AI 资讯

Norway will reportedly ban young kids from using AI in schools.

Fusion startups have raised $7.1 billion to date, with the majority of it going to a handful of companies.

Why Studying Open Source Code Is Important ​ Reading open-source frameworks teaches things that textbooks usually cannot. ​ For example, from AsyncTask we learn: ​ real-world concurrency design ​ serialization strategies ​ thread scheduling ​ producer-consumer patterns ​ executor frameworks ​ synchronization tradeoffs ​ Theory vs Reality ​ A textbook may say: ​ "synchronized prevents race conditions" But Android source code shows: ​ Why do engineers use synchronization ​ WHERE they used it ​ WHAT problem they were solving ​ WHAT tradeoffs they accepted ​ That is real engineering knowledge. ​ Why Great Engineers Read Source Code ​ Engineers who study frameworks like: ​ OpenJDK ​ Android ​ Linux kernel ​ OpenFOAM ​ FreeCAD ​ develop: ​ architectural thinking ​ systems intuition ​ debugging maturity ​ performance awareness ​ concurrency understanding ​ far beyond ordinary programming. ​ What You Are Actually Learning ​ Here My small example contains concepts from: ​ JVM monitor implementation ​ object lifetime ​ static memory model ​ synchronization semantics ​ concurrent scheduling ​ executor design ​ Android framework architecture ​ This is exactly why studying framework source code is powerful. ​ You stop seeing programming as: ​ "writing syntax" and begin seeing it as: ​ "designing systems" ​ That transition is what separates an average coder from a strong software engineer. ​ ​ submitted by /u/sommukhopadhyay [link] [留言]

Just as last week was ending, the US government forced Anthropic to pull its two newest models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, citing national security concerns after Amazon researchers allegedly found a way to bypass Fable 5’s guardrails. Cybersecurity researchers have since signed an open letter calling the move dangerous, and Anthropic itself noted the same jailbreaks exist in other models. So is […]

Qubot, our internal Copilot-powered analytics agent, allows any GitHub employee to ask questions about our data in plain language. Here's what we learned as we built it. The post How we built an internal data analytics agent appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

The morning my own file lied to me Wednesday, May 21, start of session, coffee next to the keyboard. I ask the agent where we stand on the DEV.to series. Clean answer, articulated, "Four articles on stand-by, ready to publish." I reread. Half a second of unease, because I think I saw two or three of them go through DEV.to last week, but I slept in between and I'm no longer sure. I type the question that changes everything, "Are you sure articles remain to publish?" The agent re-queries the DEV.to API in parallel, opens scripts/devto/state.json , crosses the two. The four articles have been published for two or three days. What I just read wasn't a hallucination. The agent did exactly what was expected of it, namely open articles/backlog.md , read the table, restitute what it said. I'm the one who had stopped updating that file. sync-backlog.ts hadn't run after the pushes of last week. The markdown said "stand-by" while production said "published" . The typist didn't lie. She read faithfully a file I had written myself and that I was treating as authority while nothing was maintaining it. A summary is a Cache without a refresher This is the most common failure mode of a solo project that lasts. Each day produces two flows. On one side the matter that moves, made of commits, deploys, rows in the database, statuses that transition. On the other side the writings we draft to keep our bearings, namely backlog.md , the root MEMORY.md , the Sunday-night session note, the README of the folder we refactored last week. These writings are produced quickly, in the gesture that closes a sprint, and they are maintained slowly, or not at all, because nothing in the pipeline triggers to close them. R6 of the Counterpart Toolkit says it for SQL columns, Live / Snapshot / Cache mandatory . Any column derivable from other data must declare its category in the commit that creates it. If it's a Cache, the refresher mechanism ( GENERATED ALWAYS AS , SQL trigger, materialized view with pl

A finance bot kept issuing refunds in a loop because nobody built a way to stop it. Clean code. Sound logic. No off switch. A small bug became a long night. Here is the opinion most teams do not want to hear. Building the agent is the easy 80 percent. That off switch is the 20 percent that decides whether you can ship it at all. We celebrate the wrong milestone. Picture the demo where the agent books the meeting, writes the email, updates the record. That part is genuinely fun to build and genuinely easy now. Harder is the boring question nobody claps for. What happens when it is wrong, fast, and confident. An AI agent is not a chatbot. It takes actions in the real world. It spends money, deletes rows, messages real people, moves files. Wrong answers in a chat are annoying. A wrong action at machine speed is an incident with your name on it. So before features, I build the stop. One real kill switch is not a single button. Think of it as a small set of bounds that live from the first version. A spend ceiling, so a retry loop cannot drain the account A blast radius limit, so one task can never touch more than it should A human gate on anything irreversible, so the agent proposes and a person commits A global stop that halts everything in one move, with no redeploy None of that is glamorous. All of it is what lets you sleep at night. Teams skip this for a reason that feels rational in the moment. Bounds feel like negative work. They never show up in the demo. Your agent runs fine without them right up until the one time it does not, and that one time is the only time anyone remembers. Here is the reframe that changed how I build. Treat the stop as the feature that makes an agent shippable. Bolt it on at the end and you have already shipped a liability that happens to pass the demo. Honest about the trade-off. Bounds slow you down. You will watch the agent pause for an approval it could technically have skipped, and it will feel like friction. That friction is the pric

