Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

somebody explain this because i refuse to accept it someone ran 48 scored trials and one agent beat a whole fleet of them on all 6 task families, at 0.93 cents a run against 1.9, while openai's best fleet shape was paying $0.008 for every single point of accuracy... it bought i read it expecting a hit piece and found the opposite: the fleets that partitioned the dependency graph properly lifted pass rate 14% and cut wall-clock 2.10x on the same tasks, and one of them beat claude code with agent teams the thing that decides it has a name, Graph Engineering, and it is a property of the diagram rather than the model: - partition on the real dependency graph pulled from static analysis, never by folder or by file, because the gains land hardest on the most dependency-dense projects - isolate the structural hub files first, since those are the nodes every partition would otherwise have to share - measure the critical path and treat it as the floor, because a chain that genuinely feeds itself cannot be replaced by more workers and wrapping it in a scheduler does not shorten it - match the topology to the coupling instead of defaulting to parallel: on coupled work a static parallel shape drops below a single agent, so the mismatch is worse than no orchestration - remember each worker serialises its own subtasks, which adds edges inside every agent that were never in your plan - budget the fan-out before you fire it, because three agents already burn roughly three times the tokens and the multiplier compounds across sessions - check worker count against your rate limit, since fifteen workers at ten requests a second walk straight through a hundred-per-second ceiling and cascade - put a script gate in front of the planner: it costs 0.15 seconds and zero tokens, and it lets the expensive model skip 43 to 63% of the steps for at most 1.4 points of accuracy the catch is the coordination tax, and it scales with how clever the shape looks: 58% extra reasoning turns for independent workers, 263% decentralised, 285% centralised, and 515% for the hybrid setup everyone reaches for first the same paper found that hybrid then collapses hardest on tool-heavy work at a 0.452 success rate, while the plainer decentralised shape beat centralised outright despite carrying more overhead, because parallel efficiency is what survives bookmark this, the whole build sits in the article ↓show more

Argona

24,807 subscribers

32,932 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology Education News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

SOMEONE MAPPED CHAOS INTO A NAVIGABLE SPACE AND YOUR HERMES AGENT NEEDS THE SAME THING thousands of chaotic data points, each given a position, navigation becomes instant because the structure does the work your vault is the same chaos, hermes lands in it and opens files at random because nothing tells it where to start one index file per major folder with a clear starting point changes everything 2 minutes per task drops to 10 seconds, same agent, same model full breakdown in the article below ↓

SOMEONE MAPPED CHAOS INTO A NAVIGABLE SPACE AND YOUR HERMES AGENT NEEDS THE SAME THING thousands of chaotic data points, each given a position, navigation becomes instant because the structure does the work your vault is the same chaos, hermes lands in it and opens files at random because nothing tells it where to start one index file per major folder with a clear starting point changes everything 2 minutes per task drops to 10 seconds, same agent, same model full breakdown in the article below ↓

leopardracer

23,629 views • 2 months ago

a contractor in Shenzhen priced a ¥12,470,900 hospital contract, about $1.7m, in one afternoon and beat firms carrying forty people he explained how he did it: the bid consultancy he used to pay took three days and ¥46,000 for the same envelope. he did this one alone, off one screen, at 11.4% margin, uploaded before the 17:00 cutoff 214 pages of tender documents read, 68 binding clauses pulled out, 9,485 building parts loaded, 14 places found where a duct and a beam sit in the same cubic metre, deepest one 38mm, all of them fixed, 3,318 lines of quantities priced and the package encrypted and uploaded before the 17:00 cutoff this is Graph Engineering: the job gets cut into small nodes, one narrow task each, wired so that one node's output is the next node's input, and any node is allowed to stop the whole run. it turns a model that answers you into a machine that finishes the job: - give every node one job and one output. a node doing two things fails at both and you cannot tell which one broke - put the cheapest rejection first. his qualification node reads clause 7.4, foreign-owned firms barred, and ends the run four seconds in, before anything expensive touches the model - what moves between nodes is a file. the model travels as a model, the quantities as a table, the price as a number - build exactly one loop: the checker finds 14 collisions, the fixer drops the duct 550mm, the checker runs again, and nothing moves on until the count is zero - cap that loop, or a graph will grind on three impossible clashes until the deadline passes - keep one node whose only job is to say no, and give it authority over everything above it - log each node's output on its own, because when the price comes out wrong you need to know which node believed the wrong thing - run the expensive nodes last, always the catch is that a graph is an extremely confident machine: point it at an outdated rate book and it prices an entire hospital off it without a single node noticing, because no node is asked to doubt the input, only to process it so the nodes that earn their keep are the ones that reject, and almost nobody builds those first bookmark this, the full build with all nine nodes and what each one hands to the next is written out in the article ↓

a contractor in Shenzhen priced a ¥12,470,900 hospital contract, about $1.7m, in one afternoon and beat firms carrying forty people he explained how he did it: the bid consultancy he used to pay took three days and ¥46,000 for the same envelope. he did this one alone, off one screen, at 11.4% margin, uploaded before the 17:00 cutoff 214 pages of tender documents read, 68 binding clauses pulled out, 9,485 building parts loaded, 14 places found where a duct and a beam sit in the same cubic metre, deepest one 38mm, all of them fixed, 3,318 lines of quantities priced and the package encrypted and uploaded before the 17:00 cutoff this is Graph Engineering: the job gets cut into small nodes, one narrow task each, wired so that one node's output is the next node's input, and any node is allowed to stop the whole run. it turns a model that answers you into a machine that finishes the job: - give every node one job and one output. a node doing two things fails at both and you cannot tell which one broke - put the cheapest rejection first. his qualification node reads clause 7.4, foreign-owned firms barred, and ends the run four seconds in, before anything expensive touches the model - what moves between nodes is a file. the model travels as a model, the quantities as a table, the price as a number - build exactly one loop: the checker finds 14 collisions, the fixer drops the duct 550mm, the checker runs again, and nothing moves on until the count is zero - cap that loop, or a graph will grind on three impossible clashes until the deadline passes - keep one node whose only job is to say no, and give it authority over everything above it - log each node's output on its own, because when the price comes out wrong you need to know which node believed the wrong thing - run the expensive nodes last, always the catch is that a graph is an extremely confident machine: point it at an outdated rate book and it prices an entire hospital off it without a single node noticing, because no node is asked to doubt the input, only to process it so the nodes that earn their keep are the ones that reject, and almost nobody builds those first bookmark this, the full build with all nine nodes and what each one hands to the next is written out in the article ↓

Argona

38,189 views • 1 month ago

I STOPPED REVIEWING MY OWN AGENT, SOMETHING ELSE DOES IT NOW I used to read every diff it produced and approve most of them, because an agent grading itself always says the work is good. -> Now a second model with different instructions tries to break the work first, and I only read what survived. Here is what is actually in the folder that took over the night shift: • the brief > CONTRACT.md -- what it may touch, and what it may never touch. > VISION.md -- the destination, so turn 47 still knows why it started. • the gate > judge/ -- a different model, never the one that wrote the code. > break-it.md -- it opens the page, clicks, screenshots, reports back. > -- no opinion, just zero or non-zero. > shift.yml -- 03:30 every night, laptop closed. • the memory > receipts/ -- one folder per night, dated and graded. > STATE.md -- where it stopped and what it escalated. > lessons.log -- the flaky test, written down once instead of rediscovered weekly. • the brakes > caps.json -- turn limit, retry limit, spend limit. > -- written on day one, used never. The generator decides what your loop can produce -> The judge decides what it refuses to produce. One of those is the part everyone builds -> The other is why most loops quietly fail. Bookmark it & Read Full breakdown below ↓

I STOPPED REVIEWING MY OWN AGENT, SOMETHING ELSE DOES IT NOW I used to read every diff it produced and approve most of them, because an agent grading itself always says the work is good. -> Now a second model with different instructions tries to break the work first, and I only read what survived. Here is what is actually in the folder that took over the night shift: • the brief > CONTRACT.md -- what it may touch, and what it may never touch. > VISION.md -- the destination, so turn 47 still knows why it started. • the gate > judge/ -- a different model, never the one that wrote the code. > break-it.md -- it opens the page, clicks, screenshots, reports back. > -- no opinion, just zero or non-zero. > shift.yml -- 03:30 every night, laptop closed. • the memory > receipts/ -- one folder per night, dated and graded. > STATE.md -- where it stopped and what it escalated. > lessons.log -- the flaky test, written down once instead of rediscovered weekly. • the brakes > caps.json -- turn limit, retry limit, spend limit. > -- written on day one, used never. The generator decides what your loop can produce -> The judge decides what it refuses to produce. One of those is the part everyone builds -> The other is why most loops quietly fail. Bookmark it & Read Full breakdown below ↓

slash1s

37,556 views • 1 month ago

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.

elvis

11,303 views • 1 month ago

I MADE MY AI AGENT 10X FASTER WITHOUT CHANGING THE MODEL not a smarter model, not a bigger context window, not another clever prompt the same kind of AI that designs vaccines for viruses we have not even met yet was spending two minutes opening the wrong files just to hand me a brief from three months ago the problem was never capability, it was the scaffolding that piled up around my agent by accident, folder by folder an agent does not think in your categories, it searches from scratch every single time, and your tidy human folders are a maze to it the fix was almost stupidly small, one index file at the root of each big folder and a few numbers in front of the folder names slowest task dropped from 2 minutes to 26 seconds, fastest ones hit 10, zero model changes capability is cheap when the scaffolding around it is broken the article breaks down the whole system in 15 minutes ↓

I MADE MY AI AGENT 10X FASTER WITHOUT CHANGING THE MODEL not a smarter model, not a bigger context window, not another clever prompt the same kind of AI that designs vaccines for viruses we have not even met yet was spending two minutes opening the wrong files just to hand me a brief from three months ago the problem was never capability, it was the scaffolding that piled up around my agent by accident, folder by folder an agent does not think in your categories, it searches from scratch every single time, and your tidy human folders are a maze to it the fix was almost stupidly small, one index file at the root of each big folder and a few numbers in front of the folder names slowest task dropped from 2 minutes to 26 seconds, fastest ones hit 10, zero model changes capability is cheap when the scaffolding around it is broken the article breaks down the whole system in 15 minutes ↓

shmidt

36,479 views • 2 months ago

Don't train the model, evolve the harness. I read a brilliant blog post from Hugging Face where they took a frozen open model scoring 0% on a hard legal agent benchmark, left its weights alone, and let an automated loop rewrite only the code around it. That code layer is the harness, the runtime wrapper that feeds the model context, runs its tool calls, and decides when a run ends. By the time the loop finished, the system had essentially matched Sonnet 4.6 on the benchmark's headline metric, at roughly 7x lower cost per task. Zero weights changed. The gain existed because of where the model was failing. The judge only grades files saved in the right place under the exact requested filename, and the model kept doing the legal analysis correctly, then saving it under the wrong name, dropping it in a scratch folder, or never writing it at all. So the 0% was never measuring legal reasoning. It was measuring the harness. Hand-tuning that layer is slow and model-specific, so they automated it. A Claude proposer adds exactly one mechanism per iteration, and an outer loop keeps it only if it clearly beats the current best, so accepted mechanisms compound. What the loop discovered says a lot about where agents actually fail. → The biggest single gain was file handling, not intelligence. An automatic step that lands the deliverable exactly where the judge expects it beat every prompt change, with zero extra model tokens. → Code fixes transferred across models, prompt playbooks did not. The same harness lifted a smaller model from the same family by 14 points, but the tuned prompts hurt a different model family on tasks it could already finish. → The harness mattered more than anything else. Same model, same judge, same tasks, and five different harnesses scored anywhere between 3.5% and 80.1%. The gains do eventually flatten, and the remaining misses look like real capability gaps. At some point the wrapper runs out of tricks and the model has to carry the work. But the lesson holds. A benchmark score measures the model and its harness together, and until the harness is fixed, it's impossible to know which one failed. I highly recommend reading this: I also wrote a deep dive on agent harness engineering a while back, covering the orchestration loop, tools, memory, context management, and everything that turns a stateless LLM into a capable agent. The article is quoted below.

Don't train the model, evolve the harness. I read a brilliant blog post from Hugging Face where they took a frozen open model scoring 0% on a hard legal agent benchmark, left its weights alone, and let an automated loop rewrite only the code around it. That code layer is the harness, the runtime wrapper that feeds the model context, runs its tool calls, and decides when a run ends. By the time the loop finished, the system had essentially matched Sonnet 4.6 on the benchmark's headline metric, at roughly 7x lower cost per task. Zero weights changed. The gain existed because of where the model was failing. The judge only grades files saved in the right place under the exact requested filename, and the model kept doing the legal analysis correctly, then saving it under the wrong name, dropping it in a scratch folder, or never writing it at all. So the 0% was never measuring legal reasoning. It was measuring the harness. Hand-tuning that layer is slow and model-specific, so they automated it. A Claude proposer adds exactly one mechanism per iteration, and an outer loop keeps it only if it clearly beats the current best, so accepted mechanisms compound. What the loop discovered says a lot about where agents actually fail. → The biggest single gain was file handling, not intelligence. An automatic step that lands the deliverable exactly where the judge expects it beat every prompt change, with zero extra model tokens. → Code fixes transferred across models, prompt playbooks did not. The same harness lifted a smaller model from the same family by 14 points, but the tuned prompts hurt a different model family on tasks it could already finish. → The harness mattered more than anything else. Same model, same judge, same tasks, and five different harnesses scored anywhere between 3.5% and 80.1%. The gains do eventually flatten, and the remaining misses look like real capability gaps. At some point the wrapper runs out of tricks and the model has to carry the work. But the lesson holds. A benchmark score measures the model and its harness together, and until the harness is fixed, it's impossible to know which one failed. I highly recommend reading this: I also wrote a deep dive on agent harness engineering a while back, covering the orchestration loop, tools, memory, context management, and everything that turns a stateless LLM into a capable agent. The article is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

245,252 views • 2 months ago

Running cold email campaigns just became a whole lot easier Smartlead now runs an MCP server, which in plain terms means Claude can read and act on your live campaign data directly instead of working off a spreadsheet that went stale the moment you exported it. The workflow is worth walking through properly, because it is shorter than people expect. You generate an API key inside your account, point Claude at the server once, and from then on you ask for what you want in a sentence. Here is a prompt worth stealing in full: "Fetch all Smartlead clients, then get today's performance for each: emails sent, replied, positive replies, unique lead count. Compute reply rate per client, run a top and bottom performer analysis, format it as a daily client performance report, and post it to Slack." One paste, and it pulls live figures for every account, does the arithmetic, ranks the strongest and the weakest, and delivers the finished thing into the channel your team already sits in, before anyone has logged on for the day. Be clear about the division of labour, because it is what makes this useful rather than a novelty. Smartlead is the engine holding the campaigns, the mailboxes, the warmup and the reply data, and Claude is simply the interface you operate all of it through, so nothing about your sending changes and everything about how you interrogate it does. The effect people underestimate is on the questions you start asking. Once a report costs you a sentence rather than an afternoon, you stop rationing the ones that used to feel like too much trouble, and problems that used to surface on a Friday start surfacing on a Tuesday. Connect it with Claude through MCP and run one prompt against your own account today.

