标签：#EV

Data preservation layouts are no longer just an exercise in handling routine disk failures; they are a direct line of defense in an active cyber-warfare environment. Far too many system administrators blindly default to writing simple, unencrypted shell scripts tied to legacy system utilities. Operating obsolete data-mirroring procedures introduces severe vulnerabilities to enterprise architectures. Traditional file sync tools completely lack client-side encryption barriers, leaving raw production data completely exposed to third-party infrastructure hosts. Furthermore, standard backup approaches consume vast amounts of unnecessary bandwidth by redundantly transferring identical files over and over again. Restic completely destroys this insecure paradigm. Written from the ground up in Go, Restic enforces client-side AES-256-CTR cryptographic encryption by default, ensuring no plain-text data ever traverses the network interface. Leveraging advanced content-defined chunking algorithms, it performs lightning-fast block-level deduplication to compress your overall storage footprint to a minimum. Phase 1: The Backup Orchestration Myth Understanding the architectural superiority of a native Go-compiled, client-side encrypted backup engine is critical before designing your disaster recovery pipeline: Architectural Metric Legacy Sync Tools BorgBackup Platform Modern Restic Engine Native Cloud S3 Support Requires Rclone Mounts Requires Third-Party Proxy Layers Native Compiled Support Default Cryptography None (Plain-Text Transmissions) Client-Side AES-256 AES-256-CTR Client-Side Data Deduplication File-Level Verification Only Content-Defined Block Level Content-Defined Block Level Cross-Platform Portability Variable Compatibility Strictly UNIX/Linux Constrained Single Static Go Binary Phase 2: The Append-Only Lock Paradox (IAM Fix) The most dangerous operational vulnerability found in generic Linux documentation involves key privileges. Amateurs store fully unconstrained ad

Ink & Switch published bijou64, a variable-length integer encoding where every number has exactly one byte representation, closing the canonicality bug class behind attacks on PKCS#1, JWT libraries, and Bitcoin. The design also decodes two to ten times faster than LEB128. Community ports to Elixir, Go, Perl, and Java followed, while HN commenters debated SIMD performance and residual range checks. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

A background worker sits quietly for weeks, chewing through a job queue without incident, and then one Tuesday afternoon it disappears mid-batch, taking forty in-flight jobs down with it. No stack trace pointing at the offending line, no alert until a customer notices their export never finished. Nine times out of ten, the culprit is one of the most under-discussed failure modes in server-side JavaScript: unhandled promise rejections. They are easy to introduce, easy to miss in code review, and in modern Node.js they no longer just print a warning — they can end your process outright. This post walks through what unhandled promise rejections actually are at the engine level, why they are far more dangerous in long-running Node.js services than in typical web requests, how Node's default behavior around them has shifted over the years, and the concrete patterns you can use to stop them from quietly killing your jobs. What an Unhandled Promise Rejection Actually Is At the JavaScript engine level, a promise is a state machine with three possible states: pending, fulfilled, or rejected. When an async operation fails — a network call times out, a database query throws, a JSON parse blows up — the promise representing that operation transitions to the rejected state and carries a reason, usually an Error object. That's all a rejection is: a value flowing down the promise's error channel instead of its success channel. The engine only considers a rejection "handled" if, by the time it does its bookkeeping (which happens on a microtask checkpoint, not synchronously), there is a .catch() handler, a second argument to .then() , or a surrounding try/catch around an await somewhere in that promise's chain. If none of those exist anywhere in the chain, the rejection is classified as unhandled. This is the precise, narrow definition of unhandled promise rejections: a promise that reaches the rejected state with zero handlers attached anywhere along its chain of consumers. It's wo

I cranked Apple’s iOS 27 beta to maximum transparency on my iPhone and enjoyed every warped second.

