AI 资讯

In this podcast, Michael Stiefel spoke to Sarah Wells about the relationship of governance to software architecture. Governance enables teams to work effectively by establishing procedures that minimize system complexity, improve security, and reduce repetitive tasks. Targeted checklists help engineers by reducing the stress over these procedures. By Sarah Wells

Described as the “feel-good movie of white-boy summer” by one extremist, the movie Citizen Vigilante has been hailed by the far-right as a way to convert moderates to their cause.

Introducing InterceptX: The Ultimate Modern Alternative to ModHeader for HTTP Modifications As web developers, API engineers, and security auditors, we spend a significant portion of our time inspecting and tweaking HTTP traffic. For years, extensions like ModHeader have been the go-to utility for modifying request and response headers on the fly. However, as the browser extension landscape transitions fully to Manifest V3 —bringing stricter security, better performance, and tighter permission rules—many developers are looking for a modern, lightweight, and local-first alternative. Enter InterceptX . What is InterceptX? InterceptX is a high-performance, compact Chrome extension designed to give you complete control over browser network requests. Built from the ground up on Manifest V3 using the declarative declarativeNetRequest API, it is fast, secure, and preserves your battery life by running lightweight matching rules inside the browser engine itself. Whether you need to bypass CORS policies, simulate mobile user-agents, override security headers, or redirect API endpoints to your local development server, InterceptX does it all with a premium, glassmorphic UI. Key Features at a Glance If you are familiar with ModHeader, you will feel right at home with InterceptX—but with several modern upgrades: 1. Request & Response Header Modifications Inject, append, or strip headers on outgoing requests or incoming responses: Set : Override an existing header or add a new one (e.g., setting custom auth tokens or Origin ). Append : Append values to headers like Accept or Cookie . Remove : Completely strip headers (e.g., testing behaviors when header keys are omitted). 2. URL Redirections Need to test API endpoints or redirect files? InterceptX features a built-in regex redirect engine (using RE2 syntax). You can redirect matching patterns and even use capture groups (e.g., redirecting https://api.production.com/(.*) to http://localhost:3000/\1 ). 3. Granular URL & Domain Fil

The web has changed . Applications are no longer simple HTTP servers. Today we build real-time dashboards, AI-powered services, multiplayer systems, APIs, microservices, and applications that need to handle thousands of connections with minimal overhead. But our frameworks are still mostly designed for yesterday's problems. So we asked a simple question: What if a * Go * framework was built from the ground up for modern workloads? Meet Breeze . A high-performance Go framework designed around one idea: Performance should not come at the cost of developer experience. Why Breeze ? Go already gives us incredible performance. But the framework layer often becomes the bottleneck. Too much abstraction. Too many allocations. Too much hidden complexity. Breeze takes a different approach: ⚡ High-performance networking powered by gnet 🔥 Real-time WebSocket architecture built in 🧩 Modular middleware system 📚 Automatic Swagger/OpenAPI generation 🎨 Built-in SPA template engine 🚀 Optimized worker pool architecture 🗄️ BreezeORM for efficient database operations Everything you need to build production-grade applications — without assembling dozens of unrelated tools. The Future Is Real-Time Modern applications are moving toward instant experiences: Live collaboration Trading platforms AI assistants Gaming backends Monitoring systems Real-time analytics Breeze is designed for this world. Instead of adding real-time capabilities later, Breeze treats them as a first-class citizen. Less Glue Code. More Building. A common problem in backend development: You start with a simple API... Then suddenly you need: Authentication Documentation WebSockets Background workers Database optimization Frontend integration Your stack becomes a collection of disconnected pieces. Breeze tries to bring these pieces together into one coherent ecosystem. Built With Go Philosophy Go was created around simplicity, performance, and reliability. Breeze follows the same principles: Simple APIs. Predictable behavi

On July 12, 2026 I asked a free API to guess the age of someone named Xzqwlptv. It answered in a few milliseconds: HTTP 200, valid JSON. # runnable, read-only: no key needed curl -s "https://api.agify.io?name=Xzqwlptv" {"count":0,"name":"Xzqwlptv","age":null} # HTTP 200 OK Status 200. The JSON parses. The age key is present, exactly where a schema says it belongs. Its value is null . Every guard I usually reach for passes this response: if resp.ok , if "age" in data , even a JSON Schema that requires an age property. The null walks straight past all of them and into the dataset. My earlier keyless-API posts kept circling one idea from different angles. HTTP 200 does not mean the read worked, because the body can be empty. HTTP 201 Created does not mean a write happened, because the read-back returns 404. This post moves the lie one level deeper than either of those. Here the status is 200, the body arrives, it parses, it matches your schema, and the field you came for is sitting right there. The value is just empty. The null that passes your schema check. A free fun or facts API here means a public endpoint that returns a joke, a fact, or a guess about a name, with no API key, no signup, and no credit card. A URL you can paste into a terminal right now. Ten of them clear that bar, and I re-verified every response below with a live curl on July 12, 2026: real HTTP code, real body, trimmed but never reworded. One scope note first, so the numbers stay honest. I curl-verified all ten APIs on July 12, 2026. I have not run any of them in production. My 2,190 production scraper runs (962 of them on a single Trustpilot scraper) are a different domain, and I cite them for one reason only: they are why I read a field's value and its confidence instead of its status line. That number is not a claim about these ten endpoints. # API What it returns Example call The empty success to watch 1 agify.io Age guess from a first name GET api.agify.io?name=Xzqwlptv 200 with age: null 2 g

In the previous article , we briefly discussed the relationship between Cookies and CORS . In this article, we'll take a closer look at how browsers decide whether a Cookie should be included in a Cross-Origin request. One of the most common misconceptions is that once CORS is configured correctly, Cookies are automatically sent with every request. In reality, that's not how browsers work. 📌 Default Browser Behavior When a Cross-Origin request is made using fetch() or XMLHttpRequest , browsers do not send Cookies, Authorization headers, or other credentials by default. For example: fetch ( " https://api.example.com/profile " ) Even if the user is already logged into api.example.com , the browser will not include any Cookies with this request. This default behavior helps prevent authentication data from being unintentionally leaked across different Origins. 📌 How Can We Send Cookies? If you want the browser to include Cookies in a Cross-Origin request, you must explicitly use the credentials option. For example: fetch ( " https://api.example.com/profile " , { credentials : " include " }) Using credentials: "include" does not guarantee that Cookies will be sent. Instead, it tells the browser: "If there are any Cookies that are eligible to be sent with this request, include them." 📌 What Makes a Cookie Eligible? Even with credentials: "include" , the browser still evaluates the Cookie before sending it. Some of the most important checks include: Domain Path SameSite For example: If the Cookie's Domain doesn't match the request destination, it won't be sent. If the request path doesn't satisfy the Cookie's Path attribute, it won't be sent. If the Cookie's SameSite policy blocks Cross-Site requests, it won't be sent. In other words, credentials is only the first requirement , not the final decision. 📌 Server Configuration Matters Too If your application expects JavaScript to access the response while using Cookies, the server must also be configured correctly. For exampl

You've written setTimeout(fn, 0) expecting it to run "immediately." It didn't. A Promise.then() you scheduled a line later ran first, and somewhere a for loop of 50,000 iterations froze your UI for a full second despite every function being "async." None of this is a bug. It's the JavaScript event loop doing exactly what it always does — you just haven't seen the mechanism yet. What you'll learn By the end of this guide you'll be able to: Explain, precisely, why microtasks (Promises) always run before macrotasks ( setTimeout , setInterval ) — even at a zero delay Predict the exact console output order of any mix of synchronous code, setTimeout , and await Diagnose a frozen UI as a blocked call stack, not a "slow async function" Choose correctly between queueMicrotask , setTimeout(fn, 0) , and requestAnimationFrame for a given timing need Avoid the two most common event-loop bugs: microtask starvation and accidental serial await s in a loop Who this is for: you've written async / await and used setTimeout , but you want the model that makes their interaction predictable instead of memorized. Contents Why the JavaScript event loop exists The mental model Stage 1: the call stack and blocking code Stage 2: Web APIs and the macrotask queue Stage 3: Promises and the microtask queue Stage 4: async/await is sugar, not magic Stage 5: rendering, and Node's extra queues Edge cases and gotchas Best practices FAQ Cheat sheet Key takeaways Why the JavaScript event loop exists JavaScript runs on a single thread. One call stack, one thing executing at a time, no parallel function calls in the same realm. That's a deliberate design — it means you never need locks or mutexes to protect a shared variable — but it creates an obvious problem: how does a single-threaded language do anything concurrent, like waiting on a network response, without freezing the entire page while it waits? Here's the naive expectation, and why it would be a disaster if JavaScript worked this way: console . l

Imagine you're loading a dashboard. Four widgets, four APIs, fire them all at once: const [ users , revenue , alerts , activity ] = await Promise . all ([ fetchUsers (), fetchRevenue (), fetchAlerts (), fetchActivity (), ]); The alerts API is occasionally slow and sometimes returns a 500. When it does, your entire dashboard fails. Not one broken widget — four broken widgets. Promise.all rejects on the first failure and takes the other three successful results with it into the void. You reached for the right primitive for concurrency, but the wrong one for this use case. The four methods and what they actually do JavaScript gives you four ways to run promises concurrently. They differ in one thing: what happens when a promise fails or resolves first. Method Resolves when Rejects when Promise.all All succeed Any one fails Promise.allSettled All finish (success or failure) Never Promise.any Any one succeeds All fail Promise.race Any one finishes Any one fails first The instinct to reach for Promise.all is understandable — it returns all the values in a single array and feels like the obvious way to "do these things at the same time." But concurrency and failure handling are two separate questions. Promise.all answers both at once, and the answer to the second one is often wrong for the situation you're in. 🎮 Try it yourself ▶️ Open the interactive playground → Runs right in your browser — poke at it and watch the concept react live. Promise.allSettled — partial success Promise.allSettled waits for every promise to settle — resolve or reject — and returns a result array describing what happened to each one: const results = await Promise . allSettled ([ fetchUsers (), fetchRevenue (), fetchAlerts (), fetchActivity (), ]); for ( const result of results ) { if ( result . status === ' fulfilled ' ) { console . log ( ' got data: ' , result . value ); } else { console . error ( ' failed: ' , result . reason ); } } Each element has a status of 'fulfilled' (with a value ) or 'r

Every developer I know has the same reflex now. Hit an unfamiliar concept, paste it into ChatGPT, read the explanation, move on. I did this for months. It felt efficient. Then I noticed a pattern: I was reading a lot of clear explanations and retaining almost none of them. I could follow along perfectly in the moment and then draw a blank a week later when I actually needed the knowledge. The problem was not ChatGPT. The problem was using a general-purpose conversational tool for a job it was never designed to do. Here is what I switched to, and why it works better. The three failure modes of using a chatbot to learn Passive consumption feels like learning. Reading a good explanation triggers the feeling of understanding without the work that creates actual memory. You nod along, it makes sense, and nothing sticks. This is the biggest trap. There is no retrieval practice. The research on this is well established: you remember things by pulling them out of memory, not by putting them in repeatedly. A chatbot will explain the same concept ten different ways, but it will never make you answer a question you cannot immediately answer. That struggle is the mechanism. Confident hallucination is dangerous when you are the beginner. If you already know a topic, you can spot when an AI is subtly wrong. If you are learning it for the first time, you cannot, and you may internalize something incorrect with full confidence. For technical material, this is a real cost. What actually works better Tools that quiz you. Anything built around retrieval practice and spaced repetition beats passive reading by a wide margin. If a tool generates questions from your material and makes you answer them over spaced intervals, it is working with how memory actually forms rather than against it. Tools that read YOUR source material. This one is huge for technical learning. Instead of asking a model to answer from its general training data (which may be outdated or wrong for your specific libra

Module caching, execution order, and circular imports explained by tracing what actually happens. How Python's Import System Works and Why It Matters for Debugging The import system is one of the least understood parts of Python and one of the most practically important for debugging production issues. Circular import errors, unexpected code execution, and module state bugs all stem from not understanding what happens when Python encounters an import statement. What Happens on the First Import When Python executes import mymodule for the first time: Python checks sys.modules for mymodule . If found, returns the cached module object immediately. If not found, Python locates the module file. Python creates a new module object and adds it to sys.modules under the module name. Python executes the module file's code in the new module's namespace. The name mymodule in the importing module is bound to the module object. Step 3 happens before step 4. This is critical for understanding circular imports. The Module Cache import sys import os print ( " os " in sys . modules ) print ( sys . modules [ " os " ] is os ) Output: True True Every imported module is cached in sys.modules . Subsequent imports return the cached object without re-executing the module code. Module-Level Code Executes on Import # config.py print ( " config module loading " ) DEBUG = True print ( f " DEBUG is { DEBUG } " ) # main.py import config import config # second import print ( config . DEBUG ) Output: config module loading DEBUG is True True The print statements in config.py run exactly once — when the module is first imported. The second import returns the cached module object without re-executing the code. Circular Import Behavior # module_a.py print ( " loading module_a " ) from module_b import b_function def a_function (): return " from a " # module_b.py print ( " loading module_b " ) from module_a import a_function def b_function (): return " from b " When you import module_a , Python starts exe

Originally published at woitzik.dev A previous article here covered setting up gitleaks for homelab secret scanning - the setup, the pre-commit hook, getting CI to fail on new commits that contain secrets. The setup was correct. The tool was running. The CI was green. And it had been quietly suppressing a live production credential for months. This is the follow-on story: not about getting gitleaks running, but about the specific way a baseline file breaks the guarantees you think you have once it's in place. View the complete homelab infrastructure source on GitHub 🐙 What a Baseline File Does (and Is Supposed to Do) When gitleaks first runs on an existing repo, it finds every secret-shaped string in the full git history - including secrets that were introduced years ago, rotated long since, and are completely inert. Flagging those in CI creates noise that causes developers to tune out gitleaks entirely, which is worse than not having it. The baseline workflow is the standard answer: run gitleaks on the current state, export all findings to a JSON file, commit that file to the repo, and tell gitleaks to suppress any finding that already appears in the baseline. Future commits that introduce new secrets still fail; old known-inert findings don't. # Generate baseline from current HEAD gitleaks detect --report-format json --report-path .gitleaks-baseline.json # Tell gitleaks to use it gitleaks detect --baseline-path .gitleaks-baseline.json The assumption embedded in this workflow: findings that appear in the baseline are inert. They were there before the baseline was generated; they've been there; they're known. The Assumption That Broke It The baseline was generated at a point when the repo contained Garage's rpc_secret and admin_token committed in a YAML file. Those were real production values - the cluster was live, using those exact secrets - but the baseline suppression treated them as "known, reviewed, not a problem." The commit that introduced them had happened

The European Union is weighing sweeping new restrictions on children's and teenagers' access to social media, including age limits, an outright ban, and phased access. Social media platforms could also be forced to prove their services are not harmful before young people are allowed to use them. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said […]

Most people assume better AI performance means a bigger bill. That assumption is quietly being proven wrong. The "Don't Touch It" Trap in AI Products There's a psychological pattern that shows up in almost every team running a live AI-powered product: once something works, nobody wants to mess with it. And honestly, that instinct makes sense. You've tuned your prompts, worked out the edge cases, trained your users, and finally gotten the thing stable. The idea of swapping out the underlying model - the engine of the whole operation - feels like pulling a thread that might unravel everything. So teams stay put. They watch new model releases come out, read the benchmark comparisons, and quietly decide it's not worth the risk. The phrase you hear most often is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The problem is that this logic made sense when model upgrades were expensive and disruptive. That's no longer the default reality. What's actually happening now is that AI providers are competing hard on price-per-token while simultaneously improving quality. That combination - better output, lower cost - breaks the old mental model most product people are still operating with. What a Model Migration Actually Involves Let's be clear: switching AI models isn't a one-click operation. But it's also not the months-long project many teams imagine it to be. At its core, a model migration for an AI agent involves three things: re-evaluating your prompts (because different models respond differently to the same instructions), running parallel tests to compare output quality on your real use cases, and updating any API parameters that differ between versions. That's the actual work. For most small-to-medium deployments, that's days of effort, not weeks. The bigger shift is in how you think about model versions. Rather than treating the model as permanent infrastructure, it helps to think of it more like a dependency in your software stack - something you update deliberately, test careful

