Hey everyone, I'd like to share my project along with a short explanation of the process and why it came about in the first place. To start off, I'm not exactly the best at cryptography/steganography, in my case it's always been something that sat in the background, as one of the sub-fields needed for another (main) field I'm actually interested in. For this project I tried to look up as much information as possible about what's currently considered best practice (I mainly relied on NIST for this), what implications exist, and what potential "attacks" exist against this way of hiding information, but I honestly can't say whether I covered everything, which is why I wanted to share this project here, mainly for the sake of learning. I'd be grateful for any feedback on what I could have done better / what I might have missed, etc. Right now, I consider this project closed at this point and will most likely not update it further, although I'd like to apply all the feedback to my own knowledge going forward. For over a month I did a lot of research into using ML models as a carrier for hiding data. I needed this as one of the stages for my main project. That's how I ended up on the topic of hiding information in model weights. Initially I assumed a simple method of directly writing data into randomly selected weights. I quickly concluded, though, that this would be absurdly trivial to detect, and potentially also to read. Next came the idea of using something like a deterministic coordinate map describing where to read the data from (location-id + position-id). The program wouldn't modify all the bits needed to write the message instead, it would write separate bits representing already-existing values (pointing to specific locations in the model) from which the existing 0s and 1s would need to be read. In practice, only parties A and B would know how to derive these positions. This way, someone unaware of the algorithm would only see what looks like noise of varying va

The Knowledge Atom: Writing for Machines That Read The Hoarder's Reflex Everyone is learning to feed the machine. Bigger context files. Paste the whole document. "Give the AI all the context it needs." The entire industry has converged on a single instinct: when in doubt, add more. It's the wrong instinct. A context window is not a hard drive. It's a desk. And a desk piled with every document you own is not a well-informed desk — it's an unusable one. The model doesn't read better because you gave it more. It reads worse, because the one line that mattered is now buried under a thousand that didn't. Knowledge an AI can't find is knowledge it doesn't have. Knowledge it always carries is weight it always pays. The Two Failures There are only two ways to get this wrong, and almost everyone commits one of them. The first is the dump . You take everything you know and pour it inline — into the system prompt, the master config, the one document to rule them all. It feels thorough. It is the opposite. Every token you add dilutes every token already there. Signal drowns in completeness. The model now has all the knowledge and none of the focus. The second is the orphan . You did the disciplined thing. You wrote a clean, perfect note, in its own file, out of the way. And then nothing pointed to it. No index, no trigger, no path back. The note is immaculate and invisible — which is worse than never writing it, because you believe the knowledge is in the system when in fact it is dead. Both failures share one root: confusing having knowledge with retrieving it. Same Pattern, New Sauce Watch the field long enough and you'll see the same thing return, repainted each time. The "Ralph Wiggum" loop becomes "the agentic loop." Agent teams that talk to each other become a single orchestrator, and then an agent that makes other agents talk to each other. Every cycle sells itself as the breakthrough. Every cycle is a re-skin of the last. Underneath the churn, only one thing actually ch

A full-stack, peer-to-peer coinflip betting game on Solana A full-stack, peer-to-peer coinflip betting game on Solana. Players connect a wallet, create or join on-chain game rooms, and compete head-to-head for 2× the stake. The UI updates in real time over WebSockets, outcomes are resolved on-chain with Orao VRF, and the backend tracks rooms, chat, and match history in MongoDB. I open-sourced coinflip-casino for developers in Solana / Anchor smart contract development . This post walks through what it does, how the pieces fit together, and how to run it locally. Live demo / site: https://www.flip.is/ Why I built this Learn full-stack Web3 game architecture (wallet + program + backend + UI) Study provably fair randomness with on-chain VRF integration Fork and customize a peer-to-peer on-chain betting room model Most tutorials stop at a smart contract or a UI mockup. I wanted a complete vertical slice — wallet flow, on-chain logic, backend state, and a responsive frontend — so you can study or fork a production-shaped codebase. What it does Create a room — Pick Head or Tail, set bet amount, choose SOL or SPL token. Join a room — Browse open games in the live lobby and match against another player. PvP coinflip — When two players are in the same room, the backend triggers on-chain resolution. 2× payout — The winner receives double the bet (fees apply on-chain). Room expiration — Open rooms older than 5 minutes with no opponent are expired and refunded automatically. Portfolio stats — Win count and total games per wallet. Wallet connect — players sign in with a Solana wallet Peer-to-peer rooms — create or join head-to-head matches Architecture at a glance Wallet layer — users connect a Web3 wallet to sign transactions On-chain program — Anchor/Rust logic for escrow, rooms, and settlement Randomness — verifiable flip outcomes via Orao VRF on Solana Real-time layer — WebSocket events push room and flip state to the UI Persistence — MongoDB stores rooms, chat, and historic

