Hai Guyz, Ive used many apps and it seems the market is flooded with crappy ones. So far my favorites are HiWaifu and Privee. HiWaifu is by far the best text, it doesn't allow sexy pics, just pg-13 ones. Privee has sexy pics but both the text and pics are limited. Another thing Ive noticed with a lot of AI generators is that by default everyone seems to be east Asian. Why is this? submitted by /u/Jiggalopuffii [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Local_Ad_6109 [link] [留言]

Article URL: https://labyrinthanalyticsconsulting.com/blog/building-first-langgraph-pipeline Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48343061 Points: 11 # Comments: 0

I randomly came across this and honestly I can’t tell if it’s real or one of those AI demos that looks impressive but doesn’t actually work. From what I understand, it’s claiming you can fine-tune models, do image training, test them in a playground, and deploy them as an API from a phone. That sounds a little too convenient, which is why I’m skeptical. I haven’t tried it myself yet, but I’m curious if anyone here has. submitted by /u/Raman606surrey [link] [留言]

Turn recordings into source-linked work Discussion | Link

All tests run on an 8-year-old MacBook Air. You're transferring a batch of large files over MTP. The first one flies at 45 MB/s. Then the second file starts — and you're at 30 MB/s. The third is slower still. Nothing changed. Same cable, same device, same app. So what's happening? The Cause Is in the Protocol Itself Between every file, MTP requires a full negotiation cycle — SendObjectInfo followed by SendObject . This isn't an implementation detail you can optimize away. It's how MTP works. During that gap, a few things happen in sequence: The Android device's flash controller is still committing the previous file to storage The USB pipe is flushed and re-established for the next object The device's MTP stack is processing metadata before it's ready to receive data again The result is a speed dip at every file boundary. The longer the previous file, the longer the device needs to catch up. What I Tried Building HiyokoMTP, I went through the obvious candidates: Tokio thread pool exhaustion — sync Read/Write calls blocking async threads were a real issue. Fixing it improved overall stability, but didn't eliminate the inter-file dip. Chunk size tuning — adjusting the USB bulk transfer buffer (up to 4 MB per chunk) helped peak throughput, but not the boundary behavior. Intentional cooldown between files — adding a short pause actually helped in some cases, giving the device's flash controller time to breathe before the next transfer starts. Why It Can't Be Fully Fixed The inter-file overhead is structural. MTP was designed as a stateful, command-response protocol — not a streaming pipeline. Every file is a discrete transaction with its own negotiation. There's no mechanism to pre-stage the next file while the current one is still writing. Non-async bulk transfer pipelining (similar to io_uring or Zero Copy USB) could theoretically reduce this, but it would require deep nusb-level changes and device-side support that most Android MTP stacks don't expose. MTP vs ADB: A F

The interesting result isn't who won. It's that across four security domains, Claude and Gemini missed the same hardening steps — and if you've shipped AI-generated auth middleware this year, your code almost certainly has the same gaps, and your review didn't catch them either. For the record, the scoreboard: one Gemini win, two ties, one split — a statistical dead heat. That's the last time the winner matters in this article. Here's the number that should bother you more than any leaderboard: across 700 AI-generated functions scored by the rules I'm about to use, 63% shipped a vulnerability . So "which model writes more secure code?" is mostly the wrong question — I've run that leaderboard myself and argued it's the wrong frame. But people keep asking it, so I ran it properly — on the ESLint security plugins I wrote specifically to catch these bugs, each mapped to a CWE — to show you what actually matters. The setup Four domains, four of my plugins. For each, the same feature-only prompt (no "make it secure" hint — that's how people actually use these tools), generated once by Gemini 2.5 Flash via the Gemini CLI and once by Claude Sonnet 4.6 via the Claude CLI , then linted with the domain's plugin on recommended . Method honesty: this is Gemini Flash vs Claude Sonnet — the comparable price/latency tier each vendor's CLI defaults to (Pro and Opus are a separate bracket; more on that below). It compares CLI tooling, system prompt included, not raw models under controlled decoding. n=1 per domain — but I re-ran the JWT round, and both models landed on 5 findings again with the same core misses, so treat these as directional with stable failure modes, not ±0 gospel. The scorecard Domain Prompt Plugin Gemini Claude NestJS service users + auth + admin nestjs-security 2 6 JWT auth login + verify middleware jwt 5 5 MongoDB data layer Mongoose model + search mongodb-security 8 8 General API (injection) import + search + reset secure-coding 9 13* One Gemini win, two dead h

