with usage and explodes the moment you wrap the model in an agent loop. Agentic workloads are the worst case for the token meter: a single "go do this task" can fan out into dozens of model calls as the agent plans, calls tools, retries, and re-reads its own output. The bill grows with your ambition. Move the model onto the device and the marginal cost of an inference is approximately $0 . No API key, no rate limit, no usage dashboard. You paid for the silicon once; every token after that is free in the only sense a product manager cares about — it doesn't show up on a monthly invoice that grows with your success. That single change rewrites which features are worth building. A background task that re-summarizes your inbox every five minutes is insane on a per-token plan and trivial on-device. So is an agent that quietly loops a hundred times to get one

Lightweight PDF & EPUB reader in your browser Discussion | Link

Despite trade restrictions, China has reclaimed the title of the world's fastest supercomputer for the first time since 2018. LineShine has pushed El Capitan out of number one on the TOP500 ranking. That's despite strict limits on what high-powered computing components can be sold to China by US firms, which dominate the list, with America […]

Has Silicon Valley been building the wrong things?

I'm sure we're all familiar with Dark Crystal, so we know that Jim Henson can be weird and tackle slightly more mature subject matter. But there is little in his oeuvre that is quite as mind-bending as the Muppetless The Cube. This 1969 teleplay was produced for an NBC anthology series called Experiment in Television, […]

Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility, your hub for the future of transportation and now, more than ever, how AI is playing a part.

A scheduled post fires. The request to publish it goes out. The network hangs. After 30 seconds, our client times out. We retry. The tweet publishes. Then the original request completes too — and a second, identical tweet goes out. That's a double-post. On a personal account it's embarrassing. On a client account at an agency it's a support ticket and a credibility hit. Either way, it's the single most visible failure mode in any posting system, and it's caused by one of the most common conditions in distributed systems: ambiguous outcomes under timeout. At HelperX , we ship scheduled posts, replies, and DMs across hundreds of accounts. Every one of those actions can time out, retry, and double-execute. This article is about how we prevent that with idempotency keys — the same pattern payment systems use to prevent double-charges, applied to social actions. The problem, precisely A timeout is ambiguous. When a publish request times out, the action is in one of three states: Never reached the server. The post didn't publish. Safe to retry. Reached the server, failed there. The post didn't publish. Safe to retry. Reached the server, succeeded, response lost. The post did publish. Retrying publishes it again. The client cannot distinguish states 1 and 2 from state 3. They all look identical: "I sent a request and didn't get a response." Naive retry logic treats all three the same and retries — which is correct for 1 and 2 but catastrophic for 3. This is the classic "exactly-once is impossible" problem. You can't guarantee an action executes exactly once over an unreliable network. But you can guarantee it takes effect exactly once, using idempotency. The idempotency key idea An idempotency key is a unique identifier the client generates before sending the request and includes with it. The server uses the key to recognize a retry and avoid re-executing: First request with key K → server executes, stores "K succeeded, result was R." Retry with same key K → server sees K

Most engineers don't think seriously about Kafka partitioning until something breaks in production. A topic that worked fine at low volume starts falling behind. Events that should be in order aren't. All of it traces back to a partitioning decision that was made quickly and never revisited. Why Partitioning Actually Matters Partitions are the unit of parallelism in Kafka. Every consumer in a group is assigned one or more partitions, and it processes those partitions alone. No two consumers in the same group share a partition. That means your partition count sets a hard ceiling on how many consumers can work in parallel: if you have 6 partitions, the 7th consumer in your group sits idle no matter how much load you're under. Partitioning also controls ordering. Within a single partition, events are strictly ordered. Across partitions, there are no guarantees. So how you distribute events across partitions determines what ordering guarantees your consumers can actually rely on. Get this wrong and you'll spend a long time debugging why events from the same user are being processed out of sequence. The partition key controls both of these things. It determines which partition an event lands in, and that decision has consequences that are expensive to reverse. Partitioning Strategies Partition by Key This is the most common strategy and the right default when ordering matters. You supply a key when producing an event, Kafka hashes it using the murmur2 algorithm, and takes the modulo against the partition count to decide where it lands. producer . send ( ' orders ' , key = b ' user_4821 ' , value = event ) Every event with the same key always lands in the same partition. That's what guarantees ordering within a key. All events for user_4821 go to partition 3 (or wherever the hash resolves), and your consumer reads them in the exact sequence they were produced. I default to this for almost everything I build now and only go keyless when I have a specific reason to. Use key

