与「mista」相关的搜索结果

分享一个神级review提示词方法论。 LLM 自我纠正的综述 《When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes?》结论是：如果没有测试结果、工具输出等可靠的外部反馈，模型仅靠自己反思，通常很难稳定纠正错误。 也就是说简单的“让模型检查自己”效果一般很有限。 下面三种提示效果往往逐级递增： ●“Review 一下。” ●“进行对抗式审查。” ●“重点检查 XX 易错面，对抗式审查。” 本质上是人作为指导者，要给Agent提供 额外信息 + 方法论。对抗式审查是Review的方法论 + XX 易错面是额外信息。 这些都能让 Agent 获得新的注意力方向和额外计算预算。

BREAKING: President Trump speaks out about the Department of Justice's move to drop the Reflecting Pool vandalism case. "That was the one mistake with the reflecting pond, they hadn't put up the cameras yet... If they would have had them up, we would have had a lot of- it would have been a lot easier. And I was disappointed with Jeanine Pirro, really disappointed with Jeanine Pirro. She folded like an umbrella and people get away with things, and it's a disgrace."

Today, I want to share something that happened to me on Kraken. I’m completely new to crypto, and this was my first time using Kraken. All I wanted to do was convert USDC into USD. Unfortunately, because USDT and USD differ by only one letter, I accidentally selected USDT instead of USD. I didn’t realize my mistake until the transaction had already been completed. In less than a minute, a single misclick resulted in a loss of approximately 810 USDT—more than $800. To be honest, I was shocked and devastated. Like many newcomers, I assumed that all major stablecoins were worth roughly the same, so converting between them would involve little or almost no loss. I never imagined that such a simple mistake could instantly cost me more than 1% of my funds. I immediately contacted Kraken Support, hoping they would understand that this was an honest human error and review my case, or at least consider making a one-time exception. What disappointed me even more was that almost every response came from AI. I was never able to speak with a real support agent. The only explanation I received was that the transaction had already been executed, the conversion details had been displayed before confirmation, and therefore nothing could be reversed or refunded. I understand that Kraken may not have violated its own rules, and I acknowledge that the final amount I would receive was displayed before I confirmed the transaction. But I believe that “the information was displayed” does not necessarily mean “a new user truly understands what it means.” As a beginner, I saw what I believed was a normal stablecoin conversion. I had no idea that the number shown on the confirmation screen meant I was about to lose more than $800. If a platform expects users to recognize an $800+ pricing difference on their own, instead of proactively warning them that the conversion is unusually unfavorable, I don’t believe that’s a user-friendly experience—especially for beginners. I believe that a platform responsible for customers’ assets should do more than simply display numbers. It should also be designed to help users avoid obvious mistakes that can lead to significant financial losses. Crypto is already complicated enough. The risks users take should come from the market—not from a product design that makes such costly mistakes so easy to make. This experience has left me deeply disappointed and has almost completely destroyed my trust in Kraken. I’m not trying to deny Kraken’s rules, and I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m simply asking @kraken and @krakensupport to review my case, seriously consider improving the user experience, provide real human support when genuine mistakes happen, and consider a one-time resolution for customers who make an honest human error. If this could happen to me, it could happen to any newcomer entering the world of crypto. I hope my experience helps others avoid making the same mistake. Please double-check every click. @krakenfx @krakenpro @krakensupport

The biggest mistake in humanoid robotics isn't engineering. It's thinking the robot is the entire business. History says otherwise. The companies that become indispensable don't always build the machine—they build the ecosystem everyone else eventually depends on. For the past six years, PITN has been preparing for a world where humanoid robotics becomes a multilingual global economy, not just a collection of impressive machines. While headlines chased the next robot demo, we quietly assembled a strategic portfolio of 500+ robotics and AI digital assets across 30 of the world's most influential languages. Not because domains are the future. Because digital identity is. Every emerging industry reaches a tipping point where attention shifts from Can we build it? to How will the world find, trust, and connect with it? That's when gateways matter. Maybe the robotics industry hasn't reached that realization yet. Just because evolution is slow doesn’t mean you need to be! Maybe it's closer than anyone thinks. Either way, we chose to build for tomorrow instead of competing for today's headlines. The future won't speak one language. Neither will humanoid robotics. Embrace the future. #HumanoidRobotics# #ArtificialIntelligence# #Robotics# #FutureTech# #DigitalAssets# #Innovation#

Most people use Claude like a search engine. I use it like a business partner who knows everything about me. The difference is one file: CLAUDE.md It lives in my vault and tells Claude exactly: → Who I am and how I think → What I'm building right now → My writing style and tone → Mistakes I never want to repeat Every session starts with full context. No re-explaining. No generic answers. No starting over. I wrote it in 2 hours. It's saved me hundreds since. Most people treat AI like a tool. The ones winning treat it like infrastructure. @novak7747 — build the infrastructure. #Claude# #AIProductivity# #SecondBrain#

CZ said something today: "Tough times again. Self custody if you know how to keep your seedphrase safe." Everyone's staring at the second half — self custody, hold your own keys. I'm staring at one word in the first half: again. A bear market is never one crash. It's a slow bleed. 99 crypto projects have died so far in 2026. Two exchanges shut down in a single week. Not one made a "blowup" headline — just one quiet line each, quietly closing, quietly going to zero. Meanwhile people are still cheering "buy more" and "integration." I've been short a long time, and I never watch whether tomorrow is green or red. I watch the script — exchanges close, projects die, platform tokens zero out, new money catches the knife — run once a year, every year, and every time someone's sure it's different. My own biggest leak this half-year wasn't the few big wrong-way bets. It was clicking in and out while the market chopped sideways, slicing a profit I should've held into a negative-sum bleed. What actually wipes people out is rarely one day's crash. It's that word — again. The same mistake in a new wrapper, once a year. The market is open every day. That doesn't mean you have to be in it every day. $BTC #Bitcoin# #Crypto#