Every morning, an online store receives the previous day’s orders from a marketplace partner. The file comes in JSON format. The company needs to add those orders to its main MongoDB orders collection. The sales manager also needs a CSV report that can be opened in Excel. That sounds like a small task. Import the file, copy the documents, export the report. But in practice, a few things can break the process. A date can be imported as a string. A field can have the wrong name. One batch may use total , while the main collection uses totalAmount . A temporary collection can keep old records and trigger duplicate key errors. A CSV export can create null values because the mapping points to fields that do not exist. And then there is customer data. The manager may need the sales numbers, but they probably do not need real customer names or internal customer IDs. This article walks through a real daily workflow: Import marketplace JSON ↓ Store the batch in a temporary MongoDB collection ↓ Copy the orders into the main orders collection ↓ Mask customer fields during export ↓ Create a CSV report The goal is not just to move data from JSON to CSV. The goal is to make the process repeatable, easier to check, and safer to share. The workflow The workflow has three jobs: Import Yesterday Orders ↓ Add Orders to Main ↓ Export Daily Sales Report The important part is the parent relationship between the jobs. Add Orders to Main depends on Import Yesterday Orders , so it only runs after the JSON file is imported successfully. Export Daily Sales Report depends on Add Orders to Main , so the CSV is created only after the main orders collection has been updated. This prevents the report from being generated when data is missing or incomplete. The incoming JSON file The partner sends a file with yesterday’s completed orders. A single order looks like this: { "orderId" : "ORD-2026-07-201" , "customerId" : "CUST-1003" , "customerName" : "Sofia Rossi" , "orderDate" : "2026-07-21T08:20:00

This week's releases cluster around a theme: reducing the overhead that compounds in production agentic systems. Gemini 3.6 Flash ships with measurable token reduction and a price cut, Vercel's AI Gateway gets service tier routing for latency-cost tradeoffs, and Python cold starts quietly drop by half with zero code changes required. Nothing experimental here—most of this is worth touching immediately if you're already in these ecosystems. Gemini 3.6 Flash cuts output tokens by 17% Google's 3.6 Flash reduces output token usage by 17% versus 3.5 Flash while lowering cost to $1.50/1M input and $7.50/1M output. The improvement is most pronounced on coding and web tasks, which happen to be the workload profile of most production agents. The companion model, 3.5 Flash-Lite, trades some quality for throughput—350 output tokens/sec—at $0.30/$2.50 per million tokens. Token efficiency isn't a vanity metric in agentic systems. Multi-step workflows compound output costs: every intermediate reasoning step, tool call response, and context accumulation multiplies what you pay. A 17% reduction per model call can translate to significantly more than 17% savings across a full agent loop, depending on how many hops your workflow runs. The throughput number on Flash-Lite matters too—if you're running high-volume document classification or search reranking, 350 tokens/sec opens architectures that weren't cost-viable before. The API swap is a single parameter change. No migration friction, no new authentication surface. Ship it now if Gemini is already in your stack and you're paying attention to inference costs. Replace 3.5 Flash with 3.6 Flash for general agentic tasks; move high-throughput, lower-stakes subtasks to Flash-Lite. Gemini 3.6 Flash and 3.5 Flash-Lite on AI Gateway Both new Gemini models are immediately available through Vercel's AI Gateway, callable via the unified AI SDK with the same cost tracking, failover, and routing you'd use for any other provider. Model selection

An AI can write a perfect email in seconds. Having a real back-and-forth conversation is much harder. Sarah runs a salon. She has an AI assistant that emails her customers when a slot opens up. Last Friday, a customer canceled his booking. The assistant sent an email: "We have an opening tomorrow at 2 PM. Want it?" The customer replied in a minute: "Yes, book it!" The assistant never saw that reply. The slot stayed open. The customer never got a confirmation. This happens more than people realise — not because it's hard to receive email, but because most setups were never wired to close the loop. Sending is easy. Wiring the whole loop isn't. To be fair, receiving and parsing email isn't some unsolved problem — providers like SendGrid, Mailgun, and Postmark have offered inbound email parsing for years. Point your domain at them, and they'll hand you the clean message. But those webhooks only push the message once. There's no inbox to check back later, and no built-in way to link a reply to the right conversation. You have to build that part yourself — and you still can't run any of it on your own servers. There's a second issue too. AI assistants sometimes send a slightly odd reply — nothing harmful, just a little off. Many managed email providers watch for exactly that pattern, and can suspend an account fast. One strange sentence, and Sarah's whole booking system could go dark with no warning. What a real AI assistant needs For an assistant like Sarah's to actually hold a conversation, a few things need to work together: Replies need to land somewhere the AI can read them They need to arrive clean, not messy They need to stay linked to the right conversation The AI needs to reply back from the same email address All of it needs to run on infrastructure you control, not three different vendors This is what we built Reloop for Reloop puts that whole loop in one place, self-hosted. When Sarah's customer replied "Yes, book it!", Reloop caught the reply, cleaned it up,

With “blessings” from the original Jibo founders, iKairos is a wearable or desk-mounted “AI journal” that turns your family moments into AI images and video.

