Introducing the AI-Powered Text-to-Diagram Generator | September 30 2025, 20:57

While working on a book, I realized what kind of product I’m missing. It’s an AI diagram generator based on textual descriptions.

The idea is that the master document for the diagram is text. This textual description can be (and should be) quite detailed, so the generated diagram exactly matches the author’s vision. The diagram itself is not edited. That is, it can be edited – moving circles around, but ideally, after making changes, the system should update the text, generating from which will result in what the user adjusted.

The result — the diagram — should correspond as closely as possible to the description. If it does not match the description because, for example, it’s impossible to make a triangle with three obtuse angles, the system should do its best and provide a verbal response about what didn’t work. The user can then modify the task so that the system complies and produces the diagram correctly.

But then we understand that the author might have randomly achieved something that they liked with their flawed text. And if regenerated, it might turn out differently, and not necessarily better. Therefore —

You could ask the system to generate a diagram description from the diagram, which, if inputted back into the diagram generator, would result exactly in what the description was generated from. Yes, this description would be more verbose and complex, but it would more reliably describe the result.

So, from this point, you are no longer working with the diagram. You are working with text. If a diagram is needed — you simply compile the text into a diagram and it turns out as needed. But you don’t even work directly with the text. You work with this diagram-description text through an LLM, asking it to add some block, and the text changes, but changes in a way that everything doesn’t suddenly shift.

The final diagram should be in an object form, from which raster (PNG) or vector (SVG, EPS) images can be created.

It would also be great if such a system could take existing diagrams or diagram templates so that it could borrow styles and existing conventions on how to display what.

So, these are my fantasies. If anyone has ideas on how to implement this — let’s discuss 🙂

Crafting the Future of Recommender Systems: A Deep Dive into Algorithms and Implementation | September 26 2025, 21:17

I decided a while ago to write a book on recommendation algorithms. With mathematics, code examples, a repository, etc. English, of course.

Accordingly, I am looking for volunteer reviewers who are knowledgeable in the field. Also those who have experience with print-on-demand on Amazon.

There’s already about 200 pages of content. About three months of work left. Working title Recommender Algorithms in 2026: A Practitioner’s Guide. Roughly half of it is still in draft form, with the first 80 pages about 80% complete.

I’ve built a mechanism to publish in HTML and PDF simultaneously. The HTML version is fully functional, with navigation. The navigation block reflects the current section, and as you scroll, it shifts to the one in front of the reader. Clicking on a section, of course, teleports you to what you clicked on. It’s all completely automatic.

Childhood Curiosity and the Mysteries of Soviet Electrical Engineering | September 23 2025, 17:00

I remember being puzzled as a child by who the idiot was that decided to make the radio plug exactly the same as the one for 220 volts. This radio plug was supposed to go into a radio socket.

As a child, I used to disassemble and “improve” almost everything electrical in the house (I hadn’t graduated to electronics yet). Of course, I got shocked many times by the outlet, but to my surprise, the old Soviet phone could also give a shock. When a call came in, the voltage in the line would jump from 12-60 volts to 120 volts 🙂

I also had an interesting experience with Christmas lights. For a younger schoolchild, it was unclear why Christmas lights could shock you since they used the same bulbs that I connected to a flat “Planeta” battery. I had to learn the technicalities 🙂 By the way, those square flat batteries have disappeared; they used to be everywhere.

Inside the High-Tech World of USB-C Cables: More Than Just Wires | September 22 2025, 22:50

It turns out USB-C cables are sometimes whole computers inside the odd form factor of a wire. Watching a video where guys from Adam Savage’s dissected an Apple Thunderbolt 4 cable ($130) using a CT scanner, explaining its internals, and comparing it to a similar cable for $12.