The invoice arrived on a Tuesday morning. $340. For a side project I'd built in a weekend. A small LLM-powered summarization tool — users paste text, model returns a summary. I'd done the math before launching: roughly $0.002 per request, ~500 requests/day, around $30/month. Totally fine. What I hadn't accounted for: system_prompt_tokens = 800 requests_per_day = 2000 # not 500 — it went viral in a group chat input_price_per_1M = 2.50 # GPT-4o daily_cost = (800 * 2000 / 1_000_000) * 2.50 = $4.00/day → $120/month just from system prompts Plus the actual user input tokens. Plus output tokens. $340 later, I had learned my lesson. The Real Problem: API Pricing Is Designed to Be Hard to Compare Every provider uses different units: OpenAI → per million tokens (input vs output, different rates) Pinecone → read units + write units + storage GB/month Stripe → % of transaction + fixed fee + monthly platform fee AWS Lambda → per GB-second + per request + data transfer None of it is comparable at a glance. You end up either building a spreadsheet from scratch every time or just guessing — and guessing gets expensive. What I Built After the invoice incident I started keeping a cost estimation spreadsheet. It grew. Eventually I turned it into APICalculators.com — 16 free, browser-based calculators covering the infrastructure decisions most AI/SaaS developers face: LLM APIs GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet, Gemini Flash, Llama — cost by model, context length, daily volume Side-by-side comparison at your exact usage Vector Databases Pinecone vs Qdrant vs Supabase vs Weaviate Enter index size + queries/day → monthly cost Serverless AWS Lambda vs Cloudflare Workers vs Vercel Functions Cost at your invocation volume and memory config Auth Providers Clerk vs Auth0 vs Supabase Auth vs Cognito Monthly cost by MAU tier Payment Processors Stripe vs Paddle vs Lemon Squeezy Real fee comparison on your transaction volume The System Prompt Problem, Solved in 30 Seconds Here's what the LLM cost calculator

Hey everyone, I’ve been developing a real-time post-processing engine called Shade Elements , and it is finally live. It essentially transforms your entire Windows operating system, applications, and games into a living canvas. The main goal was to build something insanely powerful but completely non-invasive. Instead of injecting into game files (which triggers aggressive anti-cheat software), Shade Elements uses a custom C++ DirectX 11 engine to operate entirely as a screen-space overlay. It hooks the display compositor directly, meaning you get zero input lag and zero ban risks. Here is what the engine can do: 70+ Stackable Shaders: You aren't limited to one effect. You can stack a CRT curvature filter over a VHS tape glitch, add realistic Phosphor Burn-in, or drop an ASCII visualizer over your favorite game. Window-Aware Technology: The engine actively reads your Z-order. You can use the Bokeh Depth of Field shader to automatically track your active foreground window, keeping it razor-sharp while blurring out your messy desktop behind it. Temporal Memory: The pipeline utilizes history buffers, allowing for buttery-smooth Motion Blur or the ability to "Save State" a snapshot of your screen mid-render and composite it back into the pipeline later. Live Customization: Every shader has real-time sliders (Intensity, Radius, Speed, etc.) that parse dynamically. Plus, global hotkeys let you kill the overlay instantly without tabbing out. I would love for you to try it out and tear it apart. I’ve set it up so the first 100 downloads are completely free! You can check it out and grab a copy here: https://compaces.itch.io/shade-elements Let me know what you think of the tech, or if you have any requests for new shaders to add to the vault! submitted by /u/Wackedout1 [link] [留言]

