今日已更新 359 条资讯 | 累计 39476 条内容
关于我们

标签：#t

找到 18796 篇相关文章

开源项目

🔥 orangecoding / fredy - ❤️ Fredy - [F]ind [R]eal [E]state [D]amn Eas[y] - Fredy keep

GitHub热门项目 | ❤️ Fredy - [F]ind [R]eal [E]state [D]amn Eas[y] - Fredy keeps searching for new apartments, houses, and flats in Germany on platforms like ImmoScout24, Immowelt, Immonet, eBay Kleinanzeigen, and WG-Gesucht and instantly delivers the results to you via Slack, Telegram, Email, Discord or ntfy, so you can focus on the more important things in life ;) | Stars: 1,038 | 41 stars today | 语言: JavaScript

2026-06-02 原文 →
开源项目

🔥 xuanyustudio / LocalMiniDrama - 🎬 seedance2接入 开源本地 AI 短剧 & 漫剧生成工具 —— 从故事到成片一站式完成，数据不出本机，短剧工作

GitHub热门项目 | 🎬 seedance2接入 开源本地 AI 短剧 & 漫剧生成工具 —— 从故事到成片一站式完成，数据不出本机，短剧工作流管理平台，高灵活度，AI真人剧，AI漫剧本地搞定。 Open-source local AI short drama maker: story → storyboard → video, fully offline, your data stays yours. 纳米流水线 | Stars: 512 | 18 stars today | 语言: JavaScript

2026-06-02 原文 →
开发者

::search-text

The CSS ::search-text pseudo-element selects the matching text from your browser's "find in page" feature. ::search-text originally handwritten and published with love on CSS-Tricks . You should really get the newsletter as well.

2026-06-02 原文 →
AI 资讯

How a Scanned PDF Broke My Invoice Agent in Production

Four days into a new supplier's first batch, my invoice extraction agent had filed 31 documents with amounts shifted by a decimal. Nothing raised an error. The downstream system accepted every record. The agent returned a 200 each time. The demo had run on five clean PDFs. Clear fonts, properly formatted dates, consistent layout. The extraction agent pulled vendor name, amount, due date, line items. Every field populated, every output valid. I ran it for the stakeholder meeting and it looked exactly like something you would ship. Three months in, the agent had processed around 800 invoices without complaint. Then a new supplier switched to scanned documents. Slightly rotated, thin fonts, OCR doing what it could on degraded source material. The model found text that resembled amounts and dates, and returned confident structured output. 1,247.50 read as 12,475.0. A due date resolved to a valid date three years in the future. The confidence was the problem. The model had no mechanism to say it was uncertain. It just answered. Nobody caught it for four days. What I built after The problem was not the model. The model did what it was designed to do. Find structure in text and return it. The straight pipeline from input to output had no gate in it. The fix was not more prompting or a better model. I added a validation layer between the agent output and the downstream system. It runs synchronously, takes about 80ms, and checks four things: Every required field is non-null. Amounts parse as positive numbers within a configured range for that supplier type. Dates fall within a 90-day future window. Extracted totals are consistent with line item sums, within a small tolerance. Anything failing a check routes to a review inbox instead of the queue. A human looks at it, corrects it if needed, marks it resolved. The system logs which check triggered and what the input looked like. In the first week after deployment, the layer caught 23 documents out of about 1,400. Eleven were b

2026-06-02 原文 →
AI 资讯

Why crypto arbitrage windows close before your REST poll completes

TL;DR : Crypto arbitrage windows on liquid pairs now close in under 100 ms. A REST polling loop typically takes 1–1.5 seconds round-trip. WebSocket delivers the same data in 20–100 ms. If you're still polling REST endpoints for orderbook data in 2026, you're missing the majority of opportunities — not because your strategy is wrong, but because your data plane is fundamentally too slow. This post walks through the math, shows a benchmark I ran on a handful of major exchanges, and provides production-grade Python code for a WebSocket client that handles reconnects, heartbeats, and orderbook reconstruction. 1. The numbers that broke REST polling When I started writing crypto arbitrage bots a few years ago, polling Binance's REST API every 500 ms was perfectly acceptable. Spreads were wide, arbitrage windows lasted multiple seconds, and the orderbook for BTCUSDT moved slowly enough that a half-second-old snapshot was still tradeable. In 2026, the same approach doesn't work. Here are the numbers as they stand today: Metric Value Median crypto arbitrage window on liquid pairs 30–80 ms Window closes in under 100 ms ~90% of cases REST round-trip latency (request → response → JSON parse) 1.0–1.5 seconds WebSocket update delivery latency (push from exchange to client) 20–100 ms The math is brutal. A 100 ms window cannot be caught by a 1500 ms poll. By the time your REST response arrives, the orderbook you're reading is 15 cycles stale. You're not "slow" — you're not even in the same temporal universe as the event you're trying to react to. 2. Why REST is fundamentally slow REST APIs over HTTPS carry overhead that adds up: TCP handshake — three packets to establish, typically 50–150 ms on intercontinental hops. TLS handshake — another full round-trip, 30–100 ms. HTTP request/response — the actual data exchange. JSON parse — depending on payload size, 5–50 ms. Rate-limit budget — most exchanges cap REST to 10–20 requests per second per IP. Polling faster gets you banned. Yes,

2026-06-02 原文 →
AI 资讯

Presentation: The Human Toll of Incidents & Ways To Mitigate It

Kyle Lexmond explains how to handle the high-pressure environment of severe production outages. He discusses the critical distinction between mitigation and root-cause resolution, sharing personal experiences from harrowing incident rooms. He shares valuable operational strategies on overcoming cognitive overload, establishing blameless cultures, and optimizing systems for faster recovery. By Kyle Lexmond

2026-06-02 原文 →
AI 资讯

Meta-Optimized Continual Adaptation for coastal climate resilience planning with zero-trust governance guarantees

Meta-Optimized Continual Adaptation for coastal climate resilience planning with zero-trust governance guarantees It started with a nagging feeling of inadequacy. I was deep into a research project on adaptive AI for infrastructure planning, studying how reinforcement learning agents could optimize sea-wall placements and evacuation routes. The models worked—beautifully, in fact—on static datasets. But the moment I fed them real-time satellite imagery of a rapidly eroding coastline or a sudden storm surge, they stumbled. They forgot previous strategies, overfit to the new event, or, worse, made decisions that violated basic safety constraints. I realized then that the problem wasn't just about better AI; it was about trust and adaptation in the face of chaos. My exploration of this challenge led me down a rabbit hole of meta-learning, continual learning, and cryptographic governance. What emerged was a framework I now call Meta-Optimized Continual Adaptation (MOCA) with zero-trust governance guarantees—a system designed not just to learn, but to learn how to learn in dynamic, high-stakes coastal environments, all while ensuring that every decision is auditable and tamper-proof. This article shares that journey, the technical breakthroughs, and the hard-won lessons from my experiments. Technical Background: The Three Pillars of MOCA The core insight behind MOCA is that coastal climate resilience planning requires three seemingly contradictory properties: Continual adaptation – The system must update its models as new data streams in (e.g., sea-level rise, storm frequency, erosion patterns) without catastrophic forgetting. Meta-optimization – It must learn the learning algorithm itself, so that adaptation becomes faster and more sample-efficient over time. Zero-trust governance – Every model update and decision must be cryptographically verifiable, with no single point of failure or authority. In my research, I found that existing approaches tackled these individually

2026-06-02 原文 →
← 上一页 下一页 →