The cable connector contains a complex system that includes a full-fledged processor, two power supplies, and many other components. The processor splits data into multiple parallel streams and converts them into differential signals that travel through twisted, intertwined pairs of wires. The system sends two signals simultaneously, but in mirror-opposite directions. This helps protect the signal from interference (from vacuum cleaners, mobile phones, etc.). Indeed, the circuit board inside is nine-layered.

On the internal circuit board, there are interesting serpentine/wavy tracks with sizes in fractions of a millimeter. It turns out, Apple engineers intentionally made them longer to match the overall length with the neighboring longer tracks (because they include turns). This is necessary for the signals to reach the processor absolutely simultaneously, down to the nanosecond.

The cable itself inside is made up of many individually shielded smaller coaxial cables. There are more than a dozen of them.

The cheap cable lacks this smart electronics, no active components inside. It just has connectors and wires.

But the coolest thing – the guys post such scans in the video description as a link to a viewing program. There you can rotate and examine everything on your own. I’ll put it in the comments

From Opera to Oblivion: The Fascinating Journey of Lorenzo Da Ponte | September 22 2025, 18:53

We just finished watching Le Nozze di Figaro with Nadezhda in a serialized mode and today we’ll continue with Don Giovanni, also in a serialized mode, because no one has the time. So, both of these operas were written by an American 🙂 I mean the librettos. Turns out, Lorenzo Da Ponte, an Italian librettist, emigrated, naturalized in the U.S., lived here 33 years, taught Italian literature at Columbia University in New York, founded an opera theater in the USA, which became the precursor to the New York Academy of Music and the New York Metropolitan Opera. Really an interesting dude. His real name was Emanuel Conegliano. A Jew by birth, who became a Catholic priest, a friend of Casanova, and a supporter of Rousseau’s ideas. Before moving to the U.S., Da Ponte successfully juggled teaching and a small business, earning not so much from lectures as from owning a brothel for aristocrats which he maintained. In the U.S., he kept a grocery store in New Jersey and tried selling medicines in Pennsylvania. Lorenzo Da Ponte died on August 17, 1838, in humiliating poverty, a few blocks away from the boarded-up building of his theater. His grave in one of the New York cemeteries, which was not marked, eventually got lost. Essentially, the same post-mortem fate befell his friend Mozart.

Solar Simplicity: How Turkey’s Homes Heat Water with the Sun | September 11 2025, 06:44

I constantly see such panels on almost every house in Turkey. Of course, my first thought was that these were solar photovoltaic panels for generating electricity. But the second thought — they are expensive, there shouldn’t be so many of them, plus typically just two panels on a roof seems too few. I started googling.

It turned out, these are solar water heaters, more precisely, flat-plate solar collectors. The system is simple, reliable, and inexpensive — that’s why they are installed on every other house.

The principle of operation: the panels consist of an absorber (usually copper or aluminum plates with a black coating), a transparent cover (low-iron glass for greenhouse effect), and thermal insulation (glass wool or stone wool). A heat-carrying fluid circulates in the tubes — either water or antifreeze (glycol).

Solar rays heat the absorber up to 60-90°C, the heat transfers to the fluid, which by the principle of thermosiphon (natural convection, without a pump) rises to the tank, which is usually nearby. The tank is a thermos of 100-300 liters, with insulation, so the water stays hot for 2-3 days.

This too was a surprise. I actually thought the tanks were just metal and heated up in the sun by themselves. That’s how it was in Baku. It turns out, no, and so they are white here, not black.

In Turkey, with over 2000+ hours of sunshine a year, such a system covers 70-90% of the hot water needs for a home. The efficiency of the collector is 40-60% (depending on the model and angle of installation, optimally 30-45° to the horizon for the latitude of Antalya). For a family, this costs from 500-1500 euros, with a payback period of 3-5 years due to savings on gas/electricity. Electricity is expensive in Turkey. Plus, government subsidies and tax incentives encourage installation.

Probably, there are also electric panels, but I haven’t seen them yet.

