AI 资讯

Fresh off the WWDC keynote presentation, The Verge has been invited to an "on-the-record technical deep dive into the bold new architecture enabling Apple Intelligence capabilities." Apple SVP of Software Engineering Craig Federighi and his team will be there, and so will we. The revamped Apple Intelligence is at the heart of nearly every update […]

Apple's $3,500 headset is also getting an AI upgrade.

Siri is now directly embedded into the camera app, and there are more artificial intelligence tools in the Photos app to alter your images.

Apple's AI image generator is getting a makeover that could make it more competitive.

Apple Intelligence is coming to cameras connected to Apple Home. At WWDC, Apple announced that with iOS27, the Home app will use Apple Intelligence to analyze footage and generate descriptions summarizing what the camera saw. You can also search footage with natural language to find clips from across connected cameras, such as when a package […]

A new spatial "Reframe" feature will let users use AI to adjust perspectives.

If you work with Brazilian companies — as an accountant, credit analyst, or anyone processing PJ clients at scale — here's a practical automation approach using free public data. What you can verify automatically For any CNPJ, public data gives you: Situação cadastral : ATIVA, BAIXADA, INAPTA, SUSPENSA — critical for invoice validation Razão social : legal name for contract matching CNAE : is this company allowed to do what they claim? QSA : who are the actual partners/directors? Data abertura : how old is the company? The data 65M+ CNPJs from Receita Federal, indexed and searchable at Jurídico Online . Free. Also available as a Python package: pip install juridico-online from juridico_online import empresa_url , buscar_url # Get company page URL for a CNPJ url = empresa_url ( " 00.000.000/0001-91 " ) print ( url ) # https://juridicoonline.com.br/empresa/00000000000191 # Search by company or partner name search = buscar_url ( " Magazine Luiza " ) print ( search ) Checks worth automating 1. Situação ATIVA before accepting any invoice INAPTA or BAIXADA companies cannot legally issue NF-e. 2. CNAE vs service being billed A company with CNAE "comércio de alimentos" billing for software development is a red flag. 3. Company age vs contract value A 3-month-old company offering a R$500k contract deserves extra scrutiny. 4. Shared partners across suppliers If two suppliers share directors, that's a conflict of interest. Search partner names at juridicoonline.com.br to see all companies they control. Integration patterns ERP/AP : validate CNPJ status before releasing payment Onboarding : auto-fill razão social when client enters CNPJ Batch audit : cross-check your vendor list quarterly Monitoring : alert if a key supplier's CNPJ changes status The data is public, free, and updated regularly. No excuse to check manually at scale.

If you've wanted to tweak your AirPods sound, you'll soon get your chance.

Hello, I'm Shrijith Venkatramana. I'm building git-lrc, an AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. Star Us to help devs discover the project. Do give it a try and share your feedback for improving the product. A few years ago, choosing a Go mocking framework was mostly a matter of personal preference. Today, things are different. Most Go developers have at least one AI coding assistant generating tests alongside them. Some teams even generate the majority of their unit tests automatically. Yet one area remains surprisingly messy: mocks. Ask an LLM to write a test for the same interface and you'll often get completely different results depending on whether your project uses GoMock, Mockery, MockIO, Minimock, Moq, or hand-written test doubles. The problem isn't that the models are bad. The problem is that mocking libraries represent very different philosophies: Strict vs flexible Generated vs runtime-created DSL-heavy vs idiomatic Go Feature-rich vs minimalist In this article we'll compare the most popular Go mocking libraries in 2026, examine their strengths and weaknesses, and discuss which one may be the best fit for your project. What Makes a Good Mocking Library? Before comparing tools, it's worth defining what matters. A good mocking library should ideally provide: Easy mock generation Clear test failures Minimal boilerplate Strong refactoring support Good IDE experience Readable tests Reliable call verification Different libraries optimize for different parts of this list. That's why there is no universally correct answer. 1. GoMock: The Enterprise Workhorse GoMock remains one of the most widely used mocking frameworks in the Go ecosystem. Originally created by Google and now actively maintained by Uber, it has become the standard choice for many large organizations. Its philosophy is straightforward: define expectations explicitly and verify them rigorously. Example func TestUserService ( t * testing . T ) { ctrl := gomock . NewController ( t ) repo := New