People complain that websites are all starting to look the same. They are not entirely wrong. A lot of modern websites do look alike. They have familiar navigation bars, predictable layouts, large hero sections, cards, and responsive grids. Buttons look like buttons. Forms look like forms. But, I would argue that's a good thing. Software is supposed to feel familiar. A website is not a painting. It is not a brand mood board. A website is usually a tool that someone is trying to use to accomplish something. They want to read, buy, search, compare, book, or solve a problem. And when people are trying to get something done, originality is not always a virtue. Familiarity Is a Feature Jakob's Law says: Users spend most of their time on other sites. This means that users prefer your site to work the same way as all the other sites they already know. Users do not arrive at your website as blank slates. They bring expectations from every other website and app they have used. They expect the logo to link home. They expect navigation to be near the top or side. They expect search to look like search. They expect account settings under an avatar or profile menu. They expect mobile navigation to collapse into a menu. When your site follows those expectations, users can spend their mental energy on the task instead of the interface. That is the point. Good design reduces cognitive load. It does not force users to relearn basic interaction patterns just because a company wanted to look different. Different Is Not Automatically Better There is a common mistake in web design: confusing distinctiveness with quality. A site can be visually unique and still be frustrating to use. It can win design awards while annoying the actual people who need to navigate it. Novelty has a cost. Every unusual layout, hidden interaction, custom scroll behavior, strange menu, or clever visual metaphor asks the user to stop and figure out what is going on. If you are building a portfolio, an art proje

Amazon's Kindle AI features help you read beyond the lines, so long as you have the right ereader.

I was paying $480/month for GPT-4o API access. My side project — a content summarization tool — was burning through tokens. Every week I'd check the bill and wince. $120. $140. Then $480 in a bad month. I knew Chinese AI models existed, but I had assumptions: harder to access, lower quality, complicated setup . I was wrong on all three. After a weekend benchmarking, I switched. My bill dropped to $28/month . The quality? My users didn't notice a difference. Here's exactly how. The Setup I'm running a Python app that summarizes long articles, support tickets, and docs. Heavy on text processing — about 15-20 million tokens per month. Mostly GPT-4o, some GPT-4o-mini for simpler tasks. I tested DeepSeek V4 Flash, Qwen-Plus, GLM-4 Plus, and DeepSeek V3.1 against GPT-4o on my exact workload. The Real-World Benchmarks I ran 500 real summarization tasks through each model and measured three things: output quality (rated blind by 3 reviewers), speed, and cost. Model Quality Latency Cost / 1M input Monthly Cost* GPT-4o 9.2/10 1.2s $2.50 $480 GPT-4o-mini 7.8/10 0.8s $0.15 — DeepSeek V4 Flash 8.8/10 0.6s $0.21 $28 Qwen-Plus 8.5/10 0.9s $0.16 $21 GLM-4 Plus 8.7/10 1.1s $0.82 $110 DeepSeek V3.1 9.0/10 1.0s $0.54 $72 *Monthly cost estimated at 15M input tokens. Quality scores from blind human review of 500 tasks. Key insight: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 8.8/10 vs GPT-4o's 9.2/10 — a 4% quality gap for 92% less cost . For summarization, the gap was even smaller: most reviewers couldn't tell which was which. The Code: Switching Took 1 Line My original code: from openai import OpenAI client = OpenAI ( api_key = " sk-... " ) # OpenAI # ... rest of code unchanged New code: from openai import OpenAI client = OpenAI ( api_key = " sk-your-key " , base_url = " https://www.tokencnn.com/v1 " # ← Only change ) That's it. Everything else — function calling, streaming, response format — worked exactly the same. The OpenAI SDK is fully compatible. Model Selection Cheat Sheet Use Case Model Cost/M t

nginx Event Loop — Complete Lifecycle Reference A precise, bottom-up reference covering every buffer, syscall, interrupt, and data movement from the moment a TCP packet hits the NIC to the moment a response is sent back. Two concurrent users are used throughout as a concrete example. Table of Contents Foundations — fd and Socket Hardware Layer — NIC, DMA, Interrupts Kernel Structures and All Buffers epoll — How the Worker Waits Efficiently nginx Startup Sequence Complete Request Lifecycle — Two Concurrent Users What Happens While Worker is Busy All Buffers — Master Reference All Syscalls — Master Reference Failure Modes 1. Foundations 1.1 Everything is a File Linux's core philosophy: every I/O resource — files on disk, network connections, pipes, terminals, devices — is represented as a file. This means one unified API ( read , write , close ) works on all of them. The kernel manages the actual resource. Your process holds a token. 1.2 File Descriptor (fd) A file descriptor is just an integer . It is a per-process token that refers to a kernel-managed resource. The kernel maintains a table per process called the fd table — a simple array where the index is the fd and the value is a pointer into the kernel. Process fd table: ┌─────┬───────────────────────────────┐ │ fd │ points to │ ├─────┼───────────────────────────────┤ │ 0 │ stdin │ │ 1 │ stdout │ │ 2 │ stderr │ │ 3 │ listen socket (nginx) │ │ 5 │ User A client connection │ │ 6 │ User B client connection │ │ 12 │ backend connection for User A │ │ 13 │ backend connection for User B │ └─────┴───────────────────────────────┘ 0, 1, 2 are always pre-assigned. Application fds start from 3 upward. The fd is meaningless on its own. It only means something when passed to a syscall — the kernel uses it to look up the real resource. 1.3 Socket A socket is the kernel's internal data structure representing one end of a network connection. Created when your process calls socket() . Lives entirely in kernel RAM. Your process nev

