今日已更新 213 条资讯 | 累计 20683 条内容
关于我们

标签：#us

找到 1030 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

Vercel Labs Open-Sources Zero-Native: A Zig-Based Cross-Platform Native Application Framework

Vercel Labs recently open-sourced zero-native, a cross-platform framework for native desktop applications. Zero-native bypasses Electron runtime in favor or native OS WebViews and claims to achieve smaller, more efficient native apps with minimal overhead. Zero-native is written in Zig, thus directly interoperates with native C libraries, and features fast incremental compilation times. By Bruno Couriol

2026-06-15 原文 →
开发者

Word Scrambling as a Learning Mechanic: Tools, Theory, and Classroom Applications

Word scrambling is a deceptively simple mechanic. Rearrange the letters of a word, ask someone to restore the original — that's the entire game loop. But underneath that simplicity is a cognitive process that language researchers find genuinely interesting, and that developers building educational tools keep returning to. The Cognitive Mechanics of Unscrambling When a learner attempts to unscramble a word, they're engaging several parallel cognitive processes: pattern recognition (matching letter combinations to phonemes they know), memory retrieval (searching their lexical database), and hypothesis testing (trying a mental arrangement before committing). It's a lightweight version of the same cognitive work that makes retrieval practice so effective in spaced repetition systems. For language learners specifically, this is high-value low-stakes practice. The scrambled form gives enough context to confirm the answer upon success — no ambiguity like a multiple-choice distractor — while requiring genuine active recall. Implementation Considerations for Developers If you're building a word scramble feature into an educational app, a few things matter: Avoiding anagram collisions: "SILENT" → "LISTEN" is a classic example. Your scrambling algorithm needs to detect valid English words in the output and regenerate if it creates a different real word. A dictionary API lookup on the scrambled result handles this. Difficulty calibration: Longer words and words with repeated letters (like "BALLOON") are objectively harder to unscramble. A good difficulty curve starts with 4–5 letter words and increases length progressively. First/last letter anchoring: Keeping the first and last letters in position is a widely used technique to reduce cognitive load. It's psychologically effective — people anchor on word edges more than the interior. Using Existing Tools vs. Building Your Own For most educational content creators and teachers (non-developers), building their own tool isn't feas

2026-06-15 原文 →
AI 资讯

Conclave is the sound of a NYC summer block party

I have this vivid memory of walking to pick up my oldest from school in June of 2022. For a variety of reasons, I was in a very bad place mentally. And to make matters worse, it was brutally hot. I was depressed, angry with the world, sunburned, and soaked through with sweat. But as […]

2026-06-15 原文 →
AI 资讯

How to enjoy programming in a world of AI

It's widely accepted that as AI writes more and more of our code, opportunities decrease for newcomers to gain the skills needed to become professional programmers. At the same time, experienced people bemoan the way AI is causing them to gradually lose the skills they took so long and worked so hard to gain. Programming, like mathematics and perhaps music, sits in the middle between science and art. As science, it's all about capturing and organising knowledge, and as art, it's the application of creativity to problem-solving. Enjoyment - deep satisfaction or an emotional rush - can be had from either or both of these. But the perception is that AI is depriving us of opportunity, both to learn and to be creative. Code written by a human reveals a lot about the coder. Their depth of knowledge of the coding language, their creative use of variable and function names, and even the visual layout of a script. You can often tell at a glance whether the writer truly cared about the code they wrote, or whether it was just a means to an end, to ensure their next pay packet arrives on time. As AI improves, it makes fewer mistakes, but it also produces code that is increasingly hard for any human to read and truly understand. Since the job of a human in the coding loop is increasingly not to write but to validate code, this is becoming a problem. So here's my recent story, a series of happy accidents. I've been using agentic AI for about a year. First with Copilot in VS Code, then more recently with Claude Code at the command line. At the start, I found Copilot to make a lot of mistakes and to produce rather repetitive, poorly-structured code, but looking back, a lot of that was probably down to my own ignorance of how to control the process. The biggest problem I had was in validating JS or Python code. There was just so much of it, often using features of both languages I never fully got to grips with. I've never been a first-class programmer and most of my own code is pure

2026-06-14 原文 →
AI 资讯

I Built a Web App That Finds the Fairest Meeting Spot for Any Group (and It's Free)

