AI 资讯

It's not like I dislike Tailwind, but I can't say that I'm in love with it either. I'm keen on the "atomic CSS" part of it, but reading all this mass of short class names in the HTML is a bit of a hard job, don't you find? Especially when it comes from an AI model and the diff is really big. Also, I've noticed that models feel free to use anything Tailwind offers, and it's hard to harness them properly. That was the reason I decided to look for another way to write CSS: one that gives me flexibility, sets clear architectural boundaries for how styles are organized and composed, and is easy to read and maintain. I chose CSS Modules because it can be harnessed and checked very well. The authoring remains ordinary CSS, plus the composes extension when a project composes on the CSS side, so every diff is plain CSS you can compare line by line. The great part: you can easily debug it. You know, browser DevTools are really good for that. So, my claim upfront: once the project plumbing exists, a small set of conventions on top of CSS Modules gives you a compact workflow for common component styling: a shared style API, typed variants, observable state, deterministic local overrides, and semantic color theming. It also gives you readable diffs, useful names in DevTools, and compile-time errors instead of a silent undefined in the class string. What I'm proposing here is a new CSS methodology. A young one, to be honest: this article is its first full write-up, a beginning rather than a finished spec. But it's aiming for the same shelf where BEM, OOCSS, SMACSS, and others sit, and every system on that shelf started the same way: as somebody's blog post or conference talk. Mine proposes an architecture too, down to how a single module file is laid out. I respect all of them, but they were invented before components, and most of their rules exist to solve one big problem: scoping styles through naming discipline. CSS Modules already scopes styles mechanically, so all that disci

You have been here. The test suite is green. The deployment pipeline reports all checks passed. Then a customer opens a ticket with a screenshot that shows something your test never caught. The test passed in staging. It fails in production. And you cannot reproduce it locally. This is not a flaky test problem. It is a fidelity problem. Your test environment and your production environment are not the same thing. The gap between them is where real bugs live. Let me walk through one concrete example, the fix, and what it teaches about writing tests that survive the handoff to a real user. The Problem: Environment Drift A fintech team I worked with had a checkout flow. The test clicked "Pay Now", waited for a success message, and asserted the text "Payment successful" appeared on screen. It passed every time in staging. Customers reported that after paying, they saw a blank white page for several seconds before the success message appeared. Some of them closed the tab during that blank period, thinking the payment failed. The transaction went through. The customer never saw the confirmation. Support tickets piled up. The test never caught this because the staging environment served the success page in under 200 milliseconds. The blank period did not exist there. Production had a slower downstream service that introduced a three-second delay between the payment confirmation and the page render. The test was correct in what it checked. It was wrong in what it assumed about timing and state. The Fix: Test the Experience, Not Just the Outcome The fix was not to add a longer wait. The fix was to test what the user actually experiences during that gap. Here is a minimal Playwright test in TypeScript that catches this class of problem: import { test , expect } from ' @playwright/test ' ; test ( ' checkout shows loading state before success ' , async ({ page }) => { await page . goto ( ' /checkout ' ); await page . fill ( ' #card-number ' , ' 4111111111111111 ' ); await page

Gherkin is not a test automation tool. It never was. Yet here we are, five years into your SDET career, and you're staring at a feature file that reads like a step-by-step manual for a human tester. Given I log in with username "admin" and password "password123" . When I click the "Submit" button . Then I see the text "Welcome" on the screen . You've written two years of these. Your team calls it BDD. Your manager calls it "living documentation." And somewhere in the back of your mind, a quiet voice whispers: This is just a manual test case with extra steps. That voice is right. Let me say it plainly: if your Gherkin scenarios describe how the system works instead of what it should do, you are not doing BDD. You are writing manual test cases in a structured English format and calling it automation. The only thing you've automated is the illusion of progress. The problem isn't Gherkin. The problem is how we use it. Most teams adopt BDD because someone read a blog post about "collaboration" and "shared understanding." They install Cucumber or SpecFlow. They write feature files. They map steps to Selenium or Playwright code. And they call it a day. But look closely at what happens next. The product owner never reads the feature files. The developer skims them once and goes back to writing code. The QA engineer — that's you — becomes the sole maintainer of a growing pile of Gherkin that nobody else touches. You're not facilitating collaboration. You're translating manual test cases into a format that requires a compiler. Here's the real test. Take any feature file from your project. Hand it to a developer who has never seen it. Ask them to implement the feature using only the Gherkin as a spec. If they can write production code from it, you have real BDD. If they ask you for clarification, you have documentation theater. I've seen teams with hundreds of feature files. Beautifully formatted. Perfect indentation. Tags for every regression cycle. And not a single one of th

