Event Handling Basics in euv Project Code： https://github.com/euv-dev/euv euv is a Rust + WASM frontend UI framework that enables developers to build interactive web applications using the power of reactive signals and the html! macro. One of the most critical aspects of any UI framework is how it handles user interactions. In this article, we will take a deep dive into euv's event handling system — from inline closures to native event handlers, from input events to form changes, and from the comprehensive list of supported event names to utility functions that simplify common patterns. Table of Contents Inline Closure Events NativeEventHandler Input Events Form Change Events Supported Event Names Accessing Event Data Utility Functions for Event Handling Putting It All Together Inline Closure Events The most straightforward way to handle events in euv is through inline closures. You define the event handler directly within the html! macro using the move |event: Event| { ... } syntax. html! { button { onclick : move | event : Event | { } "Click me" } } This pattern is ideal for simple, self-contained event handlers that don't need to be reused across multiple components. The move keyword ensures that any captured variables (like signals) are moved into the closure, which is essential for the Rust ownership model. Inline closures work with any event type — not just onclick . You can use them for keyboard events, focus events, mouse events, and more. The closure receives an Event object that you can inspect to extract relevant data. NativeEventHandler For more complex scenarios where you need reusable event handlers or want to define handlers outside the html! macro, euv provides the NativeEventHandler type. This allows you to create named, parameterized event handler functions. pub fn counter_on_increment ( counter : Signal < i32 > ) -> NativeEventHandler { NativeEventHandler :: create ( "click" , move | _event : Event | { let current : i32 = counter .get (); counter

Hi, it's Furkan. I'm a security professional prepping for the CompTIA SecAI+ (CY0-001) cert, and I couldn't find study material that actually clicked for me, so I built my own and structured it around the exam blueprint. This is me sharing it back. Each post maps to one objective, and I've leaned hard on real-world scenarios because that's what made it stick for me. If it helps you pass too, even better. CompTIA SecAI+ CY0-001 | Domain 1.0: Basic AI Concepts Related to Cybersecurity "Compare and contrast various AI types and techniques used in cybersecurity." 🧠 What's in This Section? This one breaks down into three big building blocks: AI Types — which kind of AI does what, and where it shows up in security Model Training Techniques — how a model actually gets trained and tuned Prompt Engineering — how to ask an AI the right question Ready? Let's get into it. 🔷 PART 1: Types of AI AI isn't one single thing. Different problems call for different AI approaches. Think of a carpenter's toolbox: there's a hammer, a screwdriver, a saw. They all do different jobs, but they're all "tools." AI types work the same way. 1. Generative AI What it does: Creates new content. Text, images, audio, code; whatever you ask for. How it works: Models trained on huge amounts of data use the patterns they've learned to produce outputs that never existed before. They don't memorize, they learn patterns and then build new things out of them. In security: Defense side: Building security awareness training by simulating phishing emails, auto-generating incident response playbooks, drafting security reports. Offense side: Attackers use generative AI to spin up convincing phishing emails, deepfake audio, or malicious code. 🍕 Real-World Example: A security team wants to test their employees, so they use generative AI to write phishing emails that nail the CEO's writing style. "Hey, I need you to push through an urgent payment...", the email is so realistic that 40% of staff click. That right the

The dangerous thing about CI agents is not that they can write code. It is that they run in the place where we already concentrate trust. CI has repository access. CI has tokens. CI has build logs. CI can fetch dependencies, publish artifacts, comment on pull requests, open issues, deploy previews, and sometimes touch production systems. It is the automation layer we taught ourselves to trust because the alternative was humans doing the same boring steps by hand. Now we are putting agents inside it. That is useful. It is also exactly where the security model gets weird. Microsoft published a write-up this month about a Claude Code GitHub Action case where untrusted GitHub content and file-reading capability could combine badly. The short version is that an agent operating in a CI/CD context had enough ambient access to read more than the user probably intended, including process environment data that could expose workflow secrets. Anthropic mitigated the issue in Claude Code 2.1.128. The specific bug matters. The pattern matters more. CI/CD agents are not chatbots with a build badge. They are automated actors running in a high-trust environment while reading untrusted instructions from pull requests, issues, comments, commit messages, files, logs, and whatever else the workflow feeds them. That combination deserves more fear than it is getting. prompts are now part of the attack surface We are used to thinking about CI security in terms of code and configuration. Who can modify the workflow file? Which secrets are available to pull requests? Do forks get privileged tokens? Are dependencies pinned? Are artifacts trusted? Can a build script publish something? Does the workflow run on pull_request or pull_request_target ? Those questions still matter. But agents add another layer: text becomes operational input. The agent may read a pull request description. It may read a comment asking it to fix a test. It may read source files changed by an untrusted contributor. It

Maybe there will even be more interest in the invention and use of more advanced algorithms and data structures that use less memory?