Hey dev.to community! 👋 Over the last few months, juggling my roles as a Project Manager, Scrum Master, and lead for QA, Support, and Documentation has been a wild ride. The sheer speed of "vibe coding"—a paradigm shift where the primary role of the developer transitions from manual code construction to high-level intent orchestration—is incredible. Tools like Cursor, Replit Agent, and Google Antigravity allow us to scaffold entire microservices in minutes. However, while this transition offers unprecedented generative velocity, it introduces systemic risks concerning architectural integrity, long-term maintainability, and security. That’s why I’m sharing Cronos (Version 2.0) : a new, strategic methodology I’ve formalized for human-validated vibe coding and agentic software engineering. Real-World Testing & The Multi-Track Approach We have been rigorously testing this framework with our team over the last three months. The empirical results have been fantastic, tracking closely with the framework's theoretical efficiency models to deliver an almost 4x gain in productivity. To maintain production stability while achieving this speed, we adopted a multi-track approach. We continue to use standard Scrum for our maintenance track, which handles smaller tasks, support requests, and standard bug fixes. Meanwhile, Cronos is deployed exclusively for our parallel feature track, tackling larger Epics and new feature development. This ensures production stability does not stall innovation velocity. What is Cronos? The genesis of Cronos lies in the recognition that traditional Agile methodologies often fail to keep pace with the collapsed feedback loops of AI-driven development. In the current agentic era, the bottleneck has shifted from implementation to validation and strategic alignment. Cronos reconfigures the software development lifecycle (SDLC) around one-week "Cycles". Each cycle is a burst of high-intensity, AI-augmented creation coupled with a fixed duration of human

Reliance is weaving AI into telecom services used by more than 500 million people.

As developers, we’ve all been there: you’re building a hobby project, a side hustle, or a microservice, and you need object storage. You look at AWS S3 or dedicated cloud providers, and the costs start adding up. Meanwhile, most of us have hundreds of gigabytes of idle, wasted space sitting in our personal Google Drive, Dropbox, or Mega accounts. I wanted to find a way to use that personal cloud storage programmatically—specifically as an S3-compatible bucket—without paying premium storage fees. But I had one strict rule for myself: The solution had to be 100% stateless. No caching files on my servers, no data retention, and zero storage costs on my end. Security and privacy meant that files had to exist on my infrastructure only in-flight as streaming data packets. Here is a deep technical breakdown of the architecture I built to make this happen using NestJS, Fastify, OpenDAL, and BullMQ in a monorepo structure. 1. The Core Architecture: A Monorepo Approach To keep performance blazing fast and maintain a clean separation of concerns, I broke the system down into three distinct, decoupled services inside a monorepo, sharing underlying core modules. Because raw Node.js HTTP overhead can become a bottleneck when proxying heavy streams, I swapped out Express for Fastify as the underlying HTTP provider for NestJS. ┌────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Main API Server │ │ (Handles Auth, Web Dashboard, OAuth) │ └───────────────────┬────────────────────┘ │ │ (Pushes Sync/Heavy Tasks) ▼ ┌───────────┐ │ BullMQ │ └─────┬─────┘ │ ▼ ┌────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Worker Server │ │ (Processes Heavy Background Jobs) │ └────────────────────────────────────────┘ ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ┌────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ S3-Compatibility Server │ │ (Streams Data / Translates S3 XML) │ └────────────────────────────────────────┘ The Main API Server: Handles user authentication, the web dashboard manageme

A field guide to the practice that's reshaping how software gets built with AI agents. TL;DR — Spec-Driven Development (SDD) makes a precise, executable specification the source of truth and treats code as a generated, verifiable artifact. The spec declares intent ; the code realizes it. In 2026 it went mainstream because AI agents are great at writing code and terrible at guessing what you meant. Jump to: Why now · Specs vs. executable specs · Maturity model · Workflow · Tooling · EARS · Worked example · Caveats · Bottom line Why now? The "vibe coding" backlash The movement defines itself against "vibe coding" — the term Andrej Karpathy popularized in early 2025 for loosely prompting an AI and shipping whatever comes back. Vibe coding is great for throwaway prototypes and miserable for anything that has to be maintained. SDD is the disciplined counterweight: if AI writes most of the code, then the specification becomes the highest-leverage artifact a human produces . The skill that matters shifts from typing the implementation to defining the intent precisely enough that a machine can't get it wrong. Raw specs vs. executable specs This is the single most important distinction in the whole topic — and the one most "SDD explainers" skip. Traditional design docs SDD specs Read by Humans Humans and agents Enforcement Advisory — devs may diverge Executable — tests fail on drift Lifecycle Goes stale, becomes archaeology Living, continuously validated Lives in A wiki nobody opens The repo + CI/CD "Traditional specs are read by humans, while SDD specs are executed as BDD scenarios, API contract tests, or model simulations." — Deepak Babu Piskala, Spec-Driven Development: From Code to Contract in the Age of AI Coding Assistants (arXiv, Jan 2026) [2602.00180] Spec-Driven Development:From Code to Contract in the Age of AI Coding Assistants The rise of AI coding assistants has reignited interest in an old idea: what if specifications-not code-were the primary artifact of softw

(or: How I Turned My Laptop Into a Lightsaber for the Market) The Quest Begins (The “Why”) Ever stared at a blinking cursor at 2 a.m., wishing you could make your laptop do the heavy lifting while you chased dreams (or just caught up on sleep)? I was there, scrolling through Reddit’s r/investing, watching folks brag about “algo‑trading gains” while I was still manually refreshing Yahoo Finance like a peasant in a medieval market. One night, after yet another failed attempt to predict a stock’s move with gut feeling (spoiler: my gut is terrible at math), I remembered a line from The Matrix : “There is no spoon.” Turns out, there is no magic either—just code, data, and a healthy dose of stubbornness. I decided to slay the dragon of emotion‑driven trading and build a bot that could execute a simple strategy while I binge‑watched Stranger Things . Spoiler alert: the first version was a hot mess, but the journey taught me more about Python, APIs, and risk management than any textbook ever could. Let’s walk through that adventure together—code, pitfalls, and all the triumphant “I‑did‑it!” moments. The Revelation (The Insight) The big “aha!” moment came when I realized a trading bot isn’t some omniscient AI that predicts the future; it’s just a disciplined executor of rules you define. Think of it as Indiana Jones whip‑cracking through a booby‑trapped temple: you set the traps (your strategy), the bot avoids them (risk checks), and grabs the idol (profit) when the conditions are right. For my first bot I chose a mean‑reversion idea: if a stock’s price deviates too far from its 20‑day moving average, I bet it’ll snap back. It’s not flashy, but it’s easy to understand, back‑test, and implement. The magic happens in three simple steps: Fetch data – pull recent price bars from a free API (I used Alpha Vantage; you can swap for Polygon, IEX Cloud, etc.). Calculate the signal – compare the latest close to the moving average and compute a z‑score. Execute – if the z‑score crosses

Hey everyone, I've been deep in prediction market infrastructure for a while and just open-sourced a market maker bot designed for CLOB-based prediction markets like Polymarket. What it does: Quotes both sides of a binary market automatically Adjusts spreads based on order book depth and volatility Manages inventory risk to avoid getting stuck on the wrong side of a resolved market Built on top of Polymarket's CLOB API with Gnosis Safe / EOA wallet support on Polygon The core challenge with prediction markets vs. regular markets: Normal market making is about capturing spread. Prediction markets add a brutal edge case — resolution risk. If you're holding YES at 0.6 and the market resolves NO, you're not just down on the spread, you're down the full position. So the bot has to: Track time-to-resolution and widen spreads as resolution approaches Reduce inventory exposure on markets with high directional momentum Use FAK orders to avoid resting limit orders too long near resolution Stack: Rust Polymarket CLOB API Polygon (USDC settlement) SQLite for order state tracking What's next: Dynamic spread model based on implied volatility Multi-market portfolio rebalancing Better signal integration (news feeds, oracle data) GitHub: https://github.com/HarrierOnChain/Prediction-Markets-Trading-Bot-Toolkits Happy to answer questions on the architecture, risk model, or anything CLOB-related. Always looking for feedback from others building in this space.

The next Model Context Protocol specification, 2026-07-28 , is the largest revision since the protocol launched. The release candidate locked on May 21, 2026, and the final spec publishes on July 28. It contains breaking changes to transport, authorization, and how tool schemas are handled. A server that is correct against 2025-11-25 today is not broken. Nothing here is a present-tense vulnerability. But several of these changes are security properties, not just compatibility ones — request routing integrity, cross-user cache scope, and schema-driven fetch behavior all move under this revision. This checklist walks the changes a server operator needs to handle before July 28, and calls out the security implication wherever there is one. Everything below describes the release candidate. Treat specifics as subject to change until the July 28 final, and validate against the official spec before shipping. Transport: the stateless core This is the headline change. MCP becomes stateless at the protocol layer, and most of the migration work lives here. The handshake and session are gone The initialize / initialized handshake is removed (SEP-2575). Protocol version, client info, and client capabilities no longer get exchanged once at connection time — they travel in _meta on every request. The same SEP adds server/discover as the new discovery anchor: servers must implement it, and clients fetch server capabilities from it when they need them up front. Once the handshake is gone, a server that can't answer server/discover can't be negotiated with. The Mcp-Session-Id header and the protocol-level session it carried are also removed (SEP-2567). Any request can now land on any server instance. The sticky routing and shared session stores that horizontal deployments relied on are no longer required at the protocol layer. If a server needs state across calls, mint an explicit handle from a tool — a basket_id , a browser_id — and have the model pass it back as an ordinary argumen