Along with new software for Macs and iPhones, Apple announced visionOS 27 during its keynote presentation at WWDC on Monday. Like its other platforms, visionOS 27 will feature Apple's updated Siri AI assistant and the new dedicated Siri app. While wearing the Vision Pro, you can use visual intelligence to ask Siri "about anything in […]

Another productive week of Google Summer of Code with OWASP BLT is in the books! Building on the visual blueprints from last week, this week was focused on locking down our structural foundations and diving deeper into the system architecture. Here is a simple breakdown of the progress made and what lies ahead. Milestones The primary goal for this phase was setting up the structural guardrails for how data travels through our app. Finalized Security Contract Structures: Successfully established the foundational security contract structures. This ensures that our application components have a uniform, strict schema to communicate safely and predictably. trying to figureout some missing point on the security_alerts with the help of my mentor. Merge request updates: Glad to share that the initial setup has been done across our repository through these milestones: 🔗 Merge Request #3 🔗 Merge Request #4 🔗 Merge Request #5 🔗 Merge Request #6 🧠 Current Focus: System Design & UI Polish With the basic structures merged, my day-to-day focus has shifted toward high-level engineering and refining the user experience. Architecture & System Designing: Spending time mapping out the data flows to ensure our local-first storage design works seamlessly with minimal, encrypted web updates. Ongoing UI Revamp: Continuing to polish the user interface layouts based on our initial feedback, ensuring the experience feels clean, intuitive, and highly minimal. ⚡ The Next Step: Building the Workers Now that the structural blueprints are active in the project, it is time to make them functional. ⚙️ Contract Workers: Moving forward, the next step is to start creating the edge contract workers. These workers will handle the actual validation and processing logic for the security contracts we just established. The structural groundwork is officially laid, and the architecture is shaping up beautifully. Excited to bring the core backend logic to life next week! 💻🛡️

iOS 27 will add a slew of new AI photo editing tools.

"If you're grabbing a bite with friends and point your iPhone at the bill, then [you can] select what you ordered to split the tab with Apple Cash," said Apple VP of Software Sebastien Marineau-Mes.

Been doing a lot of competitive research for clients lately — checking hashtag volumes, tracking top posts in a niche, that kind of thing. Kept switching between Claude Code and browser tabs to cross-reference stuff manually. Got annoying fast. Found hikerapi-mcp, a Model Context Protocol server that exposes 100+ Instagram endpoints as tools directly inside Claude Code. Figured I'd try it. Setup was straightforward. The one thing I did differently was keeping the API key out of config files entirely — passed it as an environment variable instead. Smaller attack surface if I accidentally commit something. Also filtered down the tool groups with HIKERAPI_TAGS because 100+ tools showing up in context is chaos. I only need hashtag search and competitor profile data, so I scoped it to just those. "env": { "HIKERAPI_KEY": "${HIKERAPI_KEY}", "HIKERAPI_TAGS": "User Profile,Post Details,Search,Hashtags,Stories" } One thing that tripped me up for a solid 20 minutes: HikerAPI runs on a prepaid model (credits in rubles). If your balance is zero, you get HTTP 402, not 401. I kept thinking my key was invalid and regenerated it twice before I figured out I just needed to top up. Once that was sorted, it actually works well. Now I can ask things like "what are the top 10 posts for #socialmediamarketing this week" or pull a competitor's recent content directly in the same session where I'm building the campaign strategy. Cuts out a lot of context switching. Repo if you want to check it out: github.com/subzeroid/hikerapi-mcp Wrote up the full setup with config details here if useful: https://dev.to/simrp360/querying-instagram-from-claude-code-wiring-up-hikerapis-mcp-server-57jf Anyone else using MCP servers for social data research? Curious what other setups people are running.

