AI 资讯

Convert UGC ads for TV Discussion | Link

New details have emerged about Valor's latest fund, which last year announced it was raising an unspecified amount of capital.

Hello, I'm Kushagra and I am the indie developer behind LookAway (I've posted about it earlier but it has received quite a lot of updates since the last time so I am posting it again). LookAway is a native break reminder for macOS that doesn't interrupt. I built it because I work from home and I spend a lot of time in front of my screens. It's very easy for me to get lost in the flow and I can end up sitting for hours. Due to this, I started facing issues like eye strain and back pain by the end

Quando comecei a trabalhar com tecnologia, há mais de duas décadas, a Inteligência Artificial era algo restrito a laboratórios de pesquisa e ficção científica. Hoje, ela está embutida no aplicativo que recomenda sua próxima série, no e-mail que filtra spam automaticamente e até no GPS que recalcula sua rota em tempo real. A IA deixou de ser promessa para se tornar infraestrutura invisível do cotidiano. Neste artigo, quero ir além do hype e mostrar, com exemplos concretos, como essa tecnologia já transforma a forma como vivemos e trabalhamos. Produtividade pessoal e profissional turbinada O caso de uso mais palpável da IA hoje está na produtividade. Assistentes baseados em modelos de linguagem (LLMs) como ChatGPT, Claude e Gemini reduziram drasticamente o tempo gasto em tarefas que antes consumiam horas: redação de e-mails, geração de relatórios, resumos de reuniões e até depuração de código. Na minha rotina como gestor de TI, integrei essas ferramentas a fluxos de trabalho reais. Por exemplo, utilizo modelos de IA para revisar contratos de smart contracts escritos em Rust para a rede Stellar, identificando padrões de vulnerabilidade antes mesmo da auditoria formal. Não substitui a perícia humana, mas funciona como uma primeira camada de triagem que economiza tempo precioso da equipe. Algumas aplicações práticas que recomendo testar: Transcrição e resumo automático de reuniões com ferramentas como Otter.ai ou Fireflies Geração de documentação técnica a partir de comentários de código Automação de respostas em suporte de primeiro nível via chatbots treinados com a base de conhecimento da empresa O segredo está em tratar a IA como copiloto, nunca como piloto automático. A revisão humana continua indispensável, especialmente em contextos críticos. Saúde, finanças e decisões do dia a dia A IA também opera nos bastidores de decisões que afetam diretamente nossa qualidade de vida. No setor de saúde, algoritmos de visão computacional já auxiliam radiologistas na detecção pr

I just completed my bachelor’s last month and I have realised basic programming knowledge about different languages won’t get me any job. So I have decided to pursue Mern stack + Ai integration path. However I don’t have any money to buy courses. Lucky I have an internet connection and a laptop. I’m already familiar with basic javascript and I want to dive into the intermediate level at the least ASAP! Are there any free courses online for Mern ?? I’m already looking into freecodecamp. However if there are other unpopular options available, help would be appreciated. Thanks!! PS :- I attached google link cuz didn’t know what else to do. submitted by /u/Mental-Parsnip-8026 [link] [留言]

Google's new speaker is a modest update, but the question is whether Gemini is a good smart home assistant.

Right out of the box, the new Google Home Speaker passed a couple of important tests. Even with the volume at 100 percent and music blaring out of the speaker, it quickly ducked the audio and listened every time I said "Hey, Google." In fact, in two days of testing, the speaker's three microphones haven't […]

You have an API response. You want a Zod schema. So you paste the JSON into a JSON-to-Zod converter, copy the output, and ship it. Here's the trap: a lot of those converters infer basic types only . Your email , your uuid , your url , your ISO timestamp — they all come out as z.string() . The schema compiles, the types look right, and your validator quietly accepts "not-an-email" , "ftp://nope" , and "2026-99-99" forever. I wanted to see exactly how much gets lost, so I ran the same payload through two tools and diffed the output. Everything below is real, copy-pasteable output — nothing edited. The input A pretty ordinary user object: { "id" : "3f2a9c1e-5b7d-4e8a-9f1c-2d3e4f5a6b7c" , "email" : "ada@example.com" , "website" : "https://ada.dev" , "age" : 34 , "rating" : 4.7 , "created_at" : "2026-03-04T10:15:30Z" , "is_active" : true , "address" : { "city" : "Lyon" , "zip" : "69001" }, "tags" : [ "early-adopter" , "beta" ] } Tool 1 — json-to-zod (npm) const user = z . object ({ id : z . string (), email : z . string (), website : z . string (), age : z . number (), rating : z . number (), created_at : z . string (), is_active : z . boolean (), address : z . object ({ city : z . string (), zip : z . string () }), tags : z . array ( z . string ()), }); Structurally correct. But every meaningful field is a bare z.string() / z.number() . This schema will happily validate email: "lol" and created_at: "yesterday" . Tool 2 — TypeMorph import { z } from " zod " ; export const userAddressSchema = z . object ({ city : z . string (), zip : z . string (). regex ( /^ [ A-Z0-9 ][ A-Z0-9 \s\-]{1,8}[ A-Z0-9 ] $/i ), }); export type UserAddress = z . infer < typeof userAddressSchema > ; export const userSchema = z . object ({ id : z . uuid (), email : z . email (), website : z . url (), age : z . number (). int (). min ( 0 ). max ( 150 ), rating : z . number (). min ( 0 ). max ( 5 ), created_at : z . iso . datetime (), is_active : z . boolean (), address : userAddressSchema , tags :