Running cold email campaigns just became a whole lot easier Smartlead now runs an MCP server, which in plain terms means Claude can read and act on your live campaign data directly instead of working off a spreadsheet that went stale the moment you exported it. The workflow is worth walking through properly, because it is shorter than people expect. You generate an API key inside your account, point Claude at the server once, and from then on you ask for what you want in a sentence. Here is a prompt worth stealing in full: "Fetch all Smartlead clients, then get today's performance for each: emails sent, replied, positive replies, unique lead count. Compute reply rate per client, run a top and bottom performer analysis, format it as a daily client performance report, and post it to Slack." One paste, and it pulls live figures for every account, does the arithmetic, ranks the strongest and the weakest, and delivers the finished thing into the channel your team already sits in, before anyone has logged on for the day. Be clear about the division of labour, because it is what makes this useful rather than a novelty. Smartlead is the engine holding the campaigns, the mailboxes, the warmup and the reply data, and Claude is simply the interface you operate all of it through, so nothing about your sending changes and everything about how you interrogate it does. The effect people underestimate is on the questions you start asking. Once a report costs you a sentence rather than an afternoon, you stop rationing the ones that used to feel like too much trouble, and problems that used to surface on a Friday start surfacing on a Tuesday. Connect it with Claude through MCP and run one prompt against your own account today.

Tim

21,666 views • 4 days ago

this is f*cking gold engineers at Meta just deleted the most expensive part of multi-agent systems: instead of training a communication topology, they compile a fresh one for every query 20 agents went from 7 hours to 6 minutes. the problem everyone hits: 5 agents works. 20 agents turns into a group chat that answers slower than one model and costs more than the task is worth. ReActNet's fix is that the graph is written per query, not learned once: > an LLM controller reads the query and the agent roster > it compiles a sequence of directed graphs, one per reasoning stage > every edge carries a written instruction, e.g. "list boundary cases for this behavior" > each agent updates its state from its own previous state plus assigned neighbors > a final node aggregates all five states into the answer > no RL, no gradients, no training stage at all what that buys on gpt-4o: 92.75 average across 6 benchmarks, best on 5 of them. 100.00 on MultiArith. 92.74 pass@1 on HumanEval, +21 over a single model. and the number that should worry anyone running a swarm: at 20 agents GPTSwarm needs 412 minutes and $41.42. ReActNet needs 6.22 minutes and $6.53 and scores higher. the honest catch: more agents did not make it smarter. 5 agents scored 79.74, 20 scored 77.77. the topology was never the thing to learn.

this is f*cking gold engineers at Meta just deleted the most expensive part of multi-agent systems: instead of training a communication topology, they compile a fresh one for every query 20 agents went from 7 hours to 6 minutes. the problem everyone hits: 5 agents works. 20 agents turns into a group chat that answers slower than one model and costs more than the task is worth. ReActNet's fix is that the graph is written per query, not learned once: > an LLM controller reads the query and the agent roster > it compiles a sequence of directed graphs, one per reasoning stage > every edge carries a written instruction, e.g. "list boundary cases for this behavior" > each agent updates its state from its own previous state plus assigned neighbors > a final node aggregates all five states into the answer > no RL, no gradients, no training stage at all what that buys on gpt-4o: 92.75 average across 6 benchmarks, best on 5 of them. 100.00 on MultiArith. 92.74 pass@1 on HumanEval, +21 over a single model. and the number that should worry anyone running a swarm: at 20 agents GPTSwarm needs 412 minutes and $41.42. ReActNet needs 6.22 minutes and $6.53 and scores higher. the honest catch: more agents did not make it smarter. 5 agents scored 79.74, 20 scored 77.77. the topology was never the thing to learn.

NO1ennn

26,237 views • 10 days ago

You've probably scrolled past a dozen posts about Jev this week without anyone telling you what it actually is. It's the first model from TypeSafe, a lab started by one of the researchers behind ChatGPT. It's a decision engine: you give it options, it picks one and tells you how sure it is. It cannot write a single word, and that is the interesting part. Every other AI you use writes. That is the whole interface. So when software needs a plain yes or no, we make a model write a paragraph and then dig the answer back out of it. Fine in a chat window where a human reads it. Bad inside software, where code has to act on it. The bet is that the valuable half was never the writing. It was the deciding. That problem showed up in WordPress years ago, and it is the reason WPVibe works the way it does. The AI does the work. Anything permanent stops and waits, because a delete that skips the trash is not something software should decide on its own.

You've probably scrolled past a dozen posts about Jev this week without anyone telling you what it actually is. It's the first model from TypeSafe, a lab started by one of the researchers behind ChatGPT. It's a decision engine: you give it options, it picks one and tells you how sure it is. It cannot write a single word, and that is the interesting part. Every other AI you use writes. That is the whole interface. So when software needs a plain yes or no, we make a model write a paragraph and then dig the answer back out of it. Fine in a chat window where a human reads it. Bad inside software, where code has to act on it. The bet is that the valuable half was never the writing. It was the deciding. That problem showed up in WordPress years ago, and it is the reason WPVibe works the way it does. The AI does the work. Anything permanent stops and waits, because a delete that skips the trash is not something software should decide on its own.

John Turner

20,966 views • 4 days ago

FIVE LAYERS OF AGENT ENGINEERING, EACH ONE WRAPS THE ONE BELOW IT. IF YOU SKIP LAYER 2, YOUR LAYER 5 WILL LOOK BROKEN WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY JUST STANDING ON NOTHING. for weeks i debated harness vs loop vs graph like they were competing choices. then a stack diagram made the shape obvious. they are not choices. they are floors. 01 | prompt engineering. the message. unit of work: one input. inputs are role, instructions, examples, format. output is a single raw response. 02 | context engineering. the memory. unit of work: what stays in the window. a curator selects, compresses, and drops from query, docs, memory, prior turns, and tool outputs before the prompt runs. 03 | harness engineering. the machine. unit of work: the machine itself. gather (context + prompt) → LLM → tools or sub-agents → verifier → final response. the article calls this the operating environment. 04 | loop engineering. the system. unit of work: the run. goal + success criteria + max iterations + budget + completion check wrap around one harness pass. failed pass appends results to context and retries. 05 | graph engineering. the topology. unit of work: the graph run. goal + nodes + edges + state schema. graph routes to agent nodes, tool nodes, or human approval. a reviewer node with a different model and fresh context checks the final answer. the wrapping is the whole point. layer 5 assumes layer 4 works. layer 4 assumes layer 3 works. skip layer 2 and layer 3's verifier keeps failing without a clear reason. this is why swapping the model is a one-day project and swapping the stack is a quarter. the model is the commodity. the five layers around it are the engineering. full three-layer breakdown of the top of the stack (harness, loop, graph) in the post below.