If you have ever logged into a corporate computer, searched for a colleague in your company’s email directory, or used a single set of credentials to access dozens of different internal applications, you have likely interacted with LDAP . Standing for Lightweight Directory Access Protocol , LDAP is an open, vendor-neutral, industry-standard application protocol for accessing and maintaining distributed directory information services over an IP network. In simpler terms, it is the underlying language that allows different systems and applications to communicate with a central directory to find information about users, devices, and permissions. Think of LDAP as a highly organized, digital phonebook. When an application needs to know if "John Doe" is a valid user and what his password is, it uses LDAP to ask the phonebook. How LDAP Organizes Data Unlike traditional relational databases (like SQL) that store data in tables, LDAP stores data in a hierarchical, tree-like structure known as the Directory Information Tree (DIT) . This makes it incredibly fast at reading and searching for information, which is exactly what an authentication system needs to do millions of times a day. Here are the core components of this structure: Root: The top level of the directory tree, usually representing the organization (e.g., dc=example, dc=com ). Branches (Organizational Units - OU): Categories or departments within the organization (e.g., ou=Marketing , ou=Servers ). Leaves (Entries): The actual objects being stored, such as a specific user, printer, or computer. Attributes: The specific pieces of data tied to an entry. For a user entry, attributes might include givenName (first name), mail (email address), and userPassword . Every entry in an LDAP directory has a unique identifier called a Distinguished Name (DN) . It acts like an absolute file path. For example, John Doe’s DN might look like this: cn=John Doe, ou=Marketing, dc=example, dc=com How Applications Talk to LDAP When an

Waze is getting an AI makeover. Google is integrating its flagship AI assistant, Gemini, into the driving app with the goal of letting users personalize their trips a little more. Of the four new updates, only two are being described as involving Gemini. Waze says its updating its conversation reporting feature, first introduced in 2024, […]

Like Google Maps, Waze is going all-in on Gemini.

Local-first AI video editor for Mac Discussion | Link

Hey everyone, We talk a lot about documenting clean architectures and robust APIs, but software engineering history is uniquely shaped by its failures. Documenting these bugs globally usually results in scattered StackOverflow threads or unindexed GitHub issues. I wanted to explore how to build a highly structured, community-driven database dedicated exclusively to tracking software bugs, their deep technical root causes, and multi-language solutions. Here is a technical breakdown of the architectural challenges, data modeling decisions, and security implementations behind building this engine. 1. The Data Modeling Challenge: Structuring the Unstructured Bugs are notoriously hard to normalize in a relational database. A classic logic bug looks nothing like a memory leak or a floating-point precision error. To solve this, we modeled the schema around a strict "Bug DNA" structure using PostgreSQL: Categorization & Multi-Runtime Target: Mapping a single bug to multiple language runtimes dynamically (e.g., how the 0.1 + 0.2 anomaly propagates across V8 JavaScript, CPython, and JVM identically due to hardware constraints). The Diagnostic Timeline: Instead of a generic description text, we structured a linear, time-stamped array to track state changes during the replication phase. 2. Deep Dive: Representing IEEE 754 at the Schema Level Our inaugural entry into the database was the infamous base-2 fractional conversion problem ($0.1 + 0.2 = 0.30000000000000004$). To make this data educational, the challenge was handling how the processor truncates infinite binary fractions: $$0.1_{10} = 0.0001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001101..._2$$ We decoupled the storage mechanism so that the raw precision error is stored as a literal string to prevent the database layer (PostgreSQL float types) from auto-correcting or rounding the very bug we are trying to document. 3. Edge Security: Row-Level Security (RLS) Without a Middleware Backend Since the application runs on a