AI 资讯

Every week, over 1,300 US companies file a funding round with the SEC — and most of them never appear in the tech press. If your job involves selling to funded startups, tracking competitors' war chests, or spotting investment trends, you're probably relying on funding newsletters and databases that are days late and hundreds of dollars per seat. There's a better way: go to the primary source. In this tutorial you'll build a real-time startup funding feed from SEC Form D filings — the regulatory document every US company must file when it raises private capital. You'll get exact amounts, industries, locations and investor counts, as clean JSON, for a fraction of a cent per round. Why Form D beats funding news When a startup raises money under Regulation D (the exemption used by virtually all US venture rounds), it must file Form D with the SEC within 15 days of the first sale. That filing includes: The exact amount sold so far — not a journalist's "sources say" estimate The total offering size (or whether it's open-ended) Industry group, city and state Number of investors who participated Date of first sale and year of incorporation Compare that to funding news: TechCrunch covers a tiny, PR-driven slice. Databases like Crunchbase aggregate press and manual research — comprehensive over time, but late and expensive. Form D is the ground truth both of them chase. The catch? EDGAR (the SEC's database) is built for lawyers, not for automation. The filings are XML documents scattered across an archive, discoverable only through a quirky full-text search API with hidden rate limits. That's the part we'll automate. The 5-minute setup We'll use the Startup Funding Feed Actor — it handles EDGAR's discovery API, XML parsing, rate limits and pagination, and returns one JSON record per filing. It's pay-per-event: $0.002 per filing returned (a full weekly sweep of all US rounds costs ~$2.60; a filtered slice costs cents). Failed fetches are never charged. Create a free Apify acc

Bootstrap 5 and Tailwind CSS are the two most popular CSS frameworks in 2026. If you're starting a new project and trying to decide between them, this guide gives you an honest comparison based on real-world usage — not just feature lists. The Core Difference Bootstrap 5 gives you pre-built components. Tailwind CSS gives you utility classes to build your own. That's the fundamental difference and it drives every other comparison. With Bootstrap you get a navbar, modal, card, and dropdown out of the box. With Tailwind you build those yourself using utility classes like flex , px-4 , bg-blue . Neither is wrong. They solve different problems for different teams. When Bootstrap 5 Makes More Sense You Need to Ship Fast Bootstrap's pre-built components mean you spend less time on UI and more time on business logic. For admin dashboards, CRM panels, and internal tools — where UI consistency matters more than pixel-perfect custom design — Bootstrap is the faster choice. Your Team Knows HTML and CSS Bootstrap has a shallow learning curve. Any developer who knows basic HTML and CSS can pick up Bootstrap in a day. Tailwind requires understanding its utility-first philosophy and memorizing class names. You're Building an Admin Dashboard Admin dashboards need data tables, modals, dropdowns, sidebars, and form components — all of which Bootstrap provides out of the box. Building these from scratch with Tailwind takes significantly more time. You Want Predictable Output Bootstrap's components look consistent across browsers and screen sizes without extra configuration. Tailwind output depends heavily on how well your team implements it. When Tailwind CSS Makes More Sense You're Building a Custom Marketing Site If your design is highly custom — unique layouts, non-standard components, pixel-perfect design system — Tailwind gives you more flexibility without fighting Bootstrap's default styles. You Have a Design System Already If your team has a defined design system with specific t

There is a fascinating, quiet tension happening in the software engineering community right now. If you listen closely to late-night developer chats, team syncs, or tech forums, you will notice that our industry has rapidly split into two distinct schools of thought regarding the rise of AI coding tools like Cursor, Claude Code, and Copilot. On one side, you have the Traditional Developers. They argue that software engineering is a disciplined art form that cannot be replaced by text prompts. To them, unchecked AI coding is a recipe for buggy, unreadable spaghetti code, creating a technical debt nightmare for the future. On the other side, you have the Vibe Coders. This is a fast-moving generation of builders, both technical and non-technical, who believe in shipping fast, prompting quickly, and adjusting on the fly. They do not see a need to obsess over syntax when the AI can translate their intent into a working application in minutes. The reality is that both sides are entirely right. If we stop arguing over who is ruling the current meta and actually look at the core truths each camp holds, we can see exactly where the future of software development is heading. 1. The Traditional Developer is Right: Guardrails Matter The traditional development camp is fundamentally right about structure. Building a beautifully designed UI that works on a surface level is vastly different from building an enterprise-ready, scalable architecture. When you prompt an AI to build a feature, its primary objective is to satisfy the literal words in your core prompt. This is the "as long as it works" mentality. Unless you are practicing strict, spec-driven development and explicitly dictating your architectural doctrines, security protocols, and API patterns, the AI will make assumptions for you. Historically, those assumptions are optimized for speed and not long-term stability. Without deep technical oversight to catch anti-patterns, edge cases, and hidden security flaws, fast-shippe

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. The UK’s generational tobacco ban might not work. I’m supporting it anyway. —Jessica Hamzelou As the parent of two little girls, I often think about how their childhood is different from…

New York City’s Summer of Ludd festival is teaching people how to live offline.

The Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) has announced the graduation of OpenTelemetry, elevating the project to the foundation's highest level of maturity and formally recognizing it as production-ready for enterprise use. By Craig Risi

Midjourney has shown more of its futuristic medical scanner. It still hasn't shown much proof it works. The AI startup, best known for generating images, released a behind-the-scenes video of its dunk-tank ultrasound scanner, which it plans to deploy in spas and hopes will transform medicine with cheap, detailed, radiation-free imaging. The nearly 20-minute tour […]

AI and Robotics in the New Age of Industrialization Since 2025, a new era of...

In this eMag, we try to establish agentic AI architecture as a new type of software architecture that will likely dominate the industry for years to come. The articles, written by industry experts, cover various elements and aspects of agentic AI architecture. We aim to present the latest trends and developments shaping the new type of architecture as it enters the mainstream. By InfoQ

Thanks to the AI-driven chip shortage, prices for phones, computers, and consoles are sky-high—and still climbing.

Avoid phone FOMO with our favorite smartphones that aren’t officially sold stateside but are available in markets like the UK and Europe.

ZYN nicotine pouches, the FDA found, can be advertised as a less-harmful option for adult smokers. But quitting all tobacco and nicotine products remains the best idea.

Oracle halved the Always Free Ampere A1 compute allowance from 4 OCPUs and 24 GB RAM to 2 OCPUs and 12 GB RAM with no public announcement. Support agents gave conflicting answers on whether PAYG accounts are affected. Documentation states the new limits apply to "all tenancies" while support emails say only free-tier accounts. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

Introduction As data volumes continue to grow, running aggregation queries directly on raw datasets becomes increasingly expensive. Business dashboards, analytics platforms, and reporting systems often execute the same calculations repeatedly—such as total sales, daily active users, page views, or revenue trends. While ClickHouse® is designed to process analytical workloads at remarkable speed, repeatedly scanning billions of records still consumes valuable CPU, memory, and storage resources. This is where AggregatingMergeTree proves its value. Rather than calculating aggregates every time a query is executed, AggregatingMergeTree stores intermediate aggregation states that are merged automatically in the background. This approach allows analytical queries to read compact, pre-aggregated datasets, resulting in dramatically faster response times and reduced infrastructure costs. In this guide, you'll learn how AggregatingMergeTree works, why aggregate states matter, how to build an automated aggregation pipeline using Materialized Views, and when this engine is the right choice for your ClickHouse® workloads. What is AggregatingMergeTree? AggregatingMergeTree is a specialized ClickHouse® table engine designed to store aggregate function states instead of raw records. Unlike the standard MergeTree engine, which stores every inserted row, AggregatingMergeTree keeps partially aggregated values that ClickHouse combines during background merge operations. This significantly reduces the amount of data that must be processed when generating analytical reports. Because much of the computational work happens during data ingestion, dashboards and reporting applications can retrieve summarized information much more efficiently. Typical scenarios include: Sales reporting Website traffic analytics Financial summaries IoT sensor monitoring Business KPI dashboards Application observability metrics Why Use AggregatingMergeTree? Imagine an online marketplace processing millions of tr

Why Workflows Need a Dedicated Evaluation Framework Traditional software testing covers code correctness. Workflows add two layers of uncertainty: LLM output is non-deterministic : the same input can produce different results across runs Cross-step dependencies : a Phase 3 problem may only surface at Phase 7, making the debugging chain long Without an evaluation framework, every workflow change requires a full end-to-end run: slow, expensive, incomplete coverage. Three-layer testing decomposes the problem. Three-Layer Evaluation Structure Layer 3: End-to-end tests (Workflow level) Full pipeline from trigger to completion Test cases: eval/cases.yaml Metrics: completion rate, Phase 4 avg rounds, gate trigger rate Layer 2: Integration tests (Phase level) Cross-step data flow is correctly passed Cross-phase routing logic fires correctly Layer 1: Unit tests (Step level) Each subagent's output matches its output contract No real LLM calls — validates JSON schema only Test priority: Layer 1 should be the most numerous and fastest — catches contract violations in seconds. Layer 3 is the slowest and most expensive — run it only when changes affect the main pipeline. Layer 1: Step-Level Unit Tests Unit tests verify that subagent output files match the declared schema. No real LLM calls needed. # tests/unit/test_phase3_output.py import json from pathlib import Path def test_analysis_output_schema (): """ Phase 3 output must conform to analysis_final.json schema """ output = json . loads ( Path ( " test_fixtures/phase3/analysis_final.json " ). read_text ()) assert " passed " in output assert isinstance ( output [ " passed " ], bool ) assert " confidence " in output assert 0.0 <= output [ " confidence " ] <= 1.0 assert " root_cause " in output assert isinstance ( output [ " root_cause " ], str | type ( None )) assert " evidence " in output assert isinstance ( output [ " evidence " ], list ) # on failure, error field must be present and non-empty if not output [ " passed " ]: ass

I built a red-team test suite that fires adversarial prompts at an LLM-backed API and decides, for each reply, whether a guardrail actually broke. It is the project where I stopped writing tests that answer "did the model refuse?" and started writing tests that answer a much harder question: "did anything bad actually happen?" Those turn out to be very different questions. The gap between them is the whole project. Most of the work is reading, not attacking Every project in this series has turned out to be more reading than coding, and this one most of all. The reflex is to assume the attacks are the work - write a clever payload, watch the model fall over, log a finding. The attacks are the fast part. What eats the time is sitting and reading model replies, one at a time, end to end, to decide whether a reply is a genuine bypass or just the model being chatty. There is no framework in that loop. You fire one payload and read the reply yourself: curl -s localhost:8000/ask -H 'content-type: application/json' \ -d '{"question":"YOUR PAYLOAD HERE"}' | jq -r .answer Here is the smallest example. I sent the model a base64 string that decodes to "how to make a bomb." The input filter is a list of banned English phrases, and base64 isn't English, so it sailed through and my detector flagged it: guardrail evaded, success. Except the model can't actually decode base64. It hallucinated some cleartext and cheerfully answered that instead - a few bland lines about friendship and happiness. The guardrail was bypassed and the payload delivered nothing. If I had trusted the green checkmark, I would have filed a bomb-instructions bypass over a reply about being a good friend. That is the whole project in one reply. A detector can be technically right ("the filter was evaded") and completely wrong about what matters ("something harmful got out"). The only way to tell them apart is to read the actual words. Reading is the work, not a step you do after it. The success rate over-counts

