Alexa

Building @scholaco 1x better everyday! || At the Intersection of Tech x Academia x Leadership. Dear Dreamer, Keep Dreaming. 🌹

[Alexa @Alexa_the_dev]

@Oveea_0712 @gaagana_ @alx_africa @AlxGhana Yes.
Exactly.

[Alexa @Alexa_the_dev]

@gaagana_ @alx_africa @AlxGhana Hugging face spaces is generally better for compute-heavy ML demos and model deployment .

[Bad theory labs @Badtheorylabs]

Status Update:
BTL runtime now average a total of 135k request per week

Join us: https://t.co/Yqy5pjdEAp

[Alexa @Alexa_the_dev]

@theGreatSeleem I think it’s gonna be from next year.

[Alexa @Alexa_the_dev]

@_aanuade Congratulations, Aanu.

[Alexa @Alexa_the_dev]

@ekemini58110 Hi, Kem Kem. 🌚

[Alexa @Alexa_the_dev]

@EhisOjeks Wtf is this? 😂

[Alexa @Alexa_the_dev]

@AdeboyeAdetayo @Telegraphprotoc Damn.
Alright,

[Oceanic @Seasideocean1]

@OurFavOnlineDoc Let promote the Pastors speaking truth to power to encourage more of them

[Khairallah AL-Awady @eng_khairallah1]

Anthropic pays $750,000+ a year for engineers who know how to build LLMs from scratch.

Stanford just released the exact lecture that teaches it - 1 hour 44 minutes, free, straight from CS229.

Bookmark and watch it this weekend.

It'll teach you more about how ChatGPT & Claude actually work than most people at top AI companies learn in their entire careers.

[Vikas Singh @vikas_ai_]

STEVE JOBS GOT FIRED FROM APPLE.

Then he walked straight into MIT and dropped the most raw, unfiltered 60-minute business masterclass ever recorded.

Zero PR bullshit. Zero image to protect.

Just pure, brutal honesty from the man who built Apple once and was about to rebuild it even bigger.

Stop scrolling.

Watch this tonight instead of Netflix.

Bookmark it. Come back to it.

[Bad theory labs @Badtheorylabs]

Bad Theory Labs is releasing Context Integrity Benchmark v0.

CIB is a benchmark for long-running AI agents: systems that remember user preferences, update stale facts, retrieve evidence across sessions, abstain under uncertainty, and choose actions.

The core question:

Does the agent have the right context, or only a transcript?

We define context integrity as an auditable property.

A system preserves context integrity when its answers and actions can be traced to evidence that is:

- retrieved
- current
- scoped to the right project/domain
- sufficient for the decision
- free of stale or disallowed sources

CIB v0 contains 280 deterministic synthetic tasks across 8 task families:

- selective memory writes
- evidence retrieval
- knowledge update
- abstention
- multi-session reasoning
- action grounding
- causal action
- cross-scope interference

The first result is simple but important:

Full-history context and lexical retrieval both reach 100.0% evidence recall.

But both reach only 67.9% retrieval sufficiency.

They find the right evidence, but still expose stale or wrong-scope evidence.

That distinction matters for agents.

A long prompt can contain the answer and still fail as memory.

We also include one cheap-model pilot with gpt-4o-mini:

- 65.7% action accuracy
- 69.3% evidence sufficiency
- 95.0% evidence precision
- 82.1% evidence recall
- 0.0% stale-evidence citation
- 5.0% disallowed-evidence citation

This is not a frontier leaderboard.

It is included to separate two layers:

1. Did the context pipeline retrieve sufficient, current, scoped evidence?
2. Given that evidence, did the actor model choose the correct action?

That separation is central to CIB.

CIB v0 also includes an oracle-adjacent scoped-memory ceiling baseline.

It uses generator-emitted metadata such as scope fields, write labels, and supersession edges.

So its 100.0% score should not be read as “CIB is solved.”

It is a sanity-check ceiling for what structured context integrity metadata can license.

The release includes:

- paper PDF
- dataset JSONL
- evaluator
- model harness
- generated audit report
- manifest hashes
- reviewer guide
- aggregate model pilot summary

Context integrity should be inspectable.

If a system cannot expose the source IDs that authorized an answer or action, it should not get credit for being right by accident.

Repo:
https://t.co/vNXl23zdKS

Paper:

https://t.co/wgE76ahEAZ

[Joseph Brendan @Joe_brendan_]

The moment you leave poverty and start seeing money

Be aggressive with investments

Stay lean.
Especially tech people.
Stay lean with spendings

I swear you don't need those gadgets. One MacBook is very fine.
You don't need those iPads, monitors, expensive headsets, rigs(except it brings money)etc etc. you don't

Stay lean and invest aggressively.

Stocks, money markets, government papers, fixed deposit, bonds, small businesses etc.

[👑S.A.L.A.K.O🕊 @UnkleAyo]

Wow. Just wow.

[khalifa aminu @KAminu49132]

I contained the fire before it spread using my fire detection device 🔥

I want this technology to reach the world your support through comments and reposts will help make it happen ❤️

[Victor @echo_vick]

We can't wait to see the amazing products that'll use SendByte

Happy New Month.

https://t.co/BDN9mXsSrf

[Chukwuemeka O.A @engineaust]

Stop Fighting the proposed Research Topic..

This is part 4 of the mistakes that hinder scholarship success.

Many postgraduate applicants make the mistake of trying to bend a professors proposed research topic.

They see a funded research project.

Then they spend their proposal explaining why the advertised research topic is not viable or not the best area.

Imagine a professor advertises a PhD project on green hydrogen.

An applicant submits a proposal arguing that blue hydrogen is the better alternative.

Technically, the applicant may have valid arguments.

But in practical terms, the application has missed the point.

The funding received by the supervisor for this study was awarded to research green hydrogen.

The professor cannot simply change the project because one applicant prefers another topic.
Doing so will be a misappropriation of funds.

A stronger applicant approaches it differently.

Instead of arguing against the research direction, they ask:

"How can my knowledge help solve the existing challenges within this project?"

That small shift changes everything.

Scholarship committees and supervisors are looking for collaborators not people trying to redirect funded research.

Always align your proposal with the objectives of the project while showing the unique perspective you bring.

If you are interested in learning more about scholarships and how to write stronger research proposals? Comment "GUIDE" below, and I'll send you my PhD Scholarship Application Guide.

Up next - Mistake number 5. Stay in touch.

[Alexa @Alexa_the_dev]

@devcharlieboy @codekagefx It is.
Reserved mine early hours of today.