For the last 30 years, stopping the flow of cybersecurity-related software has proven to be ineffective. It's unclear why it would work now with Anthropic’s cybersecurity model Mythos.

One AI that knows your entire company and acts on it Discussion | Link

Visual GitHub management directly from a graphical interface Discussion | Link

Every time I started a new AI chat session, it read my entire codebase. 50 files. Thousands of tokens. On every single message. Whether I was asking about authentication, database schema, or a single UI component — the AI read everything. I'm 16 and building AI-powered products. Token costs add up fast. Context windows fill up. The AI loses track of older files. Responses slow down. So I built something to fix it. The Problem When you work with AI on large projects, you face a choice: Give the AI too much context → burns tokens, hits context limits, slower responses Give it too little → AI misses important files, makes wrong assumptions There's no middle ground — or at least there wasn't. Introducing FolioDux FolioDux is a lightweight, open-source file-mapping standard for AI-assisted development. The idea is simple: instead of giving your AI every file, you give it a compact index that tells it where everything is and what it does . The AI reads the index first, identifies the relevant files, and reads only those. One file. Two rules. Any AI. It works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Copilot — any tool that accepts a system prompt. How It Works You add one file — FOLIODUX.md — to your project root. # FOLIODUX · TaskFlow · v1.0 · 2026-06-18 · 17 files STACK: React19+TypeScript+Vite · Express+SQLite · JWT --- ## TASKS auth/login/register → AuthView.tsx, authService.ts, server.ts create/edit task → TaskForm.tsx, taskService.ts, server.ts, types.ts list/filter tasks → TaskList.tsx, taskService.ts database → db.ts, server.ts --- ## INDEX App.tsx | fe | root: routing, auth state, layout wrapper AuthView.tsx | fe | login + register forms, error display taskService.ts | svc | CRUD tasks, local cache, optimistic updates server.ts | be | Express: all routes — auth, tasks, projects, user db.ts | be | SQLite setup, schema creation, migrations on boot types.ts | typ | Task, Project, User, Status(todo|in-progress|done) --- ## GROUPS Frontend: App.tsx · AuthView.tsx · TaskLi

The AI agent had one job: pay approved vendor invoices, so the finance team could stop doing it by hand. On a Tuesday morning, it picked up invoice #4471 from a freight vendor Ksh48,000, stamped Approved in the company's ERP, cleanly matched to a valid purchase order. The agent checked the things it was told to check. They all passed. It paid the invoice. The invoice had already been paid. The previous Thursday. By a member of the finance team. Here is what the company's systems believed that morning and none of them was wrong. The ERP said: Approved. Unpaid. The reconciliation job that pulls in bank activity runs overnight, and last night it had failed silently. So the ERP's picture of the world was simply four days stale. The bank feed said: Paid. Last Thursday. It was right. Nobody had told the ERP. A Slack thread said: "hold everything to this vendor they double-billed us last quarter, I'm sorting it out with their AP team." Posted by the accounts-payable lead. Three days earlier. Resolved in her head, and nowhere else. The vendor's own email said: "Payment well received, thank you!" referring, of course, to Thursday's payment. The agent's inbox reader had seen it that morning, then set it aside, because email ranked below the ERP and the two disagreed. Every system was internally consistent. Every system was the authority on something . And there was no system anywhere not one that could answer the only question that actually mattered: has invoice #4471 been paid? A human clerk would almost certainly have caught it. Not because a clerk is smarter than the model they're not. Because a clerk would have felt the friction. They'd have half-remembered cutting the check. Or scrolled past the Slack message that morning and hesitated. Or simply had the reflex to ping someone before sending $48,000 out the door. Reconciling systems that quietly disagree is most of what operations people actually do all day so much of it that nobody files it under "work." It's just judgm

Go’s IPO — Japan’s biggest so far this year — has done more than provide a much-needed boost to the country’s languishing listing season. It has also supplied the taxi-hailing app with the capital required to address an existential issue: Japan’s shortage of drivers. Go, which went public Tuesday, plans to use the ¥88.6 billion […]