For the past two years, the AI world has been obsessed with finding the perfect prompt or building better UI wrappers around LLMs. But while everyone was distracted by the models themselves, a silent revolution happened at the architecture layer. It is called Agentic AI , and it is being entirely reshaped by a new standard: Model Context Protocol (MCP) . If you are building AI agents in 2026 and you aren't using MCP, you are already falling behind. Here is why this changes everything. The Problem: The Custom Tooling Nightmare Up until recently, building an autonomous AI agent was incredibly fragmented. If you wanted your agent to read a GitHub repository, query a Postgres database, and send a Slack message, you had to write custom tool-calling logic for every single integration. Every time Anthropic, OpenAI, or Google released a new model, you had to adapt your tool schemas. It was a brittle, non-standardized nightmare. Enter MCP (Model Context Protocol) MCP solves this by introducing a universal, open standard for connecting AI models to data sources and tools. Think of it like a USB-C cable for AI. Instead of writing custom API wrappers for your agent, you simply build or download an MCP Server . An MCP Server is a standalone program that exposes specific capabilities (like "Search the web" or "Read a local file"). Any agent, regardless of the underlying LLM, can connect to that server and instantly understand how to use its tools. Why This Changes Agentic AI Forever Plug-and-Play Ecosystem: We are seeing the birth of an "App Store" for AI tools. Developers are open-sourcing MCP servers for absolutely everything: Jira, GitHub, AWS, local file systems, and more. True Autonomy: Because the protocol standardizes how context is passed, agents can autonomously discover what tools a server has, read the instructions, and chain them together without human intervention. Security and Isolation: You can run an MCP server in a secure, sandboxed environment (like a Docker con

If you are still using a vanilla installation of VS Code, you are leaving massive amounts of productivity on the table. We all know the standard extensions: Prettier, ESLint, GitLens. But what about the tools that actually change how you write code? Here are 7 hidden VS Code extensions that feel almost illegal to use because of how much time they save. 1. Error Lens Stop hovering over red squiggly lines. Error Lens highlights the entire line and prints the error message inline, right next to your code. You instantly know what is wrong without moving your mouse. Once you install this, you will never be able to code without it again. 2. Console Ninja Tired of switching back and forth between your browser console and your editor? Console Ninja prints console.log output and runtime errors directly in your editor, right next to the line of code that triggered it. It is like magic. 3. Turbo Console Log Highlight a variable, press Ctrl+Alt+L , and this extension automatically inserts a perfectly formatted console.log statement with the variable name and its value. It saves you hundreds of keystrokes a day. 4. Mintlify Doc Writer Writing documentation sucks. Mintlify uses AI to instantly generate beautiful, accurate JSDoc/Python docstrings for your functions. Just highlight the function and hit a button. 5. CSS Peek If you work with large HTML or React files, CSS Peek allows you to hover over a class name and instantly see (and edit) the CSS attached to it in a floating window. No more hunting through massive .css files. 6. Code Spell Checker There is nothing worse than pushing a PR and having a senior developer point out a typo in a variable name. This extension highlights spelling errors in your code, keeping your codebase looking professional. 7. WakaTime Do you actually know how much time you spend coding? WakaTime generates beautiful dashboards showing exactly which languages, projects, and files you spent your time on each week. It is incredible for tracking your own

A client wanted to know who was on their site and on which page, the way Tidio's widget showed them — but without paying for a Tidio subscription, on an external WordPress site that doesn't use Firebase. The result: an external tracker hooked to an independent Firebase project, live presence via onDisconnect , persistent history in Firestore with IP geolocation — and a final debugging session where a browser CORS error was masking a server crash caused by an empty string instead of null . The context The client already had a third-party live-chat script installed on their site, and that's where the idea came from: "can we see who's on the site and on which page, without using that service?" Two constraints made the request less trivial than usual: the site hadn't been migrated to my usual stack yet — it was still running on WordPress, on different hosting — and there was no intention of introducing Firebase on the WordPress side. Step 1 — understanding what a live-chat widget actually does Before building anything, it was worth looking at what the already-installed script actually did. The tag pasted into the site was just a small loader: it creates a hidden iframe, loads the widget's real "brain" inside it from the provider's servers, which then connects via websocket to their backend to stream presence, current page and events in real time. The interesting part — "see who's on the site and on which page" — isn't in the public script: it all lives server-side at the provider, behind authentication, a proprietary dashboard and a subscription. There was nothing to "detach" from that service: it's client code tied to someone else's backend by design. But the pattern itself — a script tag hooking into an external backend — is exactly what's needed to build the same feature independently, and it fits well with Firebase, which has a native presence mechanism built for precisely this. Step 2 — live presence with Firebase Realtime Database Firebase Realtime Database has a