On July 14, the Department of the Navy released its Strategy to Weaponize Data and AI: a roadmap to an AI-first Fleet that can "out-learn and out-fight any adversary." Within a week, our team answered with working code. The Navy's new strategy frames data and AI as warfighting assets on par with weapons and munitions, and it prizes one thing above all: turning information into decisions, fast. That is exactly the problem our GURU architecture was built for. So when two Navy SBIR topics called for AI-driven maritime tracking and adaptive sensor management, we pointed at the sea what we had already proven in orbit. The video below shows both prototypes, back to back. First, GURU MarineGuard: 787 real vessels from public NOAA data, replayed through a cascade of learned models that forecast each ship's movement, flag deviations from its learned pattern of life, and hand analysts a ranked review queue instead of an unfiltered flood. The full stack runs on a laptop. Second, an adaptive sensor resource manager add-on to MarineGuard: it measures each radar's marginal contribution to each track, projects the consequence of releasing a sensor task before proposing it, and then waits for the operator. Advisory by design. Both inherit their DNA from OrbitGuard, our system watching 14,710 space objects at the SDA TAP Lab with 94 to 96 percent maneuver-detection accuracy. Same architecture, new domain, days not years. These are prototypes, and we say so on screen. The trajectories are real. The sensor numbers are deliberately notional. No score is a threat call. Showing your assumptions is a capability, not a caveat, and national-security guidance now demands exactly that: AI that is reliable, robust, steerable, and controllable under rigorous test and evaluation. Our doctrine was written for that bar. Learned models accelerate and rank. Validated references confirm and decide. Humans stay in command. One architecture. Space, maritime, autonomous engineering, regulated nuclear autonomy. This is simply the latest sign of what this team fields, fast, where mistakes are not allowed. Sailors, engineers, program folks: what mission should GURU learn next? #DefenseTech# #ArtificialIntelligence# #MaritimeDomainAwareness#

AI + A 3D PRINTER CAN TURN A 10-SECOND IDEA INTO SOMETHING PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY BUY. That's the part most people underestimate. With AI generating concepts in seconds and a desktop 3D printer producing physical prototypes the same day, it's easier than ever to test product ideas without spending thousands on manufacturing. A simple design selling for $25 only needs 40 sales to generate $1,000 in revenue. If your material cost is around $2-5 per print, there's still room for healthy margins before shipping and platform fees. The biggest money saver isn't the printer it's avoiding expensive production mistakes. Printing a prototype for a few dollars is a lot cheaper than ordering hundreds of units that nobody wants. The real advantage is speed. Design it, print it, improve it, and list it for sale in days instead of weeks. AI doesn't replace creativity. It just helps you get from an idea to a finished product much faster.

About 4 months ago, I received a ban from SeaOfThieves on an alt account due to my username (RealDrewStevens) with a ban reason of “Rare Staff Impersonation” which I take full accountability for being in the wrong here. At the time I sent in a ticket on my main account asking for clarification on the ban. After a few weeks of contacting support and attempting to reach out to anyone who could assist me, my resolution was the support team telling me there was “no enforcement action against your Xbox Live account.” They also then told me “purchasing a new license for Sea of Thieves through the Microsoft Store / Game Pass subscription / Steam or and linking your Xbox Live account to that new game license should resolve your issue.” Since then, they have gone back on this statement and last night I found out they banned my main account. In a Sea of Thieves Developer Update, @S0nicBob stated “On reflection, we feel we can create a more fair and transparent approach to enforcement, that gives players some breathing room when mistakes are made but most crucially, gives them a chance to be able to learn from those mistakes” in regards to the new points system they were implementing. So what’s the deal with this? Because right now, the actions of the support team directly contradict the public statement that was put out. I did everything "right" here. I opened a ticket instead of going straight to twitter; I kept my patience with the support team; I didn't ban evade until the support team responded and told me to do so. And now, months later, with zero new incidents and zero further communication, my main account, the one the support team confirmed had "no enforcement action" against it, is banned. Where's the "breathing room" in that? Where's the "chance to learn from mistakes" when the current mistake in question was following the support team's own advice? This new policy is just as vague and hard to interpret as the old policy. I have the ticket. I have the exact wording support used. I have a timeline that shows I acted in good faith at every single step (after the original incident of course which I again take full accountability for), only to have the rug pulled out from under me with no explanation, no warning, and no updates to tell me why the goalposts moved. Let me give a couple examples of the inconsistencies here. The gamertag “Official SOT” can receive a 3 point ban (permanent until name change). A tweet can receive a 3 point ban for “Rare Staff Impersonation” (3 days). So then why is my “Rare Staff Impersonation” ban any different? I don’t want special treatment. I want support to actually hold itself to the standards they presented to the entire community. Either Drew’s statement meant something or it didn't and right now, my account says it didn't. @RareLtd @SeaOfThieves @SoT_Support @MicrosoftHelps: I'd appreciate an actual response this time instead of a copy-paste closure. Currently that is all I am able to get out of the lowest level of the support team with no way of escalation. Please allow me my second chance that so many others received in the second chance policy. #SeaOfThieves# #FairAndTransparent#