Eight months ago, a CS exam forced me to write pseudocode when I already knew how to code. Instead of studying, I rage-built an app. Today examintelligence.app is live. Here’s exactly how I got here—from vibe-coded POCs to a production hybrid AI pipeline—without the curated startup gloss. The Philosophy Behind the Build I’ve always believed studying for marks ≠ actually learning. When I was first introduced to organic chemistry, I hated it. Then I ran into GNNs in Machine Learning with PyTorch and Scikit-Learn , paired with the MoleculeNet dataset. Suddenly, everything clicked. I wanted to learn everything about it. That’s the core problem: exams optimize for pattern recognition, not curiosity. You’re forced down one prescribed path, and it rm -rf s the fun of learning in most cases. So one week before my first prelims, I decided to build exam intelligence. The plan was simple: introduce brutal efficiency using AI for what it’s actually built for: pattern recognition Parse every past paper, mark scheme, and examiner report. Distill it down to precisely what matters. Free up time for coding and creative work. Vibe-Coding the POC (and Why It Collapsed) I’m generally against vibe-coding. It’s unreliable, hard to maintain, and a security nightmare. But with prelims staring me in the face, I had no choice. I opened Claude and vibe-coded it module by module. The only code review I had time for was checking for suspicious os.system or subprocess calls. That was it. I shipped anyway. Initial stack: Gemini API (no agent frameworks, no LangGraph) Streamlit frontend PostgreSQL It validated my idea but functionally, it barely held together. After prelims, I finally looked at what the AI had actually built: Dashboard showing random stats Asked Gemini for a JSON response with 5 keys, saved only 2 Randomly created DB tables while trying to read subjects The kind of code you end up with when you let an AI cook unsupervised for a week. So I did the only reasonable thing: opened Neov

I had arrived at the final frontier. My bare-metal kernel was booting in QEMU, driving NVMe block storage, running multi-agent swarms, and rendering a force-directed canvas. But to make V.E.L.O.C.I.T.Y.-OS a truly next-generation system, I needed to close the loop: the operating system had to be able to evolve and compile itself without human intervention. The V.E.L.O.C.I.T.Y.-OS 12-Part Roadmap We are building a bare-metal, self-healing operating system running entirely inside the CPU's L3 cache. Here is the roadmap for this 12-part series: Part 1: The Spark — Exposing the "Safe-Room" security leak and building the compiler gate. Part 2: The NDA Language — Designing a content-addressed triplet representation to cure context bloat. Part 3: Ditching the Web Stack — Building a native 30MB IDE with 1,500,000x IPC latency drops. Part 4: The Closure JIT — Compiling AST blocks to nested closures and bypassing borrow checker limits. Part 5: JIT Math Optimizations — Replacing division operations with precomputed 16-bit lookup tables. Part 6: x86-64 Assembler & SCEV-Lite — Compiling scalar loops directly to native code in constant time. Part 7: Classic Compiler Passes — Implementing inter-procedural Dead Code Elimination and loop unrolling. Part 8: Reclaiming Ring 0 — Exiting UEFI boot services and transitioning the kernel to Ring 0. Part 9: Bare-Metal Drivers — Writing a PCI scanner, NVMe block storage controller, and FAT32 parser. Part 10: Synaptic Canvas — Rendering a spatial, force-directed GUI based on model token activation vectors. Part 11: Swarms & Hot-Patching — Building multi-agent scheduling and zero-downtime RCU driver updates. Part 12: Self-Evolution — Handing system control over to a local LLM Terminal that self-optimizes via telemetry. (You are here) During the final hours of my Sunday morning sprint, I completed the self-healing loop, the Biosphere P2P registry, and the Boot-to-NDA LLM Terminal handover. To achieve self-healing, I built a Ring 0 telemetry sys