Three AI stories landed this week that all poke at the same nerve: the images, video, and films we actually look at are getting an AI layer — and the line between "real" and "AI-made" keeps thinning. Quick rundown in the short, then my take below: 1. ChatGPT will start showing real, licensed photos — not AI fakes. OpenAI signed a multi-year display deal with Getty Images, so licensed photography shows up inside ChatGPT's search and discovery. It's display-only — the photos aren't used to train models. The twist I can't get over: AI image generation had nearly wiped Getty out (stock down ~55% on the year), and this one deal sent the shares up ~145%. The thing AI almost broke got rescued by AI. 2. ByteDance — yes, TikTok's parent — teased Seedance 2.5: a full 30-second video generated in a single shot, no stitching, up to 50 reference inputs, 4K. Most tools still cap out around 5–10 seconds, so "30s native, one pass" is a real jump in how usable the output is. Public launch is early July. 3. Google DeepMind is partnering with A24 on AI filmmaking — a ~$75M, non-exclusive deal to co-build Veo-powered tools. Notably Google gets no access to A24's film library or data. A prestige studio building with AI in the open makes the whole "AI in Hollywood" debate a lot less hypothetical. As someone building a daily AI-news pipeline on the side, the Getty one is the story I keep chewing on. So much of the "AI vs creators" fight has been framed as scrape-or-die. A display-licensing deal is a third option — pay to show the real thing, instead of generating a confident fake or quietly training on someone's work. I don't know if it scales, but it's the first move in a while that didn't feel zero-sum. The Seedance + A24 pair points the other way though: generation is getting longer, more controllable, and is walking straight into real production. So we get both at once — more verified real media and more convincing synthetic media, in the same week. Curious where other builders land:

On April 29, 2026, Nathan Sobo published the Zed 1.0 announcement post on Zed's blog. The post landed on Hacker News at 2,047 points and 663 comments — the highest-engagement HN story in the present cache by a substantial margin. The launch announcement is a milestone marker after five years of development, roughly a million lines of Rust, and a custom GPU-accelerated UI framework called GPUI that the Zed team built from scratch rather than building atop Electron, Chromium, or any other browser engine. The structural argument Zed has been making for the last several years is condensed in one sentence from Sobo's post: "Instead of building Zed like a web page, we built it like a video game, organizing the entire application around feeding data to shaders running on the GPU." The video-game framing is not metaphorical. Zed's editor surface is composited by feeding glyph atlases, syntax-tree-derived color spans, and pane-layout geometry into GPU shaders the way a video-game engine composites its frames. The reason this matters is the reason the Zed team gave for starting over from the Atom era: Atom was built as a fork of Chromium, and the same team that built Atom is the team that spawned Electron. The Atom-Electron-VSCode lineage is, in the historical-causal sense, Zed's own. Sobo's post is unusually direct about the inherited limitation: "Electron eventually became the foundation of VS Code (which today seems to be forked into a new AI code editor every other week). Web technology offered an easy path to shipping flexible software, but it also imposed a ceiling. No matter how hard we worked, we couldn't make Atom better than the platform it was built on." The 1.0 announcement is, in part, a statement that the rebuild from scratch has finally cleared that ceiling. Who built it Zed's three co-founders all worked on Atom at GitHub before founding Zed Industries in 2021. Nathan Sobo led the Atom team from 2011 to 2018; he also co-led Teletype for Atom, one of the first