The Problem Nobody Talks About Picture this: You're trying to find a place to meet up with friends. Someone suggests a coffee shop. It's 8 minutes from their house. It's 45 minutes from yours. You say yes anyway, because suggesting a different place feels awkward. This happens all the time — with friends, with remote teams, with family scattered across a city. And the worst part? Most "meet in the middle" suggestions aren't actually in the middle. They're just the geographic midpoint, which completely ignores traffic, transit options, and the fact that roads don't go in straight lines. I got frustrated enough to build something about it. Meet Meetle Meetle is a free web app that finds the fairest meeting spot for any group of people — based on real travel times , not just distance. A Chrome Extension is coming soon so you'll have it one click away in your toolbar. You add everyone's starting location, choose how each person is traveling (driving, walking, or transit), hit Find Meeting Point , and Meetle does the math across every person simultaneously. It then surfaces the best nearby cafés, restaurants, parks, gyms, or whatever venue type you're looking for — ranked by actual fairness. No more "it's fine, I don't mind the drive." Now you have data. How It Actually Works Under the hood, Meetle uses three Google Maps APIs working together: Distance Matrix API calculates travel time from every person's location to every candidate venue, simultaneously. This is the core of the fairness scoring — you can't rank venues fairly without knowing everyone's actual travel time to each one. Places API finds candidate venues near the calculated center point. You can filter by type (coffee, food, parks, gyms, etc.), price level, minimum rating, and whether they're open right now. Maps JavaScript API renders everything visually — the map, the travel zones (isochrones), and the markers for each suggested venue. The scoring works two ways and you can toggle between them: Fairness mo

2026-06-14 原文 →
AI 资讯

Evidence Beats Certainty: Why My Classifier Refuses to Pretend Every Product Has an Answer

Batch 010 found a bug that looked like good news. The classification worker was finishing its work. Runs moved through the database. Product rows had candidate tariff codes. The regression suite was far enough along that a casual glance could have treated the classifier as alive. Then one test forced three uncomfortable cases through the loop: no candidate, weak confidence, and a near tie. All three came back looking too clean. The worker was persisting the run as classified , even when the evidence said the product needed review or had no supportable recommendation. That is the kind of bug I worry about in compliance software. Not the loud crash. The green row. A customs classifier can fail by throwing an exception. That failure is annoying, but honest. The operator sees it. The queue stops. The job gets retried. The audit trail can say, plainly, that classification did not happen. The worse failure is a result that looks complete while the evidence underneath is missing or contested. That was the real Batch 010 scar. The engine already carried the domain rule in its intent: classification is evidence, not a label. But the persistence path was still treating classification as if the only final state that mattered was success. The runtime could produce rejected candidates and confidence values. The database could store failure reasons. The tests could express review states. One narrow path still flattened doubt into completion. I was wrong about where the risk sat. I expected the hard part to be selecting the tariff code. The harder problem sat one layer later: making sure the code was not selected when the evidence did not deserve that much authority. Customs data makes that tension obvious. A product row is rarely a clean ontology entry. It is a SKU, a commercial name, a description written by someone under time pressure, a country of origin, a jurisdiction, maybe a material list, maybe an intended use. The difference between a good HS or HTS recommendation and a

2026-06-14 原文 →
开源项目

Microsoft hasn’t ruled out spinning off Xbox

Microsoft is preparing to lay off a significant chunk of its Xbox division and is reevaluating the plans for its next-generation Project Helix console. It's apparently also considering dramatically restructuring its relationship with Xbox, and hasn't ruled out spinning it off into a separate company. A new report from The Information suggests that Microsoft has […]

2026-06-14 原文 →
AI 资讯

What Happened When I Told Codex to Calm Down

I have been doing a lot of work lately tightening up my diagnostic suite: the mechanics, the workflow, the way it runs against target repos, the way it helps narrow a repair instead of letting everything turn into a fog machine. And because I work with Codex as my coding agent, I have also become very familiar with a specific kind of AI-agent behavior. The “I am helping so hard I am about to make this worse” behavior. If you work with coding agents, you probably know the vibe. You ask for one thing. The agent does that thing. Then it also adjusts a helper. Then it updates a fixture. Then it “notices” a nearby pattern. Then it starts explaining three other improvements you never asked for. And now you’re staring at the diff like: “Why are you in that file?” “I did not tell you to touch that.” “That was not the repair lane.” “Please stop being useful for one second.” I am not proud of how many times I have verbally threatened a language model. But here we are. The funny thing is, I am building Scarab partly because I already expect this kind of drift. I know that when an AI coding agent is given too much uncertainty, it tries to solve the uncertainty itself. Sometimes that is useful. Sometimes it is a raccoon with a soldering iron. The challenge is that while I am developing the diagnostic system, I cannot always use the diagnostic system to supervise itself. So there are moments where I have to manually hold the line. That means a lot of conversations with Codex that sound like: “Do not widen the patch.” “Do not change the diagnostic output to make the diagnostic pass.” “Do not fix the test by changing what the test means.” “Do not touch SDS mechanics while repairing the target repo.” “Stay in the target.” “Stay in the lane.” “Why are you like this?” Very normal. Very calm. Very professional. Then something changed At some point, after a lot of tightening, the workflow started to feel different. Scarab had enough of the diagnostic work under control that I could tell

2026-06-13 原文 →
← 上一页 下一页 →