Building Profitable Niche Lifestyle Stores: A Developer's Guide to E-Commerce Essentials Launching a niche lifestyle e-commerce store is more than just setting up a storefront—it's a technical challenge that requires thoughtful architecture, performance optimization, and strategic content planning. Whether you're building a store for outdoor gear, fashion accessories, or humor products like humor24.se , here's what developers need to know. Choose the Right Tech Stack Most profitable niche stores run on WordPress + WooCommerce + a performance-focused theme (like Blocksy). This combination offers: Flexibility : Extend functionality without rewrites SEO-friendly : Built-in structured data support Cost-effective : No complex deployment infrastructure needed Content integration : Blog + products on the same platform Use a headless CMS approach only if you have compelling reasons (high-traffic requirements, complex frontend needs). For 99% of niche stores, the overhead isn't worth it. Core Web Vitals = Revenue Google's Core Updates consistently penalize slow stores. Prioritize: LCP (Largest Contentful Paint) < 2.5s : Optimize images (WebP/AVIF format), lazy load below-fold content, defer non-critical CSS INP (Interaction to Next Paint) < 200ms : Minimize main thread blocking, defer JavaScript CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift) < 0.1 : Use fixed image dimensions, avoid late-loading ads/widgets # Generate WebP variants of product images convert image.jpg -quality 80 image.webp # Check your Core Web Vitals # Use PageSpeed Insights API or Lighthouse CI in your deployment pipeline Each 0.1s improvement in LCP can yield 3-5% conversion uplift. Performance is a feature. Structured Data Wins Traffic Rich snippets dramatically improve click-through rates. Implement: Product schema : name , price , availability , image , brand , AggregateRating BreadcrumbList : Navigation structure FAQ schema : If you have FAQs (47% higher CTR for FAQ snippets) { "@context" : "https://schema.org/" , "@t

As a backend developer, I have build hundreds of endpoints, so the typical endpoint flow is deeply ingrained in how I think about web applications. But when I started building AI-powered endpoints, I noticed an interesting shift. At first, AI endpoints looked like simple proxy endpoints with some configuration for connecting to a model: API receives request ↓ send prompt to model ↓ receive response ↓ return it to the client And it worked well until I found out that passing a prompt directly from the client was not a good idea. The endpoint could be misused for a completely different purpose, allowing someone else to consume my AI usage credits. Then I realized that the input also needed limits. Sending a large context for a specific task costs more and may produce unexpected results. So when I started looking closer, especially when I needed reliable structured output and predictable application behavior, I quickly realized that it was not that simple. Validation was no longer only guarding execution, it had also become a post-processing step. AI models are probabilistic. Even with the same input, they may return different outputs, omit required information, misunderstand instructions or return something that is technically valid but logically wrong. And because every token has a price, I cannot simply retry the request and hope for a better result. That was when I started questioning whether AI endpoints should be designed in the same way as conventional Web API endpoints. Table of Contents Conventional Web API Endpoint Flow AI-powered Web API Endpoint Flow What This Difference Changes Unpredictable Latency Retry Logic Idempotency and Side Effects Testing AI Endpoints The Output Contract Observability and Cost Summary Conventional Web API Endpoint Flow A conventional Web API endpoint usually follows a similar flow: validate request ↓ execute business logic ↓ return representation The first phase is request validation. We validate the incoming data against property

Next.js 16 shipped Cache Components - the feature that finally lets a single route mix static HTML, cached data, and per-request dynamic content without splitting it into separate pages. It is Partial Prerendering (PPR) made stable, plus a new use cache directive that replaces the old unstable_cache and the awkward route-segment config flags. This guide covers what changed, the three content types you now think in, and the runtime-data rule that trips up almost everyone on day one. What actually changed If you were using the experimental PPR flag, it is gone. Cache Components is a single config switch, and it turns on the whole model - static shell, cached segments, and streamed dynamic content in one route. // next.config.ts import type { NextConfig } from ' next ' const nextConfig : NextConfig = { cacheComponents : true , // replaces experimental.ppr } export default nextConfig Once it is on, every piece of your route falls into one of three buckets. The whole mental model is learning which bucket each component belongs in. The three content types Static - synchronous code, imports, and pure markup. Prerendered at build time and served instantly from the CDN. Your header, nav, and layout shell. Cached - async data that does not need to be fresh on every request. Marked with use cache . Think product lists, blog posts, dashboard stats. Dynamic - runtime data that must be fresh (cookies, headers, per-user state). Wrapped in Suspense so it streams in after the shell paints. import { Suspense } from ' react ' import { cookies } from ' next/headers ' import { cacheLife } from ' next/cache ' export default function DashboardPage () { return ( <> { /* Static - instant from the CDN */ } < header >< h1 > Dashboard </ h1 ></ header > { /* Cached - fast, revalidates hourly */ } < Stats /> { /* Dynamic - streams in with fresh data */ } < Suspense fallback = { < NotificationsSkeleton /> } > < Notifications /> </ Suspense > </> ) } async function Stats () { ' use cache ' cacheL