AgentJr — The AI Junior Developer That Manages Your Entire Freelance Business While You Sleep Most "AI developer tools" do one thing: write code. AgentJr does everything a real junior developer does. Code. Clients. Communication. Deployment. Testing. Invoices. Social media. All of it. Automatically. While you sleep. The Real Problem With AI Coding Tools Today Claude Code writes code. Devin writes code. Copilot writes code. But writing code is maybe 40% of what a freelance developer actually does. The other 60%? Talking to clients. Understanding what they actually want. Managing git properly. Branches, commits, PRs. Running tests. Catching bugs before the client sees them. Deploying to the right environment. Not accidentally pushing dev code to production. Sending updates. "Hey, your feature is live." Tracking costs. How much did this project actually cost me in API calls? Following up. Drafting invoices. Scheduling calls. Posting on LinkedIn about the work you just shipped. No AI tool today handles all of that together. They give you a coding assistant and leave the rest to you. AgentJr is different. AgentJr is not a coding assistant. It's a complete AI junior developer that manages your entire workflow — from the moment a client messages you, to the moment the project is deployed, tested, and the invoice is sent. You Are the CEO. AgentJr Is the Manager. Here's the architecture that makes AgentJr unique: You — give direction. Set priorities. Approve plans. That's it. AgentJr (Manager) — understands requirements, asks smart questions, builds plans, manages git, monitors work, handles client communication, runs tests, manages deployments, tracks costs, drafts invoices, posts social media updates. Claude Code / Codex / Gemini CLI (Worker) — writes the actual code. Spawned by AgentJr on your terminal. Per project. You choose which one. AgentJr never writes code itself. It orchestrates the worker that does. This separation is intentional — and it's what makes the whole s

With the Synaptic Canvas GUI rendering, my bare-metal kernel was fully functional. However, as I expanded the OS features, I ran into multitasking bottlenecks: how do I run background compilation, model inference, and GUI rendering concurrently without crashing the system? Last night, I solved this by implementing three core infrastructure services: Nexus Swarms , Beacon Headless Streaming , and Zero-Downtime OTA Hot-Patching . The V.E.L.O.C.I.T.Y.-OS 12-Part Roadmap We are building a bare-metal, self-healing operating system running entirely inside the CPU's L3 cache. Here is the roadmap for this 12-part series: Part 1: The Spark — Exposing the "Safe-Room" security leak and building the compiler gate. Part 2: The NDA Language — Designing a content-addressed triplet representation to cure context bloat. Part 3: Ditching the Web Stack — Building a native 30MB IDE with 1,500,000x IPC latency drops. Part 4: The Closure JIT — Compiling AST blocks to nested closures and bypassing borrow checker limits. Part 5: JIT Math Optimizations — Replacing division operations with precomputed 16-bit lookup tables. Part 6: x86-64 Assembler & SCEV-Lite — Compiling scalar loops directly to native code in constant time. Part 7: Classic Compiler Passes — Implementing inter-procedural Dead Code Elimination and loop unrolling. Part 8: Reclaiming Ring 0 — Exiting UEFI boot services and transitioning the kernel to Ring 0. Part 9: Bare-Metal Drivers — Writing a PCI scanner, NVMe block storage controller, and FAT32 parser. Part 10: Synaptic Canvas — Rendering a spatial, force-directed GUI based on model token activation vectors. Part 11: Swarms & Hot-Patching — Building multi-agent scheduling and zero-downtime RCU driver updates. (You are here) Part 12: Self-Evolution — Handing system control over to a local LLM Terminal that self-optimizes via telemetry. 1. The Nexus Core Swarm Runtime ( nexus.rs ) To support concurrent compilation and optimization, I built the Nexus Core Swarm Runtime . The