FIVE LAYERS OF AGENT ENGINEERING, EACH ONE WRAPS THE ONE BELOW IT. IF YOU SKIP LAYER 2, YOUR LAYER 5 WILL LOOK BROKEN WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY JUST STANDING ON NOTHING. for weeks i debated harness vs loop vs graph like they were competing choices. then a stack diagram made the shape obvious. they are not choices. they are floors. 01 | prompt engineering. the message. unit of work: one input. inputs are role, instructions, examples, format. output is a single raw response. 02 | context engineering. the memory. unit of work: what stays in the window. a curator selects, compresses, and drops from query, docs, memory, prior turns, and tool outputs before the prompt runs. 03 | harness engineering. the machine. unit of work: the machine itself. gather (context + prompt) → LLM → tools or sub-agents → verifier → final response. the article calls this the operating environment. 04 | loop engineering. the system. unit of work: the run. goal + success criteria + max iterations + budget + completion check wrap around one harness pass. failed pass appends results to context and retries. 05 | graph engineering. the topology. unit of work: the graph run. goal + nodes + edges + state schema. graph routes to agent nodes, tool nodes, or human approval. a reviewer node with a different model and fresh context checks the final answer. the wrapping is the whole point. layer 5 assumes layer 4 works. layer 4 assumes layer 3 works. skip layer 2 and layer 3's verifier keeps failing without a clear reason. this is why swapping the model is a one-day project and swapping the stack is a quarter. the model is the commodity. the five layers around it are the engineering. full three-layer breakdown of the top of the stack (harness, loop, graph) in the post below.

kocer

30,675 views • 23 days ago

I just built a Meta Ads diagnostic in Claude Code that tells you WHY your account broke, not just what changed 🤯 It spins up a team of agents that each investigate a different reason performance dropped, then argue against each other to kill the wrong answer before it ever reaches you. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who panic-kill creative the second CPA spikes. If you've watched ROAS fall off a cliff and opened Ads Manager with ten tabs going, you already know what happens next. Your gut says "creative fatigue." You kill your best-performing ad. A week later performance is still broken, because that was never the problem. Guessing wrong is the most expensive move in paid social. This workflow ends the guessing: → One agent investigates each competing theory — creative fatigue, budget and delivery changes, traffic quality, offer and seasonality → Each one is blind to the others, reasoning only from its own slice of the data so they can't bias each other → A refuter agent then attacks every surviving theory and tries to kill it → A theory only stands if the data can't disprove it → You get a ranked diagnosis: the real cause, the evidence for and against it, and the one move to make this week No anchoring on the first obvious answer. No killing winning creative on a hunch. No "here's what happened" reports that never tell you why. What you get: → Every theory tested in parallel instead of one biased guess → An adversarial pass that kills the wrong answer before you act on it → A ranked diagnosis with confidence levels and evidence both ways → A reusable workflow you drop next month's export into and re-run Built 100% in Claude Code with the new dynamic workflows. The first account I ran it on looked like textbook creative fatigue. The workflow disagreed, and traced the real cause to a budget change that had doubled spend and flooded delivery with junk traffic. I put together a full playbook with the exact workflow, the prompt, and how to run it on your own account. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "META" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

I just built a Meta Ads diagnostic in Claude Code that tells you WHY your account broke, not just what changed 🤯 It spins up a team of agents that each investigate a different reason performance dropped, then argue against each other to kill the wrong answer before it ever reaches you. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who panic-kill creative the second CPA spikes. If you've watched ROAS fall off a cliff and opened Ads Manager with ten tabs going, you already know what happens next. Your gut says "creative fatigue." You kill your best-performing ad. A week later performance is still broken, because that was never the problem. Guessing wrong is the most expensive move in paid social. This workflow ends the guessing: → One agent investigates each competing theory — creative fatigue, budget and delivery changes, traffic quality, offer and seasonality → Each one is blind to the others, reasoning only from its own slice of the data so they can't bias each other → A refuter agent then attacks every surviving theory and tries to kill it → A theory only stands if the data can't disprove it → You get a ranked diagnosis: the real cause, the evidence for and against it, and the one move to make this week No anchoring on the first obvious answer. No killing winning creative on a hunch. No "here's what happened" reports that never tell you why. What you get: → Every theory tested in parallel instead of one biased guess → An adversarial pass that kills the wrong answer before you act on it → A ranked diagnosis with confidence levels and evidence both ways → A reusable workflow you drop next month's export into and re-run Built 100% in Claude Code with the new dynamic workflows. The first account I ran it on looked like textbook creative fatigue. The workflow disagreed, and traced the real cause to a budget change that had doubled spend and flooded delivery with junk traffic. I put together a full playbook with the exact workflow, the prompt, and how to run it on your own account. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "META" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

12,868 views • 3 months ago

this is f*cking gold Google engineers built an agent that tests thousands of search strategies for the cost of running one, by letting it dream inside its own memory. it is called Dream-RSI. Google, Google DeepMind, Maryland, Virginia. 17 authors. the whole thing rests on one observation: a finished run is not a log. it is a map of a world that already exists. > every discovery run records a tree. each node is one attempt with its full result stored > that tree becomes a replay simulator. the paper calls them worlds > the agent dreams inside it: thousands of alternative strategies, testing different branches, different orders, different concurrency, different stopping rules > every one of those evaluations costs zero execution. nothing is ever run twice > the winner goes back online, produces a new tree, and the pool of worlds grows the coding agent underneath is never touched. this is an orchestration layer sitting on top of whatever you already run. what it bought them, against the same agent with a frozen strategy: > Lasso: 3587ms down to 2931ms, on 317 agent calls instead of 550 > on Flash: 2517ms to 2351ms, 1879 calls instead of 3200 > both solvers beat sklearn and glmnet on all six held-out datasets > GPU kernels: the same result on 2.43x and 1.79x fewer generations, then 2.09x and 1.44x better result on the same budget one expensive run. thousands of free ones. the model did not get smarter. it got a memory it could rehearse in.

this is f*cking gold Google engineers built an agent that tests thousands of search strategies for the cost of running one, by letting it dream inside its own memory. it is called Dream-RSI. Google, Google DeepMind, Maryland, Virginia. 17 authors. the whole thing rests on one observation: a finished run is not a log. it is a map of a world that already exists. > every discovery run records a tree. each node is one attempt with its full result stored > that tree becomes a replay simulator. the paper calls them worlds > the agent dreams inside it: thousands of alternative strategies, testing different branches, different orders, different concurrency, different stopping rules > every one of those evaluations costs zero execution. nothing is ever run twice > the winner goes back online, produces a new tree, and the pool of worlds grows the coding agent underneath is never touched. this is an orchestration layer sitting on top of whatever you already run. what it bought them, against the same agent with a frozen strategy: > Lasso: 3587ms down to 2931ms, on 317 agent calls instead of 550 > on Flash: 2517ms to 2351ms, 1879 calls instead of 3200 > both solvers beat sklearn and glmnet on all six held-out datasets > GPU kernels: the same result on 2.43x and 1.79x fewer generations, then 2.09x and 1.44x better result on the same budget one expensive run. thousands of free ones. the model did not get smarter. it got a memory it could rehearse in.

