Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Someone using their mouse cursor to hover the emoji selection in a discord, on bear, doing the Amygdala’s Rag Doll by Ghost & Pals Trypophobia Animation / changing emotions faces bipolar youtube / reaction ? video meme

62,447 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

004/100 Buttons. A bit of the process on building an animation. When looking at a finished animation or in this example a finished button, it can look quite complex inside the CSS. But when building it, it’s more like a lot of simple steps, one after another. Here I had the idea to make some kind of text animation like the footer logo on the Osmo site. I try to add the base animation with no complex easing, for example transition: translate 0.4s ease. Starting with just moving the one text from bottom to top and the other text to top. Adding a stagger, play around with it. Searching for a way to make it more circular. On the research I found the sin() function inside CSS which can build a more smooth non linear curve for the stagger which creates this circular effect. And step by step adding more complexity like, different easing for hover/hover-out, opacity, 3D transform and more. I use also the sin() function to rotate the letters, so the middle ones are getting more rotated than the outer ones. Another thing which helps is to add a small delay on hover, for example 0.05s or 0.1s, you don’t really see the difference, but when you hover pretty fast on and out it doesn’t get that jumpy. I’m using here GSAP’s SplitText to split every char into spans. And then I’m adding a CSS index variable to every span, starting from the center. SplitText can provide CSS index variables, but you cannot tell it from which direction. For the sin() it’s also important to have a max length, so I add another CSS variable with the max char number on it. Crafting 100 Buttons with Osmo ⏳ Total time: 63h

Eduard Bodak

166,023 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

There’s been two papers released in the past couple months, one by Google and one by NVIDIA, that argue that ordering the documents retrieved by RAG systems can enhance performance. However, they both give two different strategies on HOW these documents should be ordered 🤔 Both papers agree on two main points: 1️⃣ There’s a fundamental issue in RAG - as more documents are retrieved, more irrelevant context (e.g., hard negatives) are introduced, which leads to confusion for the LLM and eventually degrades the quality of the generated output. This is called an inverted-U performance curve. 2️⃣ Ordering the retrieved documents is a key lever for optimizing RAG performance. Google Cloud researchers proposed ordering results based on relevance scores: The authors in this paper argue for relevance-based reordering, or ordering the retrieved chunks based on their similarity scores, so the most relevant documents are at the beginning and the end of the inputs to counter the “lost in the middle” effect. NVIDIA researchers proposed ordering results based on the original sequence of document chunks: The authors of this paper argue for Order-Preserving Reordering, or Order-Preserve RAG (OP-RAG), to maintain the logically coherent content flow of the document. So they preserved the original order of retrieved document chunks in the source text, instead of ranking them by relevance scores. So which one is right? It probably depends on the specific use case and dataset - relevance-based reordering could perform better in tasks where you need fast access to the most critical information (e.g., fact retrieval, QA systems), while order-preserving RAG might be better where you need to understand the sequential structure of information (e.g., narrative or legal documents). There are still so many uncertainties in AI - we don’t actually know what we’re doing, and it takes awhile to figure out the best strategies for most things! Excited to see more research about this.

Victoria Slocum

15,333 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Ok, that's amazing. 🦄 A side by side three.js comparison - with GitMCP and without. GitMCP's story originally started from a tweet by Three.js about their large, non-LLM-digestable, documentation file. Ido Salomon and I ended up creating a cool generic documentation MCP server, but we didn't forget threejs and mrdoob. So we put it to the test. Using GitMCP, I gave this prompt to Cursor + Claude 3.7: "Build a Three.js scene featuring a controllable realistic person navigating a textured dynamic urban environment with realistic lighting and subtle bloom effects. Ensure keyboard controls (WASD) for movement." This is the result. To the right is the one-shot result with our MCP server. To the left is the result without it, based just on Cursor's limited knowledge. The video is pretty conclusive. 🤯 It's really amazing since Cursor already knows a lot about three.js, but with our dedicated documentation MCP server it just outputs better results. And for all other libraries out there - that are not included in Cursor - this is a total game changer. A huge shout out to Cloudflare Developers and Anni Wang, who worked with us yesterday to quickly insert new capabilities in their AutoRAG feature (that enables indexing large amount of documentation) according to our specific needs, and to troubleshoot issues. It was very helpful. Knowledge is power, and that applies for every coding assitant. And not just for three.js! Check out GitMCP for any library you're using - link in the next comment.

Liad Yosef

41,745 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr