AI 资讯

Wireshark for AI Agents: passive eBPF observability Discussion | Link

As soon as August, a giant silver bullet will cut its way through the dry air of the southwestern US and cross the Pacific to reach the coast of Japan. Once there, the roughly 200-foot-long craft, built by the New Mexico–based company Sceye, will park some 18 kilometers above the ocean’s surface, in a wispy-thin…

When I was 18, I skipped my high school graduation and headed to Kuwait. It was 1991, the first Gulf War had just ended, and the country was in complete chaos. There was little to no electricity, aside from generator power. Rubble and unexploded ordnance were everywhere. Massive oil fires lit up the desert and…

Convert leads into customers with AI conversations Discussion | Link

Google has settled a lawsuit with a minor known who claimed that social media platforms harmed them.

Complete preparation breeds complacency. What is seen every day no longer raises suspicion. The...

Let AI agents see cross repo and maintain session memory. Discussion | Link

PDF work shows up in dev life more often than we'd like to admit — exporting docs, compressing build artifacts, merging client deliverables, or converting a spec sheet someone sent as a scanned PDF into something you can actually search. Paid suites like Adobe Acrobat are overkill for most of these one-off tasks. Here are 10 free, no-signup tools that get the job done, ranked roughly by how often you'll reach for them. 1. ToolTiny — PDF to Word/Excel/PowerPoint ToolTiny converts PDFs into editable DOCX, XLSX, or PPTX files directly in the browser, alongside the usual merge/split/compress/watermark/password toolkit. No account, no watermark on output. What's actually useful for dev workflows: it handles presentation-style PDFs (think exported slide decks or design-heavy one-pagers) reasonably well — most converters flatten these into a single unreadable text blob, but ToolTiny keeps the layout intact while still giving you editable text. Good for the "client sent a PDF, I need it as a Word doc by EOD" scenario. 2. Smallpdf The OG in this space. Smallpdf's PDF-to-Word conversion is excellent at preserving layout — it renders the page as a background image and overlays editable text boxes at the correct coordinates, which is why it handles complex layouts better than most. Free tier caps you at 2 tasks/day though. 3. iLovePDF Similar feature set to Smallpdf, slightly more generous free tier. Their "Organize PDF" drag-and-drop page reordering is one of the smoother UX implementations out there if you need to quickly reshuffle a multi-doc PDF before sending it out. 4. PDF24 A German tool that's been around forever and quietly does everything — OCR, forms, signing, comparison. Less polished UI than the others but the OCR accuracy on scanned technical docs is genuinely strong. 5. Stirling-PDF If you want something self-hosted, Stirling-PDF is the open-source answer. It's a Docker container you spin up yourself, giving you a full PDF toolkit (split, merge, compress, OCR, wa

The Problem I Kept Seeing Over the past year working across multiple client teams on DevOps and pipeline work, I kept noticing the same thing. Developers storing GitHub PATs in Notepad. QA engineers keeping API keys in a text file on the desktop. DevOps folks with database passwords in a sticky note app. During screen shares — sprint reviews, debugging sessions, pair programming, recorded demos — those credentials were just sitting there. Visible to everyone in the call. Nobody said anything. It just kept happening. Why Existing Tools Didn't Fit I looked for something simple that solved this. Here's what I found and why none of it quite worked: Password managers (1Password, Bitwarden) Good tools. But they're built around cloud sync, browser extensions, and team sharing. For an individual developer who just wants somewhere safe to keep a PAT — overkill. Also: corporate IT policies often block installation of cloud-synced password managers on work machines. Secret managers (HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager) These are infrastructure tools, not personal workflow tools. Setting up Vault for an individual developer's PAT collection is like using a forklift to move a chair. OS keystores (Windows Credential Manager, macOS Keychain) Actually decent for storage. But no UI built for this workflow, no copy-to-clipboard, and they don't solve the screen-exposure problem at all. The gap: Something simple, local, and designed around the moment of use — not just storage. So I Built Tokenly Tokenly is a local-only desktop credential vault. The core design principle is simple: Credential values are never shown on screen. You copy them to clipboard. That's the only way to use them. The clipboard auto-clears after 30 seconds. If you need to visually verify a value — press and hold a button. Release it, the value hides immediately. Not a toggle — a hold. Toggles get forgotten. Holds don't. Technical Decisions Worth Explaining Why Tauri over Electron Tauri uses the operating system's