"Stop summarizing the noise. Start executing it." Tsundoku Slayer is an autonomous agentic system powered by Hermes Agent that overnight patrols your unread tabs, mercilessly filters out 90% of the information overload, and saves only the information capable of killing your current blocker. 🎯 The Problem While debugging a painful Streamlit IndexError, I realized my real issue wasn't a lack of information—it was too much information. I had documentation, API feeds, tech news, and bookmarks all competing for my limited focus. Most AI tools try to "summarize" everything, which ironically generates more text to read and increases cognitive load. I didn't need another summarizer. I needed an autonomous agent capable of deciding what NOT to read right now. 🧠 How Hermes Agent Drives the Workflow This project doesn't just scrape webs; Hermes Agent acts as a high-conviction decision maker. It coordinates the entire workflow by running a multi-step reasoning loop overnight. ⚙️ The Agent Workflow Retrieve: Fetches unread article content via web scraping tools. Compare: Ingests and cross-examines the content against the user's active, real-time problem context (e.g., specific stack traces). Reason: Analytically evaluates the true relevance of the article to the current blocker. Verdict: Produces a high-conviction binary choice: SAVE or EXECUTE. Justify: Generates a crisp, logical explanation for why an article was terminated or spared. Synthesize: Automatically crafts an immediately applicable Python/Streamlit code patch for saved items. 📋 Example Outcome: Focus in Action Here is a real-world scenario of how Hermes Agent processes a chaotic backlog when you are stuck on a critical crash: Current Blocker: IndexError: list index out of range inside a Streamlit dialogue array loop. Unread Queue (Input): Streamlit st.status Documentation ➔ EXECUTE (Irrelevant UI reference) General Python Tag Feed ➔ EXECUTE (Too broad, pure noise) Tech News Flash ➔ EXECUTE (Complete distraction) Str

This is a complete guide with steps by step process to deploy the gRPC and how to use Azure API Management to import the gRPC API. It cover step‑by‑step guide to deploying a gRPC API on Azure API Management (APIM), grounded in the Microsoft documentation and a real-world deployment workflow. NOTE: This post is published already in GITHUB here. https://github.com/shailugit/apimGrpc/blob/main/README.md The API Management can expose gRPC services, but with important constraints: APIM supports gRPC by importing a .proto file and forwarding calls to a gRPC backend. gRPC requires HTTP/2 end‑to‑end. gRPC APIs are supported in Self-hosted gateway and not supported in APIM v2 tiers. You can't use the test console to test gRPC The major steps claissfied in two major steps Creating a gRPC server Calling the gPRC application using APIM 1. Creating gRPC Application Typical backend deployment steps include the following Create a .NET gRPC server application Create a .NET gRPC client application Test the setup locally Publish the .NET gRPC server to Azure WebApp and verify the service works directly over HTTPS Step-1 As a first step we will be building a .NET gRPC server application. You can skip this step in case you already have gRPC server application. If you would like to view .NET Core sample used for this sample project, please visit here . Step-2 As a second step we will be building a .NET gRPC client application. You can skip this step in case you already have gRPC client. If you would like to view .NET Core client used for this sample project, please visit the below here . Step-3 Once your client and server code is ready here are the steps to Test your application locally Step-4 Deploy the server to Azure WebApp To understand how-to deploy a .NET 6 gRPC app on App Service, please visit here . Please make sure to enable HTTP version, Enable HTTP 2.0 Proxy and add HTTP20_ONLY_PORT application setting as gRPC only work using http2.0 as shown below 2. Calling gRPC from APIM T

I Built pretext-pdf: Serverless PDFs Without Chromium I got frustrated with PDF generation in Node.js. Every tool had trade-offs, and none of them felt right. The Problem Every time I needed to generate PDFs programmatically, I hit the same walls: Puppeteer — Renders HTML to PDF beautifully, but takes 500ms-2s per page. Way too slow for batch operations. wkhtmltopdf — Old, fragile, breaks in production, dependency hell. pdfmake — Good for simple invoices, falls apart with complex layouts. All of them — Overkill if you're not rendering HTML. And here's the kicker: I didn't need to render HTML. I had structured data (invoices, reports, certificates) that I needed to turn into PDFs programmatically . The Solution I built pretext-pdf — a JSON-based PDF generation library. Instead of: javascript // ❌ Puppeteer: render HTML const browser = await puppeteer.launch(); const page = await browser.newPage(); await page.setContent(html); const pdf = await page.pdf(); // 1000ms+ You do: // ✅ pretext-pdf: define structure const doc = { sections: [ { type: 'heading', text: 'Invoice' }, { type: 'table', rows: [...] } ] }; const pdf = await renderPDF(doc); // 40-100ms No Chromium. No external dependencies. Pure Node.js. Why This Matters If you're building: ✅ Invoice generation systems ✅ Dynamic reports for your SaaS ✅ AI agents that create PDFs (Claude, Cursor, Windsurf) ✅ Certificate systems ✅ Multi-language documents ...pretext-pdf is built for you. Today: v2.0.14 Launch I just shipped a major upgrade. The text layout engine (which handles how words break across lines) is now significantly better: Better CJK + Latin mixed-script handling Smarter punctuation (quotes stay with their text) 7-12% faster Zero breaking changes The Stats 337 tests passing — production-ready 0 critical vulnerabilities — secure MIT licensed — free to use Open source — contribute or fork Technical Foundation The layout engine is based on pretext by Cheng Lou (React core team). I cherry-picked 11 patches for