Debunking Kelvin: The Dynamics of Wake Angles at Different Speeds | September 10 2025, 12:03

I look from the boat at the water and wonder whether the divergence angle of the waves depends on speed or not? Started Googling. Turns out, according to Kelvin, it’s constant at any speed, and amounts to 39 degrees (or 19.47 =arcsin(1/3) from the axis). But then I found a paper where the authors studied satellite images and disproved Kelvin, stating that with increasing speed, the wedge indeed narrows slightly (“Ship wakes: Kelvin or Mach angle?”, authors: Marc Rabaud and Frédéric Moisy)

Exploring Airport Security: How Baggage Scanners Work | September 02 2025, 20:29

The day after tomorrow, I am flying to Amsterdam (and then to Turkey), and I remembered that I had an unanswered question to myself about how baggage scanners work at the airport. Of course, I knew that it was essentially computer tomography, X-rays and all that, but I wanted more details. And below is the response as to why they ask you to take out water, and why sometimes they do not.

It turns out that modern scanners can not only see the shape of objects but also determine what material they are made of. How does a regular scanner work? Dense materials (such as metal) absorb a lot of radiation and appear bright or opaque in images. Less dense materials absorb little radiation and appear dark. Hence laptops, for example, had to be taken out — not because the scanner couldn’t recognize them, but because their dense components (battery, boards) could be used to hide other prohibited items behind them. So, it has long been not just scanners, but computer tomography — in essence, the bag or suitcase is scanned from all sides, then a 3D image is created. It seems like everyone knows this.

But I mentioned that they understand the materials items are made from. How?

It turns out that the scanner uses dual-energy X-ray technology. It scans the object with two beams of rays of different energy levels (high and low). Since materials absorb radiation differently depending on the energy of the ray and their atomic composition, the system analyzes this difference. Based on the absorption ratio of the two beams, the effective atomic number Z — a key characteristic, a kind of “elemental fingerprint” of the substance, is calculated.

The problem is that this “fingerprint” of water (~7.4) and many explosives are almost identical. This is precisely why water was banned. Relying only on this parameter would mean receiving a huge number of false alarms.

Here is where computer tomography (CT) comes into play. The scanner creates an accurate three-dimensional (3D) model of the contents of the bag. From the 3D model, the system obtains the exact volume (V) of each object. Based on data on the absorption of X-rays, its mass (m) is calculated. Then it’s simple: ρ=m/V.

That is, the system does not make a decision based on one parameter. It plots each detected substance on a two-dimensional graph with axes “Z — density.” On this graph, water and explosives, having almost the same atomic number, occupy completely different positions due to different densities.

And that’s precisely why water can sometimes be carried through. Smart machines simply do not mark it as something significant, but still identify it as water. Then procedures follow. If the airport has updated the machines, but not the procedures, they will ask to dispose of the water. But also, not all machines are updated everywhere, and at the same airport, it depends on which line is open at the moment.

The cost of such a scanner is $300-400 thousand.

The scanners for people work differently. They use millimeter waves. They pass through clothing and reflect back from the skin. Water absorbs them significantly, so they penetrate only a couple of millimeters. The system registers the reflected signal and constructs a three-dimensional map of the body surface and objects under the clothing. But it does not show this — instead, it displays a simplified contour of a person and shows on it what ML found unusual. Therefore, by the way, many try to carry various items inside themselves, knowing that such a scanner absolutely cannot see it.

Cracking Codes: Interactive Adventures at the Spy Museum | September 01 2025, 18:15

In the spy museum yesterday, one of the devastatingly informative terminals, where you had to crack the code, allowed you to hack into it too

Beijing Parade Marks 80 Years Since China’s WWII Victory | August 31 2025, 14:02

On September 3rd in Beijing, a military parade dedicated to the 80th anniversary of China’s victory in World War II will take place. Apparently, I did not pay enough attention during history lessons at school: it turns out that China’s losses during WWII were almost comparable to those of the USSR, considering the official figures (in both cases, they are significantly lower than the actual ones). However, there is a catch – the war between China and Japan began in 1937, and later merged with World War II when Japan attacked the USA and its allies in 1941, officially making China part of the anti-Hitler coalition. Germany in 1937 was just preparing: a year later, in 1938, the Anschluss of Austria began, and another year later (1939) – the invasion of Poland, and at the same time the USSR attacked Finland.