AI can generate unit tests in seconds. But how do you know whether those tests are actually useful? Most teams still rely on code coverage and pass rates to evaluate their test suites. The problem is that a test can pass, increase coverage, and still provide little or no additional confidence. We've been seeing examples where AI-generated tests: Duplicate existing coverage Depend on system time or GUID generation Access files, network resources, or environment variables Use ineffective or unnecessary mocking Add maintenance cost without improving quality Today we launched Typemock Test Review, a tool that analyzes tests during execution and identifies duplicate, fragile, ineffective, and high-maintenance tests. Instead of looking only at source code, it combines runtime behavior, code coverage, dependency analysis, assertions, and mocking patterns to determine whether a test is actually contributing value. Some of the issues it can detect: Duplicate tests Hidden external dependencies Flaky test risks Unused or stale fakes Ineffective mocking Tests that increase maintenance without increasing confidence I'm curious how other teams are dealing with the explosion of AI-generated tests. Are you reviewing AI-generated tests differently from manually written tests? Have you found good ways to measure test quality beyond coverage and pass/fail metrics?

Prediction markets have become increasingly popular among traders looking for alternative ways to speculate on asset movements. While much of the attention has been focused on short-term 5-minute and 15-minute markets, I believe one of the most overlooked opportunities right now is the 1-hour market on Polymarket. In this article, I'll share some of my ongoing research, explain how I'm collecting and analyzing market data, discuss potential arbitrage and mispricing opportunities, and show how automation can help traders capitalize on these inefficiencies. Why I'm Focusing on the 1-Hour Market Many traders are currently concentrated on the 15-minute Bitcoin prediction markets. While these markets can be profitable, competition has increased significantly, and recent fee changes have made certain strategies less attractive. The 1-hour markets, however, present a different opportunity. These markets offer: Longer trading windows More time to manage positions Higher flexibility for order placement Potentially lower competition No trading fees on some hourly markets Because of the longer duration, traders have more time to identify inefficiencies and execute strategies that may be difficult to implement in shorter timeframes. Collecting Market Data Directly from Polymarket One of the projects I've been working on involves collecting market data directly from Polymarket and monitoring token price movements in real time. Rather than relying solely on the displayed market prices, I use blockchain-based data sources that can provide updates faster than the front-end interface. This allows me to analyze: YES token price swings NO token price swings Order book movements Temporary mispricings Combined token costs The goal is to understand how both sides of a market move throughout the trading period and identify situations where the combined cost of YES and NO tokens falls below $1. Understanding YES and NO Token Swings One interesting metric I track is the lowest price reached

Production vLLM is 100,000+ lines of C++, CUDA, and Python. It powers most of the industry's LLM serving — but reading it cold is brutal. So I built a study series around nano-vLLM , an open-source reimplementation of vLLM's core ideas in ~1,200 lines of pure Python. Every algorithm is visible. Every design decision is legible. It turned out to be the perfect lens for actually understanding how LLMs generate text. The result is an 11-chapter interactive guide. No ML background required — every piece of jargon is explained from scratch with analogies, diagrams, annotated source code, interactive simulators, and quizzes. What it covers: What Is LLM Inference? — tokens, autoregressive generation, Q/K/V attention, HBM vs SRAM Architecture — how 1,200 lines are organised; CPU control plane vs GPU data plane KV Cache — why storing Keys and Values turns O(N²) recomputation into O(1) lookup PagedAttention — virtual memory for the KV cache; how fragmentation wastes 60–80% of GPU memory The Scheduler — continuous batching; keeping the GPU at 95% utilisation instead of 12% Prefill vs Decode — same model, two completely different bottlenecks (compute-bound vs memory-bound) Prefix Caching — skip prefill for shared tokens; ~700ms → ~90ms TTFT Sampling Strategies — greedy, temperature, top-k, top-p, and what each does to the distribution Tensor Parallelism — splitting a model across GPUs; column/row parallel and all-reduce The Optimization Stack — FlashAttention, kernel fusion, CUDA Graphs, torch.compile Benchmarks — measuring honestly; why nano-vLLM matches vLLM on core throughput Each chapter is fully self-contained and interactive. A few of the simulators I'm most happy with: a PagedAttention block allocator you can fill up and watch fragment, a live scheduler you step through token by token, and a sampling playground where you reshape the probability distribution with sliders and sample from it. 🔗 Read the full series: https://ashwing.github.io/vllm-guide/ It's free and open.

If you give an LLM agent a table of A/B variants and ask "which one should we send next?", it will confidently pick the one with the highest conversion rate. That feels right. It is often wrong. The model has no concept of sample size , exploration , or regret . It pattern-matches "biggest number = winner" and moves on. For a one-off question, fine. But inside an agent loop that picks a variant on every request — email subject lines, ad copy, model routing, recommendation ranking — that naïve pick quietly accumulates regret and starves the options it never gave a fair chance. The fix isn't a better prompt. It's to not ask the LLM to do the math at all. Route the decision to a real bandit algorithm and let the model do what it's good at (orchestration, language) while a deterministic solver does what it's good at (the optimization). This post is a copy-paste demo you can run in your terminal right now , no signup, no API key. I'll use OraClaw — a deterministic decision-intelligence MCP server — but the point stands regardless of tool: stop letting the model guess at math it can verify. The trap, concretely Here's a realistic state mid-experiment. Three subject lines, different amounts of traffic: Variant Pulls Rewards (conversions) Raw rate A 120 18 15.0% B 80 17 21.3% C 15 4 26.7% Ask an LLM "which should we send next?" and you'll usually get B — it has the best rate among the well-tested variants, and C "only has 15 samples, too noisy to trust." That reasoning sounds responsible. It's exactly backwards. With only 15 pulls, C is under-explored — we don't actually know it's worse, and the cost of finding out is tiny. A bandit's whole job is to weigh that uncertainty instead of hand-waving it away. Let's get a real answer. Run it yourself: the no-key REST endpoint (60 seconds) OraClaw exposes a free, no-auth REST endpoint. Paste this into your terminal — nothing to install, nothing to sign up for: curl -s -X POST https://oraclaw-api.onrender.com/api/v1/optimize/bandit

Introduction When a query runs in ClickHouse®, the database does much more than simply read data and return results. Before execution begins, ClickHouse® parses the SQL statement, analyzes it, applies optimizations, and builds an execution plan that determines the most efficient way to process the query. Understanding query execution plans is one of the most valuable skills for anyone working with ClickHouse®. They provide visibility into how queries are executed, helping you identify bottlenecks, validate optimization efforts, and troubleshoot performance issues. In this article, we'll explore how ClickHouse® generates execution plans, the different EXPLAIN modes, and how to interpret them for better query optimization. Why Query Execution Plans Matter A SQL query defines what data you want, but it doesn't explain how the database retrieves it. Consider the following query: SELECT country , count () FROM events GROUP BY country ; Although the query looks simple, ClickHouse® must determine: Which data parts to read Whether primary indexes can reduce the scan If data skipping indexes can be used How aggregation should be performed Whether parallel execution is possible How intermediate results should be merged A query execution plan provides answers to these questions, making it an essential tool for performance tuning. The ClickHouse Query Lifecycle Every query passes through several stages before producing results. The lifecycle typically looks like this: SQL Query │ ▼ Parser │ ▼ Analyzer │ ▼ Optimizer │ ▼ Query Plan │ ▼ Execution Pipeline │ ▼ Results Each stage plays an important role: Parser validates SQL syntax. Analyzer resolves tables, columns, and expressions. Optimizer applies query optimizations. Query Plan determines the logical execution steps. Pipeline distributes work across multiple threads. Execution processes the data and returns the results. Understanding this workflow makes execution plans much easier to interpret. Introducing the EXPLAIN Statement

TL;DR: A single eval number hides its own uncertainty. Eval confidence intervals from bootstrap resampling turn a point estimate like 84.2% accuracy into a range, so you stop shipping models on a difference that is noise. Two checkpoints came back from a fine-tuning run at 84.2% and 85.7% on our 500-example agent eval set. The 1.5 point gap read like a win, and someone wanted to promote the second checkpoint to staging. Before that, I wanted eval confidence intervals on both numbers, because a 500-example set carries more sampling error than most teams admit. At 500 examples, the 95% interval on a single accuracy near 85% spans roughly 3 points on each side. The win sat well inside the noise. I lead the fine-tuning and evaluation team at Nexus Labs, and the most common mistake I see is treating an eval score as exact. It isn't. Your eval set is a sample drawn from the input space you care about, and a different 500 examples would return a different number. Confidence intervals make that variance visible. What an eval confidence interval actually tells you An eval confidence interval is a range around a metric, like accuracy or F1, that quantifies how much the score would move if you resampled the eval set. A 95% bootstrap interval of [81.0%, 87.1%] means that across thousands of resamples of your data, 95% of the recomputed scores fell in that band. It measures sampling noise, not model quality. That distinction matters. Two checkpoints scoring 84.2% and 85.7% with overlapping intervals are, as far as your eval set can tell, indistinguishable. Card et al. showed in "With Little Power Comes Great Responsibility" that many NLP experiments are underpowered to detect the effect sizes they report. Computing bootstrap confidence intervals The bootstrap is resampling with replacement. You take your per-example results, draw N of them with replacement many times, recompute the metric each time, and read percentiles off the resulting distribution. There's no assumption that