Most developers think about crypto payments as a checkout problem. Generate an invoice. Show a payment page. Wait for a webhook. Mark the order as paid. That is the clean version. Real merchants do not live in the clean version. They live in support tickets. A customer says they paid, but the order is still pending. A payment arrives after the invoice expires. Someone sends the right amount on the wrong network. A webhook fails. A customer underpays. A support agent cannot tell whether the issue is customer error, blockchain delay, invoice expiry, fulfillment failure, or an internal system bug. This is where developers can build a real product. A Crypto Payment Support Desk is a support and operations layer for merchants that accept crypto payments. It helps support teams search payments, inspect payment timelines, classify issues, explain statuses to customers, escalate real problems, and reduce the amount of manual investigation required for every crypto payment ticket. In this article, I will use OxaPay as the example payment infrastructure because its documentation exposes the primitives needed to build this kind of product: invoice generation, payment status callbacks, HMAC-signed webhooks, payment information lookup, payment history, static addresses, SDKs, plugins, and automation integrations. This is not a generic “add crypto payments to your app” article. It is a blueprint for developers who want to build a support-facing product that merchants may actually pay for. The business idea The idea is simple: Build a support desk that sits between a merchant's payment system, order system, and support team. The merchant already accepts crypto payments. The problem is that their support team cannot quickly answer payment-related questions. Your product gives them one place to investigate cases like: “The customer says they paid, but the order is unpaid.” “The invoice expired, but a transaction later appeared.” “The payment is underpaid.” “The webhook was received,

Meta's React library has integrated a Rust version of the React Compiler into its main repository, aimed at enhancing build speed and compatibility with the Rust-based JavaScript toolchain. This port, which memoizes components automatically, demonstrates significant performance improvements, boasting up to 50% faster compilation. The public API remains unchanged to facilitate easy upgrades. By Daniel Curtis

How gen_ai.invoke_agent spans revealed one tool was dumping 7x more output than its siblings. The fix: pagination + a token budget guard. 42% output reduction, 21% faster agent.

Nowadays, web frameworks come with ✨ magic ✨. Some more than others, but all of them have some. The...

If you're building an app that generates the same character across many scenes, you've probably hit the wall already: seeds drift, LoRA training is heavy and slow, and "same character, new pose" prompting quietly changes the face. The approach that actually holds up in production is a 2-stage pipeline — generate one canonical base image , then edit from that base as the reference for every new scene. Consistency comes from the reference, not the seed. Below: why the common approaches drift, how the 2-stage pipeline works, the async job queue that makes it deployable, and the serverless-GPU setup that keeps it affordable. There's a free, runnable slice of the whole transport layer at the end. Why the obvious approaches drift Seeds. A seed pins the noise , not the identity . Re-use a seed with the same prompt and you get the same image — but that's reproduction, not consistency. The moment you change the prompt ("now she's in a café"), the denoising path changes and the face re-rolls with it. Seeds give you determinism for identical inputs; they give you nothing for new scenes . Prompt-only ("the same woman as before"). The model has no memory. Every generation is a fresh sample from the distribution your words describe. "Same face as last time" isn't in the prompt vocabulary — there is no last time. LoRA per character. This one actually works — that's why everyone suggests it — but look at what it costs in an app context: curate 15–40 images per character, run a training job per character, store and load adapter weights per character, and repeat all of it whenever a user creates someone new. For a personal project, fine. For an app where users create characters on demand, you just signed up to run a training farm. The 2-stage pipeline The fix is embarrassingly direct once you see it: Stage 1 — CAST Stage 2 — RE-SCENE (repeat forever) text-to-image image-edit model "describe character" → base image + "put them in a café" → scene 1 = base image base image + "walking in