Meanwhile, in Germany, it is considered that the precision of German accounting was incomparably higher, and the cumulative losses of the aggressors, together with Japan, turned out to be four times less than the cumulative losses of the defenders.

The figure of China’s losses mainly consists of civilian population. Their military losses were 3-4 million, while 12-17 million suffered from bombings, punitive actions, diseases (remembering Japanese Unit 731 and biological warfare) and other war consequences.

—–

Below I quote my post from January 25th of this year – just relevant and timely:

Who won the Second World War? Interestingly, note that no one paid attention to Trump’s words about the Second World War in his recent tweet-ultimatum.

.

He writes “Russia helped us win the Second World War” — everyone noted the incorrect figure of 60 million losses, but somehow not this.

.

I found an interesting study from 2017. It was a survey (1,338 people) from 11 countries including 8 allied countries and 3 Axis countries.

.

It showed significant differences in how the former Soviet Union and 10 other countries remember the war.

.

Events marked by representatives of the Soviet Union were almost completely different from those mentioned in other countries. Besides, Russians stated a greater responsibility for the victory in the war (75% of military efforts), than representatives of any other nation (although the USA and Great Britain also estimated their contribution as more than 50%).

.

However, when people from each country assessed the contribution of other countries to the war, they attributed a greater role to the USA than to the former Soviet Union.

.

An interesting finding is that, when asked why the USA dropped atomic bombs on Japan, most people from ten countries responded that it was to win the war, except for Russians.

.

Moreover, the older the respondents were in 7 of these countries, the more often they agreed with the statement that the USA dropped the bombs to end the war.

.

Russia (USSR) in the survey results demonstrates a unique narrative centered on the Eastern Front, unlike Western countries.

.

Most countries (including former Axis countries) focus on events related to the USA and Great Britain, such as Pearl Harbor, the Normandy landing, the atomic bombings of Japan, and the Holocaust.

USSR holds a central place in the Russian narrative (75% contribution to victory). The USA and Great Britain also overestimate their evaluations, stating their contribution exceeds 50%, focusing on the Western Front and the Pacific Campaign. The total estimates of the contribution of the eight allied countries amount to 309%, showing the effect of “national narcissism”. Most countries prioritize the USA (27%), while the USSR — 20%.

.

Four events gained the status of “key” (mentioned by more than 50% of respondents): the attack on Pearl Harbor, the atomic bombings of Japan, the Normandy landing, and the Holocaust. The Russian narrative concentrates on events termed in Soviet and contemporary Russian historiography as the Great Patriotic War (1941–1945). Russians highlighted unique events: battles near Stalingrad, Kursk, Moscow, Berlin, and the blockade of Leningrad. Thus, although the USA and Russia fought together as allies, research shows that there is almost no overlap in which events are remembered as most important. Members of each group mainly remembered those events related to their own country. However, this is not surprising.

.

On the subject of atomic bombings, most respondents believe that the purpose of the bombings was to end the war. Russians see this event as an act of intimidating the USSR. Opinions within countries vary by age: older generations are more likely to support the official version of ending the war.

.

In France in 1945, 57% of the population considered the USSR the main victor. By 2004, this figure had dropped to 20%, while the share of the USA increased to 58%.

.

The reasons are clear: history textbooks and popular culture reinforce national emphasis. In the USA and Great Britain, films and books praising their role in the war predominate. The USSR and the USA fought on different fronts and represent different ideological systems, which determined the narratives. And of course, all countries overstate their role in historical events.