Introduction This is the second part of sharing my journey to create a microservices-based backend system, in the previous part, I introduced the system and its services. In this part I am going to mention the main things that happened with me from then until now. Transitioning to online DBaaS platforms The first main thing was to transition my databases from my local device to accessible over the internet. I used Neon and MongoDB Atlas . Although performance-wise it is better to deploy the database on the same server that the whole system so all services can access the databases without network overhead , This solution is better from a point, that is avoiding consuming the free VM instance that I got to host my main services, as with DBaaS platforms I will not require storage for databases or additional overhead to handle the DBMS on a free small resources-constrained VM. Observability Observability is one of the main concerns in any system, it gives the ability for the system to expose what happens inside it without any need to guess and manually trace the code to determine where the error may happened. I utilized OpenTelemetry , as I found it is most used and accepted tool to log, trace and collect metrics about the system and the traffic. Also, I loved that it is not related to specific framework, that is .NET by the way, I loved the idea that it is standalone tool. But logging and tracing and metrics collection will not be beneficial if we do not see it actually and can achieve monitoring from those telemetry data, so I used Grafana Cloud to export the telemetry data to some place that is accessible online and a tool that can generate dashboards and visualizing for the metrics ( Prometheus ), and UI that can show all the telemetry data easily. Deployment Until this point, we have a system that is fully functional and have consistent docker configuration for its services via Docker Compose, and it database is already there and available. Now this is the point at

TechCrunch's StrictlyVC evening in Los Angeles late last week brought together two of the more straight-talking investors working in AI right now. They were as entertaining as they were illuminating.

I applied to a YC W25 startup the normal way. Filled out the form, wrote a decent cover letter, hit submit. Silence. While waiting, I found their open-source repo on GitHub. Read through the codebase out of genuine curiosity I wanted to understand what they were actually building. Found a bug. Fixed it. Opened a PR. It got merged in 2 days. They still hadn't replied to my application. Here's what that taught me about job hunting in 2025: A cover letter tells someone what you claim you can do. A merged PR shows them. One of those gets read. The other gets filed under "maybe later" -which is just "no" with extra steps. I'm not saying cold applications are dead. I'm saying they're the last resort, not the first move. If a company has a public repo, you have a backdoor that most applicants don't even think to try. Read the code deep and find something small but real. Fix it and Open a PR. Now you're not a stranger in their inbox you're someone who already ships for them. The reply came eventually, by the way. But by then, the maintainers already knew my GitHub handle. That matters more than you think. Have you ever landed something through a contribution instead of an application? Drop it in the comments curious how many people have done this.

Email newsletter + Blogging & Landing Pages for Experts Discussion | Link

Here's a thinking process: Analyze User Input: Role: Ghostwriter for Roberto Luna Osorio Editorial Profile: Developer Storytelling (primary), Build in Public, Técnico, Reflexivo. Philosophy: Share the process/learnings, not just the perfect result. Mandatory narrative questions: Problem, First attempt, What went wrong, How solved, What learned, What's next. Tone: First person, direct, honest, technical but accessible, curious. Avoid corporate jargon, clickbait, marketing hype, false modesty, empty summaries. Language: Spanish (natural/colloquial tech MX/LatAm) OR English (conversational, dev-friendly). Wait, the prompt says "English only (Dev.to is primarily English)" for this specific article. I'll stick to English as instructed for the Dev.to angle. Angle: TECHNICAL DEEP-DIVE ("HOW I BUILT IT"). Focus on code, architecture, specific files. Different from Medium's narrative style. Style: Technical, precise, code-forward. Real file/function names, error messages. First person but engineer-voice. English only. Mandatory Structure: TL;DR, The Problem, What I Tried First, The Implementation, Key Takeaway, What's Next. Length: 800-1200 words. Tags: #vibecoding #buildinpublic + relevant tech tags. Input Data: Repo: VS, Date: 2026-06-23. Commits show v1.6.0 sprint 1, booking reminders, /confirm/:token, notifications, bulk actions, pipeline v2. Files modified: booking-reminders.service.ts , booking.controller.ts , email.cron.ts , notifications.controller.ts , NotificationBell.tsx , confirm/[token]/page.tsx , ventas/pipeline/page.tsx , etc. Diffs show version bumps, cron integration, notification controller refactor, new components. Constraint: Do NOT repeat angles from this week: "El control de acceso y la caja negra de las publicaciones". Choose a completely different angle. Final Instruction: Write complete article. Start directly with TL;DR. Include actual code snippets. Do NOT write a story — write a technical breakdown. Map to Editorial Profile & Constraints: Profile