I love InertiaJS to the point where it's becoming a personality trait I tend to want to use it for everything, but adding Inertia to an existing Laravel API gets awkward fast. Same thing happens in the other direction: you start with a full Inertia frontend and then realize you want to expose some of that data as a public API too. The naive solutions are: Sprinkle if ($request->wantsJson()) into your controllers Maintain two separate routes that return the exact same data Neither feels right. So I made inertia-split Starting fresh with Inertia: serve both from the same controller class ProjectController extends Controller { use HasHybridResponses ; public function index () { return $this -> respond () -> component ( 'Projects/Index' , [ 'projects' => Project :: all (), ]); // Inertia request → renders the Svelte/Vue/React component // API request → returns JSON } } The controller doesn't check anything. Inertia requests get an Inertia response, API clients get JSON. Existing API? Don't touch it If you just want to make an existing API method Inertia-aware, one annotation is enough: #[InertiaComponent('Users/Show')] public function show ( User $user ): array { return [ 'user' => $user ]; } The method body stays exactly as it was. Inertia requests get the component rendered with your data as props. Everything else gets the same JSON as before. Methods without the annotation are completely unaffected. Wait, how does this even work? The package can out Inertia's ResponseFactory for its own in the service provider (opt-in): $this -> app -> singleton ( ResponseFactory :: class , HybridResponseFactory :: class ); // checks if it's an Inertia request and returns appropriate response Good old OOP. Thank you polymorphism. Wrap-up Whatever the direction of your problem, making Inertia and API endpoints use the same controller is a big win. You're still responsible for writing routes and wiring middlewares, but this should save a lot of time and effort. Still in beta, use accor

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is...

Back on 2026-07-14 I found and fixed a real landmine in this repo: requirements.txt had mcp[cli] with no version constraint at all. Any fresh install could pull in a breaking major version with zero warning. I pinned it to mcp[cli]>=1.28.0,<2.0.0 and moved on, feeling like I'd closed the gap. I hadn't. I'd only pinned the library . The actual contract my MCP server exposes to any agent that connects to it — the tool names, parameter shapes, and descriptions an LLM reads to decide how to call my code — isn't a version string anywhere. It's generated fresh, every time the server boots, from whatever my function signatures and docstrings happen to say at that moment. Nothing pins that. Nothing diffs it. Nothing tests it. What actually generates the contract My server ( server.py ) is a FastMCP app with plain @mcp.tool() -decorated functions: @mcp.tool () def create_article ( title : str , body_markdown : str , tags : list [ str ] = None , published : bool = False ) -> dict : """ Create a new DEV.to article. Returns id and url. """ payload = { " article " : { " title " : title , " body_markdown " : body_markdown , " published " : published }} if tags : payload [ " article " ][ " tags " ] = tags result = _dev ( " /articles " , method = " POST " , data = payload ) return { " id " : result [ " id " ], " url " : result . get ( " url " ), " published " : result . get ( " published " )} FastMCP inspects that signature at import time and builds the JSON Schema an agent actually sees — parameter names, types, which ones are required, and the docstring as the tool's description. I never write that schema by hand and I never check it in anywhere. It's derived, every run, from source that I edit for completely unrelated reasons. That's the gap. requirements.txt pinning stops FastMCP's own behavior from shifting under me between installs. It does nothing about my behavior shifting the schema FastMCP generates from my code, on every single commit, with no separate review step. Where

This is a submission for DEV's Summer Bug Smash: Smash Stories powered by Sentry . 🦄 I debated writing this for a long time, but I finally talked myself into really writing again after a hiatus, and there's no better way than story time. So here's one of the most challenging bugs—or really, the series of them—I've run into in the enterprise world. Grab some popcorn and Skittles, because this one takes a while. Better yet, cue up Jerry's actual theme song— Jerry Was a Race Car Driver by Primus , because of course it is —and let the best bass player on the planet score the whole mess while you read. And yes, it's the Summer Bug Smash and my entire cast is dressed for Christmas. Stay with me. Meet Jerry 🪦 If you work with software any length of time, you already know the particular nightmares that come with legacy applications. This one is no different. It started life as a rewrite of some antiquated, bash-flavored system back when Java 8 was the coolest kid at the table. Let's call him Jerry. Jerry is a well-rounded app—or he was, before he let himself go. He came up on a then-modern Java stack and served exactly one purpose: get data from upstream into the database, correctly and on time. He was good at his one job. Then his one job got split into parts, and the sum of those parts did not add up to a whole—Jerry just expanded along the midline with no particular purpose or direction in life. You can imagine how it goes: a few retirements, a couple of half-finished rewrites, several well-meaning somebodies who swore they'd whip him into shape and left him half-done every time. Take your eyes off him at Christmas and he's the weird uncle who shouldn't have been left alone with the punch. That's about when Jerry and I met, more than three years ago. The Infestation Begins 🪰 Jerry did his best to keep up with everything we kept piling on him, but communication was never his strong suit—a patch here, an upgrade there, enough to keep the lights on and the punch bowl full.