Most engineers expect AI-assisted automation to be the easy part. You describe a test, the model writes it, you move on. The first week will prove you wrong. Not because the code is bad. Because the code is almost right. And almost-right code is harder to debug than wrong code. Wrong code fails loudly. Almost-right code passes on Monday, fails on Tuesday, passes again on Wednesday, and by Thursday you are questioning whether you understand your own application. I have watched teams adopt AI copilots into their Playwright suites and spend the first five days doing nothing but untangling false passes. If you are about to start this journey, here is what that week actually looks like. The Problem: The Model Does Not Know What "Stable" Means A language model has never waited for a network response. It has never watched a flaky selector survive three CI runs and then collapse on the fourth. It writes tests from a static understanding of your page, not from the dynamic reality of your application. You will ask it to write a test that clicks a button and waits for a confirmation toast. The model will produce something like this: await page . click ( ' button:has-text("Submit") ' ); await page . waitForSelector ( ' .toast-success ' ); Looks fine. Runs fine. Then your team deploys a new build where the toast takes 400ms longer to appear because of an analytics call. The test fails. Not because the feature broke. Because the model assumed a timing that was never guaranteed. This is the core problem. The model writes tests that match the page as it was when the model saw it . It does not write tests that match the page as it will be . The Solution: Treat AI-Generated Tests as Drafts, Not Deliverables The shift is mental before it is technical. You cannot review AI-generated tests the way you review human-written tests. Human tests come with intent. AI tests come with patterns. You need a different review lens. First, look for every hardcoded wait. Replace it with a state-based

Optimizing RAG at Scale: Chunking, Retrieval, and the Bayesian Search That Cut Latency 40% How we moved from "semantic search + hope" to a measured, tunable retrieval pipeline with 95% recall@10 The RAG Reality Check Everyone ships RAG the same way: chunk by 512 tokens, embed with text-embedding-3-small , top-k=5, stuff into context. It works for demos. Then you hit production: Legal contracts: 512 tokens splits clauses mid-sentence API docs: 1000-token chunks drown signal in noise Customer tickets: Conversational context needs overlap, not fixed windows Latency: 500ms embedding + 200ms vector search + 300ms LLM = 1s+ per query We rebuilt our retrieval layer from first principles. Here's what actually moves metrics. Chunking: One Size Fits None # rag/chunking.py from abc import ABC , abstractmethod from dataclasses import dataclass @dataclass class Chunk : text : str metadata : dict token_count : int chunk_id : str class ChunkingStrategy ( ABC ): @abstractmethod def chunk ( self , document : str , metadata : dict ) -> list [ Chunk ]: ... class FixedTokenChunker ( ChunkingStrategy ): """ Baseline. Good for homogeneous content. """ def __init__ ( self , chunk_size = 512 , overlap = 50 ): self . chunk_size = chunk_size self . overlap = overlap class RecursiveChunker ( ChunkingStrategy ): """ Respects structure: markdown headers, code blocks, paragraphs. """ def __init__ ( self , separators = [ " \n ## " , " \n ### " , " \n\n " , " \n " , " " ], chunk_size = 512 ): self . separators = separators self . chunk_size = chunk_size class SemanticChunker ( ChunkingStrategy ): """ Uses embedding similarity to find natural boundaries. """ def __init__ ( self , model = " text-embedding-3-small " , threshold = 0.7 ): self . model = model self . threshold = threshold class AgenticChunker ( ChunkingStrategy ): """ LLM decides boundaries. Expensive but highest quality for complex docs. """ def __init__ ( self , model = " gpt-4o-mini " ): self . model = model Our production config by

Building Production-Grade LLM Evaluation Pipelines: From Vibes to Metrics How we replaced "looks good to me" with automated evaluation catching 92% of hallucinations before deployment The Problem: Why "Vibe Checks" Fail in Production Three months ago, our team shipped a RAG-based customer support assistant. It worked great in testing — we'd ask it questions, read the answers, and say "yeah, that looks right." Then it hit production. A customer asked about their billing cycle. The assistant confidently cited a policy that didn't exist. Another asked about API rate limits and got numbers from a competitor's documentation. By the time we caught it, 500+ users had seen hallucinated responses. The post-mortem was brutal: we had zero automated evaluation . Our test process was literally "ask 5 questions, read answers, thumbs up." What Production Evaluation Actually Needs Academic benchmarks (MMLU, HellaSwag) don't tell you if your system works for your use case. Production evaluation needs: Domain-specific judges — Your criteria, not generic "helpfulness" Speed — Evaluation must run in CI/CD, not overnight Regression detection — Know immediately when a prompt change breaks things CI/CD integration — Block merges that degrade quality Golden dataset management — Versioned, stratified, growing test cases Architecture: The Evaluation Pipeline ┌─────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ │ Test Cases │────▶│ LLM Under │────▶│ Judge Ensemble │────▶│ Metrics & │ │ (Golden Set)│ │ Test │ │ - Faithfulness │ │ Regression │ └─────────────┘ └──────────────┘ │ - Instruction F. │ │ Detection │ │ - JSON Schema │ └──────┬───────┘ │ - Custom LLM │ ▼ └────────────────────┘ ┌──────────────┐ │ Dashboard/ │ │ PR Comments │ └──────────────┘ Core Abstractions # eval/base.py @dataclass ( frozen = True ) class TestCase : id : str input : dict [ str , Any ] expected : dict [ str , Any ] | None = None tags : list [ str ] = field ( default_factory = list ) # ["edge-case",