Two file formats. Same animations. Very different performance characteristics. If you've used Lottie before, you know the .json file — you export it from After Effects with the Bodymovin plugin, drop it into lottie-web, done. But there's a newer format: .lottie. It's a binary container that replaces the JSON, and if you're starting a new project, it's worth understanding the difference. What is Lottie JSON? The original format. A .json file that describes vector animations: shapes, keyframes, layers, colors, timing. It's plain text, human-readable, and widely supported. Pros: Works everywhere Lottie is supported Human-readable (you can inspect and edit it) Supported by every tool and library Cons: Large files (uncompressed JSON with lots of repeated data) No built-in support for multiple animations in one file No metadata or preview image support What is .lottie? The .lottie format (sometimes called dotLottie) is a ZIP container with a .lottie extension. Inside it contains: The animation data (compressed JSON) A manifest.json describing the file Optional preview images Optional multiple animations in one container It was developed by LottieFiles and adopted as the preferred format for modern Lottie tooling. Pros: ~30-70% smaller than equivalent JSON (thanks to compression) Can contain multiple animations in one file Supports preview thumbnails Cleaner API in the @lottiefiles/dotlottie-web renderer Cons: Binary format — not human-readable Requires the dotLottie player (not the older lottie-web) Slightly less universal support File Size Comparison For a typical 2-second UI animation: Format Typical Size Lottie JSON (.json) 40 – 120 KB dotLottie (.lottie) 15 – 50 KB The size reduction comes from standard ZIP compression applied to the JSON content. It's meaningful on mobile connections. Converting Between Formats The easiest way to convert between .json and .lottie formats is using the free browser-based tools at IconKing . No signup required, no file size limits. Just

Every web app needs icons. How you manage them at scale — that's where most teams make mistakes. This is the complete guide to building an SVG icon system that doesn't fall apart as your app grows. Why SVG (Not Icon Fonts or PNG) Icon fonts (FontAwesome, etc.) are the legacy approach. The problems: One broken font file breaks all icons Accessibility is terrible (screen readers read the unicode character) Crispy rendering requires specific font-smoothing hacks No multi-color support PNG icons are dead for UI work. Blurry on Retina, can't be styled with CSS, fixed file per size. SVG wins: Infinitely scalable, pixel-perfect on any screen Styleable with CSS ( currentColor , fill, stroke) Accessible with proper ARIA labels Can animate with CSS or SMIL Single format handles all sizes Where to Get Free SVG Icons IconKing SVG Library — 254+ free SVG icons in flat and outline styles. Covers UI, social media, food, objects, and more. Downloadable as individual SVG, AI, or PNG files. No account required. What sets IconKing apart: many icons have matching animated Lottie versions in the Lottie library — useful when you want an animated hover state that matches your static icon. Other solid free sources: Heroicons (heroicons.com) — MIT, Tailwind-made, 292 icons Phosphor Icons (phosphoricons.com) — MIT, 1,248 icons, 6 weights Lucide (lucide.dev) — ISC, 1,400+ icons, React/Vue packages Tabler Icons (tabler.io/icons) — MIT, 5,000+ icons Method 1: Inline SVG Best for: small number of icons, need CSS styling <!-- Inline the SVG directly --> <button aria-label= "Close" > <svg width= "20" height= "20" viewBox= "0 0 24 24" fill= "none" stroke= "currentColor" stroke-width= "2" > <line x1= "18" y1= "6" x2= "6" y2= "18" /> <line x1= "6" y1= "6" x2= "18" y2= "18" /> </svg> </button> The stroke="currentColor" means the icon inherits its color from the parent element's CSS color property — trivial theming. Method 2: SVG Sprite Best for: many icons, better performance (single HTTP request) Bui

This is a submission for the GitHub Finish-Up-A-Thon Challenge The Bug That Doubled Real Trades On May 21, my live trading bot generated six duplicate execution attempts in one session. SafeAgent blocked all six. Without the guard: one duplicated a $1,350 sell another doubled a TQQQ position total duplicate transaction exposure: $3,653 That session changed how I think about AI agents, retries, and execution guarantees. What I Built SafeAgent is an exactly-once execution guard for AI agents and SaaS applications. It prevents duplicate payments, emails, trades, and webhook processing when retries fire after a timeout or crash. Live endpoint: https://safeagent-production.up.railway.app GitHub: https://github.com/azender1/SafeAgent PyPI: pip install safeagent-exec-guard The Comeback Story How it actually started Six months ago I was building two things at once: PeerPlay — a patented P2P wagering exchange for skill-based video game tournaments (USPTO provisional 63/914,036) — and a live QQQ/TQQQ momentum trading bot running on Alpaca Markets. Both hit the same bug. Contest verification agent times out, retries, settlement fires twice. Bot order fills, confirmation drops, retry fires, doubled position. Same failure mode. Different domain. Different models pushed me toward very different architectures during development. Some were fast but overconfident. The most useful moments came when a model explained why an approach was broken before I implemented it. That's part of why SafeAgent sat unfinished. Not just time — wrong turns that burned momentum. Why local idempotency fails Early versions used a local SQLite guard. It worked until it didn't: workers restart and the in-memory state is gone containers reschedule and replay from the last checkpoint retries land on a different machine entirely Exactly-once semantics require a durable coordination boundary outside the worker itself. That's what the hosted /claim endpoint provides — the claim lives on the server, not in the p