NO1ennn

30,312 views • 4 days ago

clipping agencies rent offices now, $500,000 a year ten editors, a manager, a lease, and the only thing any of them is paid for is noticing noticing is 310 lines of python, and i gave it away it runs on Robinhood Chain, so the clip pays whoever cut it CUT never sees a single frame of the stream. it reads chat, because chat knows before the editor does, before the dashboard does, before the streamer does [what those 310 lines do] 1. measure the last 10 seconds against that stream's own 5 minute baseline 2. never a global number, a big channel idling still beats a small one peaking 3. count how many people just typed clip it 4. call the clip api in the same second, not after the room reacts that last one is the whole thing. a twitch clip only keeps the 90 seconds before you hit the button, so if you noticed the moment yourself, you already lost it no key to read chat. it cannot post for you. it runs on your machine, not mine one command replays three minutes of recorded chat offline and fires a real moment on your screen, so you can watch it work before you trust it

clipping agencies rent offices now, $500,000 a year ten editors, a manager, a lease, and the only thing any of them is paid for is noticing noticing is 310 lines of python, and i gave it away it runs on Robinhood Chain, so the clip pays whoever cut it CUT never sees a single frame of the stream. it reads chat, because chat knows before the editor does, before the dashboard does, before the streamer does [what those 310 lines do] 1. measure the last 10 seconds against that stream's own 5 minute baseline 2. never a global number, a big channel idling still beats a small one peaking 3. count how many people just typed clip it 4. call the clip api in the same second, not after the room reacts that last one is the whole thing. a twitch clip only keeps the 90 seconds before you hit the button, so if you noticed the moment yourself, you already lost it no key to read chat. it cannot post for you. it runs on your machine, not mine one command replays three minutes of recorded chat offline and fires a real moment on your screen, so you can watch it work before you trust it

Carver

274,303 views • 15 days ago

Reading the comments on this post told me everything I need to know about art. So many of you wrote to say you felt the exact same thing I did standing in front of the Starry Night. That strange pull, the sense that the painting is somehow alive... It turns out the feeling is completely universal. I am not someone who gets emotional easily. But every so often a piece of art really gets to me. And that is exactly what happened the first time i walked up to Van Gogh's magnum opus. I know how that sounds, it is one of the most famous paintings on earth, almost a cliché to be moved by it. But maybe it is that famous for a reason... It genuinely looks like it is moving while you stand there, shifting in a way I cannot explain and have never seen in any of the thousands of paintings I have looked at in my life. The same day I took the photo below, I also filmed this short video. It still comes nowhere near the real thing, but you can at least catch a little more of it here, the thick ridges of paint, the way the stars and swirls lift right off the canvas. This technique is called "impasto", from the Italian for mixture. It means paint laid on so thickly that every brushstroke and ridge stays visible on the surface. Van Gogh piled it on with a loaded brush, building the stars up thick so they would blaze as bright as possible against the dark. But no video and no explanation of technique can really convey what it feels like to stand in front of it. And the fact that so many of you felt the very same thing says something true about what art is really for. Tolstoy said it best: "The receiver of a true artistic impression is so united to the artist that he feels as if the work were his own and not someone else’s, as if what it expresses were just what he had long been wishing to express. A real work of art destroys, in the consciousness of the receiver, the separation between himself and the artist. In this uniting of it with others lies the great attractive force of art."

Reading the comments on this post told me everything I need to know about art. So many of you wrote to say you felt the exact same thing I did standing in front of the Starry Night. That strange pull, the sense that the painting is somehow alive... It turns out the feeling is completely universal. I am not someone who gets emotional easily. But every so often a piece of art really gets to me. And that is exactly what happened the first time i walked up to Van Gogh's magnum opus. I know how that sounds, it is one of the most famous paintings on earth, almost a cliché to be moved by it. But maybe it is that famous for a reason... It genuinely looks like it is moving while you stand there, shifting in a way I cannot explain and have never seen in any of the thousands of paintings I have looked at in my life. The same day I took the photo below, I also filmed this short video. It still comes nowhere near the real thing, but you can at least catch a little more of it here, the thick ridges of paint, the way the stars and swirls lift right off the canvas. This technique is called "impasto", from the Italian for mixture. It means paint laid on so thickly that every brushstroke and ridge stays visible on the surface. Van Gogh piled it on with a loaded brush, building the stars up thick so they would blaze as bright as possible against the dark. But no video and no explanation of technique can really convey what it feels like to stand in front of it. And the fact that so many of you felt the very same thing says something true about what art is really for. Tolstoy said it best: "The receiver of a true artistic impression is so united to the artist that he feels as if the work were his own and not someone else’s, as if what it expresses were just what he had long been wishing to express. A real work of art destroys, in the consciousness of the receiver, the separation between himself and the artist. In this uniting of it with others lies the great attractive force of art."

James Lucas

57,165 views • 14 days ago

Another WTF moment. A developer just open-sourced a coding agent harness that boots 245x faster than Claude Code. It's called jcode. You launch it and the first frame renders in 14 milliseconds. Claude Code takes 3,436. One active session uses 27.8 MB of RAM. Claude Code uses 386.6. Run ten sessions in parallel and jcode holds at 117 MB while OpenCode swells to 3.2 GB. Each agent has a semantic memory graph instead of a scratchpad. Every turn gets embedded as a vector. The graph is queried on every turn for related memories, and a sideagent verifies the hits before injecting them into context. Consolidation runs in the background to check for stale or conflicting facts. No manual /remember calls. No token burn on lookup tools. The provider list is 30+ deep. Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, GitHub Copilot, Azure, OpenRouter, DeepSeek, Groq, Mistral, Perplexity, Fireworks, Ollama, LM Studio, and any OpenAI-compatible endpoint you point it at. Ran out of tokens on your first ChatGPT Pro sub? /account swaps to the second. Then there's Swarm. Spawn two agents in the same repo and the server manages them. When agent A edits a file agent B has been reading, agent B gets pinged and can check the diff. Agents can DM each other, broadcast to the room, or spawn their own worker teams for parallel tasks. Groups, channels, and completion statuses are handled automatically. The UI has live side panels that render mermaid diagrams inline. To make it fast, the author wrote a Rust mermaid renderer 1800x faster than the JavaScript one, then wrote a custom terminal called Handterm because no existing terminal could do smooth partial-line scrolling. Self-dev mode is where it gets wild. Tell your agent to enter self-dev and it starts editing jcode's own source code, rebuilds the binary, reloads it live, and keeps working across your existing sessions. You can also resume broken sessions from Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, or pi directly inside jcode. Anthropic's cache goes cold at the 5-minute mark and you're staring down a big cache miss on your next turn? The UI warns you before you spend the tokens. Written in Rust. MIT licensed. Runs on macOS, Windows, Linux, and Termux. Sitting at 11.2k stars with a native iOS app coming.