This is a submission for DEV's Summer Bug Smash: Smash Stories powered by Sentry . I spent a week deploying a CrewAI agent to AWS Bedrock AgentCore. The SDK wasn't on PyPI. The error messages were 200 OKs. The container crashed without logs. And the naming regex rejected hyphens without telling me why. This is the full debugging trail. Every failure was silent. Every fix required reading source code nobody documented. Table of Contents The Project Failure 1: The SDK That Doesn't Exist on PyPI Failure 2: The 200 OK That Means Failure Failure 3: The Container That Crashed With No Logs Failure 4: The Naming Regex Nobody Documented The Two-Client Split Nobody Mentions What I Learned The project I built a resume-tailoring AI agent with CrewAI and Amazon Bedrock. It takes a job description, analyzes your resume, identifies gaps, and rewrites bullet points to match what the role actually needs. Locally it worked perfectly. CrewAI orchestrates the agents, Bedrock Nova Pro handles the LLM calls, and the output is solid. Deploying it to production was the problem. AWS launched Bedrock AgentCore in June 2026 as a managed runtime for AI agents. You containerize your agent, push the image, and AgentCore handles scaling, memory, and invocation. Sounds simple. It was not simple. Failure 1: The SDK that doesn't exist on PyPI The docs say to install bedrock-agentcore-client . I ran: pip install bedrock-agentcore-client It installed successfully. No errors. That's because there's a placeholder package on PyPI with that name. It installs, imports fail silently, and your container builds successfully with a broken dependency inside. The real SDK lives in AWS's CodeArtifact registry. You need to configure pip to pull from a private index: aws codeartifact login --tool pip \ --domain amazon-agent-runtimes \ --repository agent-runtimes-pypi \ --domain-owner 600427722194 Then install from there. The PyPI package is a trap. Nobody warns you. Hours lost: 3. The error only appears at runtime

Used discs are often cheaper than even deep digital discounts.

Adobe's Project Indigo app will have new features like removing distractions and offering immediate photo feedback.

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here. Over the weekend, several current and former advisors to President Donald Trump on AI publicly lobbed insults at the country’s leading AI companies. David Sacks, the president’s AI and crypto “czar” until…

A judge partially granted the request from a dozen state attorneys general to temporarily place the $110 billion merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery on hold, as reported by Variety and Reuters. US District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín said that based on the new company's market share, "the Court is persuaded that it can presume […]

Hi, I’ve been doing some work in the continual learning space and wanted to share an open-source framework we put together called Coincidex, along with some architectural insights and failure modes we found along the way. Most conventional approaches to sequential task learning rely heavily on replay buffers (which introduce severe memory/privacy overhead) or complex, hand-tuned task masks. We wanted to see if we could bypass both by relying entirely on a context-driven task similarity layer to handle data routing dynamically. The Approach: Instead of caching historical samples to prevent catastrophic forgetting, the framework drops in as a single layer swap. As sequential data streams in, it computes a task-similarity matrix on the fly, routing the data paths based on that context. Research Insights & Trade-offs: We spent a lot of time benchmarking this against baselines, and here is what actually happened in practice: Where it succeeds: The dynamic routing handles clean task boundaries surprisingly well. In small-scale continual vision setups, it achieves graceful transfer without the need for manual mask tuning or storing old data. Where it breaks (The Failure Modes): We aren't going to overpromise here—the similarity layer has distinct limits. On highly chaotic, long-tail task sequences with massive distribution shifts, the routing model struggles to maintain stability compared to a heavy replay-buffer baseline. Why we are sharing it: We built this as a lightweight alternative for setups where memory or privacy constraints make replay buffers impossible. We would love to get the community's eyes on the routing architecture, specifically on how we might tackle the failure modes in rougher task sequences, or thoughts on visualizing the similarity matrix at different checkpoints. You can check out the source code, architecture breakdown, and full benchmark suites here: https://github.com/rakib-nyc/coincidex submitted by /u/theawkwardbong [link] [留言]