Synchronous billing is easy, and that's the problem — it makes you think all billing is easy. When a request does its work inline, the billable number is in the response by the time you send it. The gateway meters from there — the meter write, retries and all, is its problem, not yours. From your side, synchronous billing is one number in the response. Asynchronous work breaks that. The request submits a job; the work happens later, in a worker; the result comes back through a poll or a callback. And the thing you bill for — characters processed, pages converted — isn't known when the request arrives. It's known when the job finishes . So you can't meter at the edge. The meter has to fire from the completion path. And the real difficulty is firing it exactly once per unit of completed work — because requests, polls, and retries all conspire to make that zero times or many times. This is platform-agnostic. Every submit-process-poll API has it. I'll use the system I run as the example, but the shape is the same anywhere. Three ways metering goes wrong On arrival. Carry the synchronous habit over and you meter when the job is submitted. But you don't know the size yet, so you're forced into a crude flat fee — or you bill for work that hasn't happened and might fail. Wrong unit, wrong time. On retrieval. The subtle one. You wire the meter to fire when the client fetches the result. Now a client who submits a job, lets it run — costing you real money downstream — and never bothers to poll is never billed. You did the work for free. "Completion" is not "the client picked up the result." It's the worker finishing. Without a fixed quantity. Input characters or output characters? Pages before OCR or after? If you haven't decided exactly what you measure and where, invoices drift and customers argue. Decide once; measure there. All three point the same way: meter on measured work-completion, with a fixed definition of the unit. Not on arrival. Not on retrieval. The mechanism:

Google’s first new smart speaker in six years is here and once again leads its competitors—now with paywalled features.

AI has made it easier to produce working software. That part is real. It can write code, draft documents, research a topic, scaffold a prototype, and debug a problem faster than most teams can finish writing a decent ticket. But faster building doesn't automatically mean better product decisions. That's the part I keep coming back to. For decades, software teams optimized around delivery. Requirements, design, development, QA, release. Waterfall softened into Agile. Agile grew into DevOps. The practices changed, but the assumption underneath stayed pretty stable: building software is expensive, so plan carefully before you start. That made sense because, for a long time, it was true. Now that assumption is breaking. AI is doing to software what calculators did to accounting. It isn't eliminating the job. It's moving the job up a level. The syntax, boilerplate, first draft, and some of the debugging are getting offloaded. The work doesn't disappear. The bottleneck moves. Learning is still expensive Here's what didn't get cheaper: understanding what people actually need getting stakeholders aligned deciding what evidence would change your mind putting something real in front of users reading the signal without fooling yourself The old question was: Can we build it fast enough? The new question is: Do we understand the problem well enough? That sounds like a small shift, but it changes the work. It changes what strong engineers spend time on. It changes what product people need from engineering. It changes how teams should define "done." If the code ships but nobody learns anything, did the team actually move forward? Sometimes yes. Often no. Users don't know until they can touch it People are not great at specifying requirements up front. Not because they're difficult. Because they're human. Most of us don't know how we feel about something until we can react to a version of it. A mockup. A prototype. A rough slice. A real workflow with sharp edges. So the fastest pat

Most TypeScript tutorials teach you the language. This article teaches you how to use it. There's a difference. The language has hundreds of features. A real project uses maybe twenty of them regularly, and about eight of them make up the difference between TypeScript that fights you and TypeScript that helps you. These are those eight. Each one comes from a pattern I've seen repeatedly in real codebases: first as an antipattern, then as a realization, then as a habit. The goal isn't to show off advanced type gymnastics. It's to show you the specific things that make your code safer, more readable, and less painful to maintain. TL;DR Most TypeScript pain comes from fighting the type system instead of working with it, any , manual casting, and loose types are the usual culprits. A small set of features, discriminated unions, utility types, satisfies , as const , generics, solve the majority of real-world typing problems. The best TypeScript isn't the most complex. It's the most precise. Table of Contents Tip 1: Use Discriminated Unions Instead of Optional Fields Tip 2: Stop Writing Types Twice with Utility Types Tip 3: Use satisfies to Validate Without Losing Inference Tip 4: Use as const for Literal Types That Don't Drift Tip 5: Write Type Guards Instead of Casting Tip 6: Use Generics to Write Functions Once Tip 7: Use ReturnType and Parameters to Stay in Sync Tip 8: Use unknown Instead of any for External Data Honorable Mentions Final Thoughts Tip 1: Use Discriminated Unions Instead of Optional Fields This is the tip that changes how you model data in TypeScript. Once you see it, you'll spot the antipattern everywhere. The antipattern // ❌ A type that tries to represent multiple states with optional fields interface ApiResponse { data ?: User error ?: string isLoading : boolean } The problem: this type allows impossible states. Nothing stops you from having both data and error set at the same time, or neither set, or isLoading: false with no data and no error . The