Another WTF moment. A developer just open-sourced a coding agent harness that boots 245x faster than Claude Code. It's called jcode. You launch it and the first frame renders in 14 milliseconds. Claude Code takes 3,436. One active session uses 27.8 MB of RAM. Claude Code uses 386.6. Run ten sessions in parallel and jcode holds at 117 MB while OpenCode swells to 3.2 GB. Each agent has a semantic memory graph instead of a scratchpad. Every turn gets embedded as a vector. The graph is queried on every turn for related memories, and a sideagent verifies the hits before injecting them into context. Consolidation runs in the background to check for stale or conflicting facts. No manual /remember calls. No token burn on lookup tools. The provider list is 30+ deep. Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, GitHub Copilot, Azure, OpenRouter, DeepSeek, Groq, Mistral, Perplexity, Fireworks, Ollama, LM Studio, and any OpenAI-compatible endpoint you point it at. Ran out of tokens on your first ChatGPT Pro sub? /account swaps to the second. Then there's Swarm. Spawn two agents in the same repo and the server manages them. When agent A edits a file agent B has been reading, agent B gets pinged and can check the diff. Agents can DM each other, broadcast to the room, or spawn their own worker teams for parallel tasks. Groups, channels, and completion statuses are handled automatically. The UI has live side panels that render mermaid diagrams inline. To make it fast, the author wrote a Rust mermaid renderer 1800x faster than the JavaScript one, then wrote a custom terminal called Handterm because no existing terminal could do smooth partial-line scrolling. Self-dev mode is where it gets wild. Tell your agent to enter self-dev and it starts editing jcode's own source code, rebuilds the binary, reloads it live, and keeps working across your existing sessions. You can also resume broken sessions from Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, or pi directly inside jcode. Anthropic's cache goes cold at the 5-minute mark and you're staring down a big cache miss on your next turn? The UI warns you before you spend the tokens. Written in Rust. MIT licensed. Runs on macOS, Windows, Linux, and Termux. Sitting at 11.2k stars with a native iOS app coming.

Brady Long

207,858 views • 1 month ago

$Somewhere around sixty you get handed a new set of instructions. Lift lighter. Keep the reps high. Do not tax yourself too much. Put the saved effort into cardio. It is the exact reverse of what an ageing body needs, and the people handing it out have the mechanism sitting right in front of them. Recovery gets worse with age. Nobody argues with that. The older body clears fatigue more slowly, repairs more slowly, and tolerates far less accumulated work before progress stops entirely. Every GP, every physio, every trainer will nod along to that sentence. Then watch what gets prescribed on the back of it. High reps. Long burning sets. Circuits. Three sessions of cardio stacked on top. A protocol whose main product is fatigue, given to the person with the least capacity left to absorb any. They identified a recovery problem and prescribed more recovery cost. The answer runs the other way and it is not complicated. If your recovery budget has shrunk, you spend it on whatever returns the most growth per unit of fatigue, and that is a heavy set of five. Four to six reps, a handful of lifts, three minutes between sets, done inside the hour. Nearly every rep is a growth rep. Almost nothing goes on the burning, the sweating and the gasping, which build nothing at all and then bill you for four days. Twenty-five reps taken to failure is a fortnight of fatigue for a fraction of the stimulus. That is not the cautious option for a sixty-five-year-old. It is the most reckless thing on the timetable. Now the part that actually matters. Ageing is not one process. It is a list. Muscle wastes. Bone thins. Tendon softens. The fast fibres that catch you when the pavement arrives early vanish first while the slow ones sit there in perfect health. Motor units drop out. The nervous system stops asking for full effort because nothing has demanded full effort in fifteen years. Read that list back and tell me what heavy resistance training does. It builds muscle. It loads bone, which is the only language bone speaks. It stiffens tendon. It recruits the fast fibres, because that is what heavy means physiologically and there is no other route in. It forces the nervous system to ask for everything again. Every item on the list of what ageing takes is on the list of what a heavy set gives back. Nothing else on earth does that. Not a walk, not a class, not a pill, not twenty minutes on a machine with the paper open. You were told to go gently because somebody quietly decided you were finishing. Go heavy, because you are not.$

Somewhere around sixty you get handed a new set of instructions. Lift lighter. Keep the reps high. Do not tax yourself too much. Put the saved effort into cardio. It is the exact reverse of what an ageing body needs, and the people handing it out have the mechanism sitting right in front of them. Recovery gets worse with age. Nobody argues with that. The older body clears fatigue more slowly, repairs more slowly, and tolerates far less accumulated work before progress stops entirely. Every GP, every physio, every trainer will nod along to that sentence. Then watch what gets prescribed on the back of it. High reps. Long burning sets. Circuits. Three sessions of cardio stacked on top. A protocol whose main product is fatigue, given to the person with the least capacity left to absorb any. They identified a recovery problem and prescribed more recovery cost. The answer runs the other way and it is not complicated. If your recovery budget has shrunk, you spend it on whatever returns the most growth per unit of fatigue, and that is a heavy set of five. Four to six reps, a handful of lifts, three minutes between sets, done inside the hour. Nearly every rep is a growth rep. Almost nothing goes on the burning, the sweating and the gasping, which build nothing at all and then bill you for four days. Twenty-five reps taken to failure is a fortnight of fatigue for a fraction of the stimulus. That is not the cautious option for a sixty-five-year-old. It is the most reckless thing on the timetable. Now the part that actually matters. Ageing is not one process. It is a list. Muscle wastes. Bone thins. Tendon softens. The fast fibres that catch you when the pavement arrives early vanish first while the slow ones sit there in perfect health. Motor units drop out. The nervous system stops asking for full effort because nothing has demanded full effort in fifteen years. Read that list back and tell me what heavy resistance training does. It builds muscle. It loads bone, which is the only language bone speaks. It stiffens tendon. It recruits the fast fibres, because that is what heavy means physiologically and there is no other route in. It forces the nervous system to ask for everything again. Every item on the list of what ageing takes is on the list of what a heavy set gives back. Nothing else on earth does that. Not a walk, not a class, not a pill, not twenty minutes on a machine with the paper open. You were told to go gently because somebody quietly decided you were finishing. Go heavy, because you are not.

Sama Hoole

16,526 views • 1 month ago

ANTHROPIC ENGINEER JUST SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT GRAPH ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE WHEN A TASK RUNS THROUGH IT most people arguing about graphs online have never actually watched one execute Task → Researcher → Planner → Writer + Code Agent → Reviewer → Deploy six nodes, one shared state, graph completes itself while you watch loop mode gets disabled the second the task splits into real specialties, one agent stops trying to do everything at once reviewer catches a failure, kicks it straight back to the exact node that broke - not a full restart, no lost context the graph is not a fancier loop - it is the org chart your agents were missing bookmark this and watch it run, then read the article below to see why the timeline just found what production systems already do

