raven-uxn now has an x86-64 assembly backend (yay!)

and it's about 2x faster (yay!!)

and the first draft was written by Claude (booo!)

and then I rewrote most of it, which made it even faster (yay!)

and introduced a memory corruption bug (booo?)

which Claude is better at debugging than I am (.......?)

--------

if you too have complicated feelings about our robot buddies, you may enjoy my writeup:

https://www.mattkeeter.com/blog/2026-03-15-uxn/

“Earlier today, Temporal reached Stage 4 in the TC39 staging process, which means it will be part of the next annual ECMAScript specification (ES2026). However, you don't need to wait until then – you can use it today!”
https://bloomberg.github.io/js-blog/post/temporal/

#JavaScript

If you are an author whose work is on the ACM DL, I'd like to strongly encourage you to check the accuracy of the AI Summary of your paper, and send feedback to the ACM on this feature and the inaccuracies in your summary. See more here: https://dl.acm.org/generative-ai/summarizations

Please boost, repost, and otherwise steal this post to reach other authors.

In long:

The ACM has begun rolling out "Digital Library Premium" features. A very notable one is AI Summaries of papers, which displace the author written abstract with an AI generated summary of the paper on the front page for the paper.

Of the several I've checked, they all contain subtle inaccuracies that would VERY EASILY mislead even experts familiar with the work.

This is a HUGE DISSERVICE TO SCIENCE. These summaries might appear to make science more accessible, but subtle errors introduced into the authors original text is the very opposite of making science more accessible. This will mislead rather than educate.

The ACM has a feature to send feedback on these summaries. Open your DOI, and look for the "Feedback" button on the right of the page, or the "Send Feedback" link in the footer. (You might need to disable ad-blockers, as this services uses mopinion.com)

The ACM is requesting this feedback, and it's important to let them know that such "hallucinations" are not solvable:

These tools were designed in consultation with a diverse group of Digital Library stakeholders and will continue to evolve as Artificial Intelligence advances. We are continuously tuning our Foundational Model to optimize readability and we conduct regular audits for hallucinations and other errors. We are very interested in your thoughts and suggestions- please leave them by clicking the "Feedback" button on the far right of this page. If you find a problem with a specific AI-generated summary, please return to that summary and click the Feedback there.

More aggressively, you might email [email protected] (also linked in the footer).

Update 1: It seems the ACM no longer displaces the abstract with these summaries, so I can hope this feedback has been helpful in affecting change.

Update 2: It seems these summaries have been generated on papers whose license may forbid it, such as CC-BY-ND. If you have a restrictive license on your paper, you may check whether it’s being followed and send further feedback if not.

Bring Back Innovation That Empowers, Rather Than Extracts: The Resonant Computing Manifesto

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/05/bring-back-innovation-that-empowers-rather-than-extracts-the-resonant-computing-manifesto/

Thanks to 20+ years of cooperation via standards, most web devs are insulated from the reality that competition (or the threat of it) makes standards possible. It's a shock to recognise that Apple has broken the system so thoroughly that SDOs themselves are at risk:

https://infrequently.org/2025/09/apples-crimes-against-the-internet-community/