One of the hardest things about going freelance as a developer isn't writing code — it's knowing what to charge. Charge too little and you're basically doing a salaried job without the benefits. Charge too much without backing it up and you scare off clients. Most developers I've spoken to either guessed their rate or copied someone else's. Neither is a great strategy. In this article I want to walk you through exactly how to calculate your freelance day rate properly — based on real numbers, not gut feeling. Why Most Freelancers Get Their Rate Wrong The most common mistake is this: taking your old salary and dividing it by 260 working days. That ignores: Taxes (you now pay both sides of self-employment tax in the US) Unpaid days — holidays, sick days, slow months with no clients Business costs — software, hardware, insurance, accountant fees No employer pension or benefits — you fund all of this yourself If you were earning $80,000 as a salaried developer and you divide that by 260, you get roughly $307/day. But that's actually a pay cut once you factor everything in. The Right Formula Here's the framework: Step 1 — Work out your actual billable days A year has 260 working days. Subtract: Public holidays (~10 days in the US) Your own holiday allowance (~15 days) Estimated sick days (~5 days) Non-billable time: admin, chasing invoices, marketing yourself (~20 days) That leaves roughly 210 billable days. Step 2 — Calculate your real income target Take what you want to take home and gross it up for tax. If you want $70,000 net and your effective tax rate is around 30%, your gross target is roughly $100,000. Step 3 — Add your business costs Software subscriptions, hardware depreciation, liability insurance, accountant — easily $5,000–$10,000/year for a freelance developer. Step 4 — Divide by billable days $110,000 ÷ 210 = $524/day That's your minimum. Price below that and you're losing money compared to employment. A Faster Way — Use a Free Calculator If that maths mad

getComputedStyle(element).fontFamily returns the CSS declaration: "Hiragino Kaku Gothic ProN", "Yu Gothic", "Noto Sans JP", sans-serif . That's not the font that rendered. It's a priority list. The browser picks the first one that's available and contains a glyph for the character being rendered. For Latin text, this distinction usually doesn't matter — Windows, macOS, and Linux have converged on a small set of common system fonts. For Japanese, it matters enormously. The visual weight, stroke contrast, and letterform style of Hiragino, Yu Gothic, and Noto Sans JP are genuinely different. A site designed on macOS (where Hiragino is the system Japanese font) looks different on Windows (where Yu Gothic is the fallback). Here's how to figure out what's actually rendering, and what I learned building Japanese Font Finder to automate it. Why getComputedStyle Doesn't Answer the Question getComputedStyle(el).fontFamily gives you the cascade result — what the browser received after applying all CSS rules. But it doesn't tell you which entry in the stack was selected. The underlying question is: does this font exist on this system, and does it have a glyph for this specific character? For Japanese, both conditions matter. A font might exist on the system but only cover a subset of kanji (common with CJK fonts that split across multiple files). The browser will use that font for characters it covers, and fall back for others. Canvas-Based Font Detection The classical technique uses a <canvas> element to measure text rendered with each font in the stack: function getFallbackWidth ( canvas , char ) { const ctx = canvas . getContext ( ' 2d ' ); ctx . font = `16px monospace` ; // known-available baseline return ctx . measureText ( char ). width ; } function testFont ( fontName , char ) { const canvas = document . createElement ( ' canvas ' ); const ctx = canvas . getContext ( ' 2d ' ); ctx . font = `16px " ${ fontName } ", monospace` ; return ctx . measureText ( char ). width ; }

"One AI agent across your browser, tools, and messages " Discussion | Link

Kai Wright is the co-host of Stateside with Kai and Carter over at the Guardian. But Wright has been bringing his unique insights to listeners for years. He's also hosted Notes From America, The United States of Anxiety, and Indivisible. He's a Peabody Award-winning journalist who has profiled powerful men, explored what it means to […]