ANTHROPIC ENGINEER JUST SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT GRAPH ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE WHEN A TASK RUNS THROUGH IT most people arguing about graphs online have never actually watched one execute Task → Researcher → Planner → Writer + Code Agent → Reviewer → Deploy six nodes, one shared state, graph completes itself while you watch loop mode gets disabled the second the task splits into real specialties, one agent stops trying to do everything at once reviewer catches a failure, kicks it straight back to the exact node that broke - not a full restart, no lost context the graph is not a fancier loop - it is the org chart your agents were missing bookmark this and watch it run, then read the article below to see why the timeline just found what production systems already do

leopardracer

53,328 views • 2 months ago

This guy built a visual scanner that reads 468 points on his face and 42 points on his hands from a regular webcam and turns them into a cloud of thousands of particles right between his palms. Inside, MediaPipe and TouchDesigner are linked: the first captures hands and face from the webcam with high accuracy, the second turns those coordinates into a live plane and feeds it into a POP system that instantly generates a swarm of particles in the shape of a head. No studio, no render farmer, no VR headset. Just a laptop, a webcam, and 1 TouchDesigner session. And traditional VJ studios keep teams of 5 people on a setup with lighting, custom hardware, and commercial plugins, while his expenses are only a TouchDesigner subscription and a regular USB camera. One laptop runs MediaPipe and TouchDesigner simultaneously, holds the camera stream at 60 FPS without drops, and in parallel processes 468 face points + 21 points on each hand. The camera captures frame after frame, MediaPipe in real time sends TouchDesigner the finger coordinates and face geometry, and the POP operator inside the engine translates those numbers into thousands of particle points with colors from bright pink to gold. This setup immediately defines the role of the tool and the limits of its autonomy. It knows where the fingertips are at every moment of the frame. It knows how to read the face geometry at any angle to the camera. It knows how to draw a swarm of particles between them with the right color and contour. → MediaPipe pulls 468 points from the face and 21 points from each hand, 60 times per second → TouchDesigner receives those coordinates, builds a virtual rectangle between the fingertips, and feeds it into the POP system → POP generates thousands of particle points in the shape of a head, coloring them in a gradient from bright pink to gold → The HUD layer adds green corners and a blue neon frame, styling the image like an AR interface → All layers assemble into 1 real-time frame that projects back onto the video in the camera window → The final image is recorded to a file or broadcast to a projector for a live installation And only when the guy spreads his hands wider does the plane between the palms stretch; brings them together, it narrows. Otherwise the system runs on its own. And when he moves from his home room to a concert hall, the same laptop with the same webcam launches the same TouchDesigner session in just 5 minutes, without reconfiguration, without a new team, and without a single line of new code. In his work setup there is no studio of his own and no team for assembly. On the desk sits a laptop with a webcam, on top run MediaPipe and TouchDesigner with POP operators, and the same setup through a USB camera moves to any concert without a new configuration. Out of everything I have seen this year, this is the cleanest Creative Coding setup on 1 laptop: 0 render farms, 0 studio lighting, and between them 3 libraries, thousands of particle points, and 1 webcam.

This guy built a visual scanner that reads 468 points on his face and 42 points on his hands from a regular webcam and turns them into a cloud of thousands of particles right between his palms. Inside, MediaPipe and TouchDesigner are linked: the first captures hands and face from the webcam with high accuracy, the second turns those coordinates into a live plane and feeds it into a POP system that instantly generates a swarm of particles in the shape of a head. No studio, no render farmer, no VR headset. Just a laptop, a webcam, and 1 TouchDesigner session. And traditional VJ studios keep teams of 5 people on a setup with lighting, custom hardware, and commercial plugins, while his expenses are only a TouchDesigner subscription and a regular USB camera. One laptop runs MediaPipe and TouchDesigner simultaneously, holds the camera stream at 60 FPS without drops, and in parallel processes 468 face points + 21 points on each hand. The camera captures frame after frame, MediaPipe in real time sends TouchDesigner the finger coordinates and face geometry, and the POP operator inside the engine translates those numbers into thousands of particle points with colors from bright pink to gold. This setup immediately defines the role of the tool and the limits of its autonomy. It knows where the fingertips are at every moment of the frame. It knows how to read the face geometry at any angle to the camera. It knows how to draw a swarm of particles between them with the right color and contour. → MediaPipe pulls 468 points from the face and 21 points from each hand, 60 times per second → TouchDesigner receives those coordinates, builds a virtual rectangle between the fingertips, and feeds it into the POP system → POP generates thousands of particle points in the shape of a head, coloring them in a gradient from bright pink to gold → The HUD layer adds green corners and a blue neon frame, styling the image like an AR interface → All layers assemble into 1 real-time frame that projects back onto the video in the camera window → The final image is recorded to a file or broadcast to a projector for a live installation And only when the guy spreads his hands wider does the plane between the palms stretch; brings them together, it narrows. Otherwise the system runs on its own. And when he moves from his home room to a concert hall, the same laptop with the same webcam launches the same TouchDesigner session in just 5 minutes, without reconfiguration, without a new team, and without a single line of new code. In his work setup there is no studio of his own and no team for assembly. On the desk sits a laptop with a webcam, on top run MediaPipe and TouchDesigner with POP operators, and the same setup through a USB camera moves to any concert without a new configuration. Out of everything I have seen this year, this is the cleanest Creative Coding setup on 1 laptop: 0 render farms, 0 studio lighting, and between them 3 libraries, thousands of particle points, and 1 webcam.

Blaze

38,242 views • 4 months ago

They did not take cursive from the schools because children no longer needed it. They took it because of what it was quietly building in them. Consider what the exercise actually is. A child, six years old, is handed a pen and asked to draw a single unbroken line that becomes a word. The wrist must float. The fingers must hold a living pressure, never quite the same twice, always correcting. The eye must follow the ink forward and trust the hand to finish what it has begun. There is no lifting, no stopping, no starting over mid-word. The loop must close. The ascender must rise and return. The sentence must travel from one margin to the other as a single continuous gesture, and at the end of it the hand must still be steady. Twelve years of this. Every day. Ten thousand small acts of sustained, self-correcting attention, carried out below the level of conscious thought, until the motion belongs to the body and the body belongs to the motion. This is not penmanship. It is the slow construction of an interior form. The hand that has learned to carry a line without breaking it is the hand of a mind that has learned to carry a thought without breaking it. The two are not metaphors for one another. They are the same faculty, trained in the same child, by the same daily discipline. Continuity of the stroke becomes continuity of the reasoning. The patience of the loop becomes the patience of the argument. The commitment to finish a word one has started becomes the commitment to finish a sentence, a paragraph, a life's idea, without reaching for the nearest distraction halfway through. Print is a different creature entirely. Print lifts. Print stops. Print assembles a word out of separate, stamped, interchangeable pieces, each one beginning and ending in isolation. A mind raised only on print learns to think the way print is made, in discrete tokens, in replaceable units, in fragments that can be recombined by any outside hand without the owner noticing the substitution. It is precisely the shape of thought a language model produces. It is precisely the shape of thought a language model can steer. Cursive is kata. This is the whole of it. A form repeated daily, for years, not for the sake of the form but for what the repetition lays down in the practitioner beneath the form. The swordsman does not train kata so that one day he may fight in kata. He trains it so that when the moment comes and there is no time to think, the movement is already inside him, older and deeper than thought, and it rises on its own. Cursive was the kata of the literate mind, the daily quiet drilling of continuity, of patience, of a line held steady under the long pressure of its own length. And the signature it produced at the end, that small flourished mark unique to a single human being on earth, was only the outward proof of an inward form no machine and no other hand could ever reproduce. Take the kata away and the practitioner is left with vocabulary in place of faculty. He can recognise a whole thought when he encounters one. He cannot carry one himself. He can admire a finished argument. He cannot sustain one long enough to close its loop. He begins books he does not finish, sentences he does not end, ideas he abandons the moment the screen in his palm offers him a brighter one. And when the machine begins feeding him tokens in the exact shape his schooling taught him to receive, he meets it with no interior resistance at all, because no interior form was ever built in him to push back with. They removed it quietly, across a generation, and they removed it in the last years before the machines arrived. Twelve years of daily practice in unbroken, embodied, self-authored thought, gone from the curriculum of almost every child in the Western world, just as the instruments designed to complete their sentences for them came online. The hand forgets. The mind, having never been taught the kata, forgets a thing it never knew it had. That is what cursive was. That is what was taken. And that is why the thought of anyone who still writes by hand, in long unlifted lines, remains, quietly, stubbornly, and without their ever needing to announce it, their own. Now the question stands open. What else has been banned, phased out, quietly retired from the curriculum and from common life over these same decades, under the same soft excuses? Mental arithmetic. Memorisation of poetry. Latin. Logic as a formal subject. Map reading. Knot work. The keeping of a commonplace book. The reading aloud of long passages in class. Singing in parts. What was each of those actually building in the child, beneath the surface of the lesson, and whose interest was served by its disappearance?