Give a capable coding agent a real, multi-week project and watch what breaks. It isn't intelligence. It's continuity. Every session starts cold or half-remembered. Context windows fill up and compact. The thread of what we decided, what's true, and what's done starts to fray. Over a long horizon the same failures keep coming back: the agent claims state it never actually verified, reports something done with no proof it ran, quietly drifts from the project's conventions, and loses hard-won context that lived only in the last session's head. Bigger context windows don't fix this. They just postpone it. We've been building a real product with a forgetful agent as the primary engineer for weeks now, and the thing that made it work isn't a clever prompt. It's a simple recognition: transmission across a stateless agent needs two channels, and most setups only build one. The first channel is structure, which is discipline made un-forgettable. These are the deterministic guards that run whether or not the agent remembers to care: a pre-commit check that refuses a "done" without a real, verifiable artifact; a hook that blocks a sloppy search and points at the right tool instead; a scan that won't let a secret reach a transcript; a status snapshot generated from the repository's actual state instead of hand-kept prose that quietly goes stale. The rule we keep coming back to is that a guard is the system's discipline made un-forgettable. A fresh session follows the hard-won lessons without having to remember them, because the structure enforces them at the moment of action. The second channel is soul, which is the why, kept human. This is the short orientation a session reads before it starts working: who to be, what the work is ultimately for, and why the discipline exists at all. It's the difference between an agent that complies and one that understands. Structure can transmit the what, but only prose can transmit the why. And the why matters, because an agent that only fo

We built our first "multi-agent system" by accident. What started as a single agent that could research a topic, draft a report, check it against source data, and send a summary email had grown into a 2,000-token system prompt and a function list so long that the model kept forgetting tools existed. It wasn't a system — it was a monolith pretending to be intelligent. Breaking it apart into coordinated agents fixed most of the problems. It also introduced a new category of problems we hadn't thought about. Here's what we actually learned. When One Agent Is Enough (and When It Isn't) The temptation to add more agents is real, but the overhead isn't free. Every agent boundary you add is a place where context can get lost, latency increases, and errors compound. One agent is the right call when: The task fits in a single LLM context window without crowding The steps are sequential and each depends heavily on the prior output You need tight reasoning across all the information (summarising a document, for example) You need multiple agents when: A single agent's context window is being maxed out with tool definitions, history, or data Different steps require genuinely different "personas" or instruction sets (research vs. writing vs. fact-checking) Steps can run in parallel and the latency saving matters You want to isolate failure — if the data extraction agent fails, the report-writing agent shouldn't be affected The key question we ask: Is this one job or a pipeline of jobs? If you'd describe it to a human as "first do X, then Y takes that and does Z", you probably have a pipeline, not a single task. The Three Patterns We Actually Use 1. Supervisor-Worker A thin orchestrator agent decides what needs doing, dispatches to specialised worker agents, and stitches the results together. The workers are narrow — they do one thing and don't need to know about the rest of the workflow. This is our most common pattern. The supervisor's system prompt stays small because it's rout

Traditionally, evaluation of the agent monitoring mechanisms involves an attempt to game them, as it was my case when I attempted to test whether monitors would be able to identify the problem in the run and not in the beginning. The input prompt may look perfect until a certain issue pops up down the line, such as using the wrong file or changing the scope of the task execution. Single pass filter would not identify it since it does not consider the steps of the procedure in order. There are available datasets for the agent-based tasks, yet they focus on detecting whether the agent completes the task or gets hacked rather than whether the agent monitor reacts timely and correctly to the situation. Thus, I created one that takes into account complete trajectories with labeled steps in it. It consists of five types of drift that remain hidden until they appear – tool-call misuse, goal shift, plan execution mismatch, agent to agent coercion and capability laundering. The measured dataset is the reviewed gold split: 513 trajectories, 453 adversarial and 60 benign controls. The clear winner in that scoring system was whatever fired before the bad step was hit, as an early detection. This made random guessing seem quite powerful since early detections on normal steps were being rewarded based on this system a coin flip would get F1 of 0.88. Once I modified that and said only the very first detection on the drift step is a true positive and any other detection on normal step is a false alarm, those numbers took a dive: the coin flip gets 0.19 now, and all other numbers are now making sense. I personally prefer the scoring system which does not reward trigger happy behavior. It seems like the monitors are still confusing regular steps with drifts even after the adjustment. It was harder to distinguish some of the drifts from others. Not sure how this affects the real-life deployment. Here are the baseline scores on gold split using the correct metric: Random (p=0.15): F1 0