Most people pick a model the wrong way around. They look at the leaderboard, see Opus on top, and reach for it by default. Sonnet if they want to save money. Haiku almost never, because the name says "small." That habit costs you. For a lot of what you actually build, Haiku is the right call, and you're paying three to five times more for capability the task never uses. This post is about how to choose, and why Haiku should be your default more often than it is. The short version: don't start from "what's the best model." Start from "what does this task need." Most tasks don't need much. Comparison Here is the current lineup, with the numbers that matter when you're choosing. Haiku 4.5 Sonnet 4.6 Opus 4.8 Model ID claude-haiku-4-5 claude-sonnet-4-6 claude-opus-4-8 Input price (per 1M tokens) $1 $3 $5 Output price (per 1M tokens) $5 $15 $25 Context window 200K 1M 1M Max output 64K 64K 128K Best at speed, volume balance hardest reasoning Two things jump out. First, price . Haiku input is a fifth of Opus and a third of Sonnet. Output is the same ratio. If you send a million tokens through Opus for $25 and the same work would have been fine on Haiku, you spent $20 for nothing. And that gap is per request, so it compounds. A feature that runs ten thousand times a day on Opus instead of Haiku is not a rounding error. It is the difference between a feature that ships and one that gets cut for cost. Second, the context window . This is where Haiku gives something up: 200K tokens instead of 1M. That is the real tradeoff, and it points straight at when to use it. We'll come back to that. The mental model Stop ranking models. Rank tasks . Ask three questions about the task in front of you: Does it need real reasoning, or is it bounded? A task is bounded when a competent junior could do it from a clear spec without much judgment: pull these fields out, sort this into one of five buckets, rewrite this in a different tone, answer this from the text I gave you. A task needs reason

AI design system output is approximate by default. Wrong border radii, raw hex values, inconsistent tokens across 60 components. The fix isn't better prompts. Here's the structural change that made it exact using Figma's REST API. The fourth time I manually corrected the same border radius mistake in an AI-generated component, I stopped and asked why this kept happening. Not "what prompt would fix this?" The deeper question: why does every AI tool I tried get the structure right and the values wrong? The button was correct. The variants were there. The layout matched the Figma spec. But borderRadius: 8 when it should be borderRadius: '8px' . A spacing gap of 8 when the spec said 6 . The color #3B82F6 sitting in the file where semantic.button.primary should be. None of it wrong in a way that breaks the build. All of it wrong in a way that breaks the design system. After hitting this wall enough times, I realized the problem wasn't the AI. It was the question I was asking it. Why AI keeps generating the wrong Figma design tokens When you give an AI tool a Figma screenshot and ask it to produce a component, it does something reasonable: it interprets what it sees. The structure, the layout, the hierarchy - it gets most of that right. What it cannot get right is the token mapping. The AI doesn't know your semantic token file. It doesn't know that #3B82F6 maps to semantic.button.primary in your codebase. It doesn't know that your MUI setup multiplies numeric border radii by 4, which means borderRadius: 8 renders at 32px instead of 8px . So it approximates. Here's what that looks like in practice: What AI produces What the spec requires Why it's wrong borderRadius: 8 borderRadius: '8px' MUI multiplies numeric values by 4 gap: 8 gap: 6 Spacing value not extracted from Figma color: '#3B82F6' semantic.button.primary Raw hex instead of semantic token fontSize: 14 variant="MD_Medium" Typography token not resolved Across one component, these deviations are small. Across 60 comp

We wired our LLM eval suite into Datadog over about four months. Most of the panels we built got deleted. These are the five that stayed, and the metrics that feed them. TL;DR: We run an LLM-as-judge eval suite on every PR that touches a prompt, and we ship the results to Datadog as custom metrics. The dashboard started with fourteen panels. We kept five. The one that catches the most real regressions is per-criterion pass-rate split out by judge criterion, not the single rolled-up pass-rate number, because an aggregate of 91 percent hid the fact that one criterion had dropped from 0.95 to 0.62. Below are the metrics we emit, the Python that submits them, the monitor config we alert on, and the panels we tried and dropped. Some context on the setup so the rest makes sense. We are a Series-C dev-tool startup. We have a handful of prompts in production that do real work (classification, extraction, a summarization step in an agent loop). Each one has an eval set of tagged examples, somewhere between 80 and 400 per prompt. The judge is a separate model call that scores each output against a rubric. We run the suite in GitHub Actions. The eval job emits metrics to Datadog at the end of every run. Backend service health was already in Datadog, so putting eval data next to it meant one place to look during an incident instead of two. 1. Emit per-criterion pass-rate, not just the rolled-up number This is the one that earns its place. Our judge scores each output against multiple criteria. For the extraction prompt it is four: correct fields, no hallucinated fields, format valid, no refusal. Early on we only emitted one number, prompt_eval.pass_rate, the fraction of examples that passed every criterion. That number is fine for a smoke test and useless for debugging. The problem showed up on a prompt change that looked clean. Overall pass-rate went from 0.93 to 0.91. Two points. Nobody would block a PR on two points. But underneath, the "no hallucinated fields" criterion had