They did not take cursive from the schools because children no longer needed it. They took it because of what it was quietly building in them. Consider what the exercise actually is. A child, six years old, is handed a pen and asked to draw a single unbroken line that becomes a word. The wrist must float. The fingers must hold a living pressure, never quite the same twice, always correcting. The eye must follow the ink forward and trust the hand to finish what it has begun. There is no lifting, no stopping, no starting over mid-word. The loop must close. The ascender must rise and return. The sentence must travel from one margin to the other as a single continuous gesture, and at the end of it the hand must still be steady. Twelve years of this. Every day. Ten thousand small acts of sustained, self-correcting attention, carried out below the level of conscious thought, until the motion belongs to the body and the body belongs to the motion. This is not penmanship. It is the slow construction of an interior form. The hand that has learned to carry a line without breaking it is the hand of a mind that has learned to carry a thought without breaking it. The two are not metaphors for one another. They are the same faculty, trained in the same child, by the same daily discipline. Continuity of the stroke becomes continuity of the reasoning. The patience of the loop becomes the patience of the argument. The commitment to finish a word one has started becomes the commitment to finish a sentence, a paragraph, a life's idea, without reaching for the nearest distraction halfway through. Print is a different creature entirely. Print lifts. Print stops. Print assembles a word out of separate, stamped, interchangeable pieces, each one beginning and ending in isolation. A mind raised only on print learns to think the way print is made, in discrete tokens, in replaceable units, in fragments that can be recombined by any outside hand without the owner noticing the substitution. It is precisely the shape of thought a language model produces. It is precisely the shape of thought a language model can steer. Cursive is kata. This is the whole of it. A form repeated daily, for years, not for the sake of the form but for what the repetition lays down in the practitioner beneath the form. The swordsman does not train kata so that one day he may fight in kata. He trains it so that when the moment comes and there is no time to think, the movement is already inside him, older and deeper than thought, and it rises on its own. Cursive was the kata of the literate mind, the daily quiet drilling of continuity, of patience, of a line held steady under the long pressure of its own length. And the signature it produced at the end, that small flourished mark unique to a single human being on earth, was only the outward proof of an inward form no machine and no other hand could ever reproduce. Take the kata away and the practitioner is left with vocabulary in place of faculty. He can recognise a whole thought when he encounters one. He cannot carry one himself. He can admire a finished argument. He cannot sustain one long enough to close its loop. He begins books he does not finish, sentences he does not end, ideas he abandons the moment the screen in his palm offers him a brighter one. And when the machine begins feeding him tokens in the exact shape his schooling taught him to receive, he meets it with no interior resistance at all, because no interior form was ever built in him to push back with. They removed it quietly, across a generation, and they removed it in the last years before the machines arrived. Twelve years of daily practice in unbroken, embodied, self-authored thought, gone from the curriculum of almost every child in the Western world, just as the instruments designed to complete their sentences for them came online. The hand forgets. The mind, having never been taught the kata, forgets a thing it never knew it had. That is what cursive was. That is what was taken. And that is why the thought of anyone who still writes by hand, in long unlifted lines, remains, quietly, stubbornly, and without their ever needing to announce it, their own. Now the question stands open. What else has been banned, phased out, quietly retired from the curriculum and from common life over these same decades, under the same soft excuses? Mental arithmetic. Memorisation of poetry. Latin. Logic as a formal subject. Map reading. Knot work. The keeping of a commonplace book. The reading aloud of long passages in class. Singing in parts. What was each of those actually building in the child, beneath the surface of the lesson, and whose interest was served by its disappearance?

SiriusB

444,185 views • 5 months ago

There is a room in Málaga that was built to be the closest thing on earth to standing inside heaven. It is called the camarín of the Virgin of Victory, and it is hidden at the top of a tower inside the Santuario de la Victoria. To reach it, you climb and the ascent is the entire point... The building you are climbing through was completed in 1700, and it was designed as a single argument made in stone. At the bottom lies a crypt: a black chamber crowded with white plaster skeletons, a meditation on death and the brevity of life. From there a staircase rises, and as you climb it the light grows stronger and the imagery changes from bones to saints. The architects of the time understood this ascent as the soul's own journey, the dark crypt as the stage of penitence, the staircase as the stage of spiritual progress, and the room at the very top as the final stage: the union of the soul with the divine. That room at the top is the camarín, and its dome is one of the most extraordinary interiors in Spain... Every surface is covered in white and gold plasterwork. There is no empty space anywhere. The Baroque called this horror vacui, the horror of the void: the conviction that a space meant to represent heaven should not contain a single bare patch of stone. Out of that plasterwork emerge angels, flowers, birds, and mirrors. The mirrors are not decoration alone. They catch the light pouring in through the windows of the drum and throw it around the chamber, so that the gold seems to move and the whole room appears to shimmer and breathe. This wonder was built by people who believed that if you wanted to show a human being what heaven might feel like, you did not describe it to them. You built a room, and you let them climb into it... -- -- -- If you enjoyed this, I write a weekly newsletter read by over 50,000 people who love rediscovering the beauty of the past. You can join us here: If you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible.

There is a room in Málaga that was built to be the closest thing on earth to standing inside heaven. It is called the camarín of the Virgin of Victory, and it is hidden at the top of a tower inside the Santuario de la Victoria. To reach it, you climb and the ascent is the entire point... The building you are climbing through was completed in 1700, and it was designed as a single argument made in stone. At the bottom lies a crypt: a black chamber crowded with white plaster skeletons, a meditation on death and the brevity of life. From there a staircase rises, and as you climb it the light grows stronger and the imagery changes from bones to saints. The architects of the time understood this ascent as the soul's own journey, the dark crypt as the stage of penitence, the staircase as the stage of spiritual progress, and the room at the very top as the final stage: the union of the soul with the divine. That room at the top is the camarín, and its dome is one of the most extraordinary interiors in Spain... Every surface is covered in white and gold plasterwork. There is no empty space anywhere. The Baroque called this horror vacui, the horror of the void: the conviction that a space meant to represent heaven should not contain a single bare patch of stone. Out of that plasterwork emerge angels, flowers, birds, and mirrors. The mirrors are not decoration alone. They catch the light pouring in through the windows of the drum and throw it around the chamber, so that the gold seems to move and the whole room appears to shimmer and breathe. This wonder was built by people who believed that if you wanted to show a human being what heaven might feel like, you did not describe it to them. You built a room, and you let them climb into it... -- -- -- If you enjoyed this, I write a weekly newsletter read by over 50,000 people who love rediscovering the beauty of the past. You can join us here: If you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible.

James Lucas

69,389 views • 4 months ago