Most AI agent examples make the same mistake. They show a nice prompt, a clean tool call, and then quietly pass raw real data straight through the model. That works for a demo, but it is a very bad idea in production. A prompt is not just text anymore. It is part of the execution path. If you put real customer data into it (emails, user addresses, their real names), that data can leak through traces, tool calls, or the final answer. TL;DR The model gets an opaque token, never the real value. A guardrail swaps the token back for the real value just before the tool runs, then scrubs it out of the result. The model only ever holds tokens, and anything that is not a live token is rejected. The whole thing is Microsoft Agent Framework middleware, around 150 lines. Demo repo: github.com/bgener/demo-maf-tokenization Why is this a problem A bare integer or a GUID is mostly harmless. Real data is not, and I do not just mean passwords. Think phone numbers, home addresses, someone's location. Two things go wrong the moment the model holds it. It can leak: repeated in a reply, written to a log, or shown to the wrong user. And models make things up. A confused agent will invent arguments and call your tools with nonsense. If your tools trust whatever the model sends, that nonsense reaches your real systems. Maybe you use Anthropic directly. Maybe Azure AI Foundry or Amazon Bedrock with good privacy terms. That helps, but it does not remove the problem. Because "Not used for training" is not the same as "never exposed anywhere". The data can still move through provider infrastructure, safety systems, logs, traces, tool calls, prompt history, evaluation runs, or the final answer. Tokenization guardrail With tokenization, the model never sees the real value. You hand it an opaque token instead, something like tkn_loc_ab12... . When the model calls a tool, it passes that token back, and you swap it for the real value just before the tool runs. So when the agent invents a token, or f

Long-running workflows look simple when you first build them. Something happens. A few systems exchange data. Everything completes. Done. At least that's the expectation. Reality is very different. The biggest thing I underestimated was time. Not execution time. Elapsed time. Because once workflows start running for hours, days, or continuously, strange things start happening. APIs become temporarily unavailable Data changes halfway through the process Retries arrive much later than expected Someone manually updates a record Another system processes things in a different order Nothing is broken. But everything is slightly different from when the workflow started. Early on, I assumed workflows were transactions. Start. Execute. Finish. Now I think of them as conversations between systems. And conversations can get interrupted. Another thing I underestimated: State changes. You might start processing an order that is "pending". Ten minutes later, another system marks it as "cancelled". An hour later, a retry comes in from an earlier step. If your workflow only thinks about data, weird things happen. Because the world has changed while the process was still running. Long-running workflows also expose assumptions you didn't know you made. Like: this API will always respond quickly data will arrive in order users won't modify records manually retries will happen immediately Those assumptions survive in testing. Production removes them quickly. One thing that changed how I build these systems: I stopped asking: "Will this workflow finish?" And started asking: "What state will the world be in when it finishes?" Because those are two very different questions. Most problems in long-running systems aren't caused by one big failure. They're caused by lots of small changes happening while the workflow is still alive. And if you don't account for that, eventually the workflow finishes successfully and still produces the wrong outcome. This is something we think about constantly

Você já fez um commit no repositório do trabalho e percebeu que estava com o seu e-mail pessoal? Ou o contrário? Esse é um dos erros mais comuns de quem usa Git com múltiplas contas no mesmo computador. Neste tutorial você vai aprender a configurar tudo corretamente, de uma vez, usando chaves SSH separadas e .gitconfig condicional — sem gambiarras. O problema Por padrão o Git usa uma configuração global: git config --global user.name "Seu Nome" git config --global user.email "seu@email.com" Isso significa que todos os repositórios no seu computador usam o mesmo usuário. Quando você tem contas separadas (ex: joao@empresa.com no GitLab da empresa e joao@gmail.com no GitLab pessoal), os commits vão sair com o e-mail errado. A solução profissional envolve duas partes: Chaves SSH separadas para cada conta .gitconfig condicional que aplica o usuário certo — e a chave SSH certa — por pasta Passo 1 — Gerar as chaves SSH Abra o terminal e gere uma chave para cada conta. Use nomes diferentes para não sobrescrever: # Chave para a conta pessoal ssh-keygen -t ed25519 -C "joao@gmail.com" -f ~/.ssh/id_ed25519_pessoal # Chave para a conta do trabalho ssh-keygen -t ed25519 -C "joao@empresa.com" -f ~/.ssh/id_ed25519_trabalho 💡 Por que ed25519 ? É o algoritmo mais moderno, mais seguro e recomendado pelo GitHub, GitLab e Bitbucket. Evite RSA a menos que seu servidor seja muito antigo. Ao final você terá quatro arquivos em ~/.ssh/ : id_ed25519_pessoal ← chave privada (nunca compartilhe) id_ed25519_pessoal.pub ← chave pública (você registra no GitLab) id_ed25519_trabalho id_ed25519_trabalho.pub Passo 2 — Registrar as chaves no GitLab Para cada conta: Copie o conteúdo da chave pública: # Pessoal cat ~/.ssh/id_ed25519_pessoal.pub # Trabalho cat ~/.ssh/id_ed25519_trabalho.pub Acesse Settings → SSH and GPG keys → New SSH key na conta correspondente e cole o conteúdo. Faça isso nas duas contas , cada uma com a sua respectiva chave pública. Passo 3 — Configurar o Git por pasta (o pulo do gato)