标签：#RAM

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is free and source-available on Github. Star git-lrc to help devs discover the project. Do give it a try and share your feedback. A couple of posts back we spent a while inside XOR distance , then used it to build Kademlia , the DHT algorithm that lets a network find anything without a directory. Kademlia: Algo That Turned XOR Distance Into a Network Athreya aka Maneshwar Athreya aka Maneshwar Athreya aka Maneshwar Follow Aug 26 Kademlia: Algo That Turned XOR Distance Into a Network # webdev # programming # beginners # algorithms 20 reactions Add Comment 6 min read I promised that algorithm shows up "under BitTorrent, IPFS, Ethereum." Today we cash that check. We're taking BitTorrent apart, piece by piece, and Kademlia is going to walk right back in through the side door. Also, fun fact before we start: a suspicious number of people on Reddit think Bram Cohen, the guy who wrote BitTorrent alone in Python in 2001, is secretly Satoshi Nakamoto. I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying that by the end of this post you'll understand why people keep saying it. The number that should not have been possible In 2004, a measurement firm called CacheLogic reported that BitTorrent alone was responsible for roughly 35% of all internet traffic. More than every other peer to peer network combined. More than the entire web. One protocol. Written by one guy. No company. No datacenter. No servers anywhere with "BitTorrent Inc" on the rack. That last part is the whole story. Every "normal" system you've ever worked on scales by throwing money at it: bigger box, more replicas, a CDN in front. BitTorrent had nobody to throw money at anything, so every hard problem, capacity, trust, scheduling, incentives, discovery, had to get solved inside the protocol itself . Problem 1: the client-server ceiling has a name Distributing a file in 2001 meant one server, one uplink, and every download eating

A ideia de um sebo que não perde estoque: No primeiro período, nosso grupo desenvolveu um Sebo Virtual. O objetivo era resolver a dificuldade de sebos tradicionais em conciliar estoque físico e virtual, com pagamento via PIX e envio de recibo por e-mail. Minha responsabilidade foi a engenharia de prompt utilizando o Lovable. Quando a IA não entendia o que eu queria: Os primeiros prompts retornaram resultados incompletos. Ao solicitar "explique o código por trás da aplicação", a resposta foi genérica e não detalhou a integração com o banco de dados. Também houve dificuldade em fazer a ferramenta compreender fluxos específicos, como leilão de itens, validação de cupons e cálculo de frete por CEP. O que mudou quando usei diagrama e contexto: O resultado melhorou quando passei a incluir contexto e artefatos. Três prompts funcionaram bem: para wireframe, enviei o diagrama e solicitei o protótipo das telas; para o leilão, pedi quatro telas com checkout e histórico de transações; para o back-end, solicitei as linguagens utilizadas e o fluxo de integração ao banco preservando as informações da documentação. Com isso, identifiquei a stack gerada: React com TypeScript no frontend e Supabase no backend, com consultas como from('pedidos').select('*').eq('usuario_id', id) . Do sebo para qualquer loja online: As regras implementadas, como cupons LIVRO10 e SEBO20, frete proporcional ao peso e checkout via PIX para o endereço base na Rua dos Livros, 707, João Pessoa, são aplicáveis a qualquer e-commerce de pequeno porte. O método permite transformar uma ideia em protótipo navegável em poucas horas. O que levo disso para a carreira? O projeto mostrou que, além do código, a capacidade de formular perguntas claras e organizar a documentação em fluxograma e diagrama de classes é fundamental. Foi meu primeiro case prático e base para portfólio na área de dados e produto. EN Summary: As a first-semester student, our team built a Virtual Bookstore to manage physical and online inventory w

I’m setting up a local AI development environment on Windows + WSL2 and I’m trying to decide between two architectures. Option 1 — Ollama/Models on Windows WSL2 ┌───────────────────┐ │ Application │ │ ├── Python │ │ ├── .venv │ │ └── Source code │ └───────┬───────────┘ │ HTTP localhost:11434 │ ▼ Windows ┌───────────────┐ │ Ollama │ │ ↓ │ │ Models │ │ ↓ │ │ GPU │ └───────────────┘ Option 2 — Ollama/Models inside WSL2 WSL2 ┌─────────────────────────┐ │ Application │ │ ↓ │ │ Ollama │ │ ↓ │ │ Models │ └────────────┬────────────┘ │ GPU access │ ▼ Windows ┌─────────────────────────┐ │ GPU / Driver │ └─────────────────────────┘ My current setup is Option 1 , and it works: WSL2 can access the Windows Ollama API through localhost:11434. But I’m wondering if Option 2 is a better long-term architecture for local AI/LLM development. I’m especially interested in: 🚀 Performance 🎮 GPU utilization 🧠 Model management 💾 Disk usage 🔧 Setup and maintenance 🐧 Linux/ML tooling 🐳 Docker integration 🌐 Networking 📈 Future scalability If you use Ollama with Windows + WSL2, which architecture would you choose and why? And if you've actually used both setups, I'd especially like to hear about your experience. 👇 Option 1 or Option 2?

The criticism of this is everywhere. Open any Go thread long enough and someone will show up to perform the same ritual: "Go projects become messy. There's no framework to guide you. Nest, Django, Spring, they all tell you exactly where to put things. Go? It just says 'organize it somehow.'" It's a fair criticism. Go is unusually permissive about structure. I just think blaming Go for a messy codebase is like blaming the empty document for the bad essay. I don't think Go encourages bad architecture but rather it exposes it. The Hell Is A Perfect Folder Structure?? Ask a hundred Go developers where to put business logic and you'll get a hundred answers (and 200 opinions). "Should I use internal/ ?" "Is everything supposed to live under pkg/ ?" "Should I follow Clean Architecture?" "What about the cmd/ directory?" We spend so much time debating folder structures as if the arrangement of directories somehow determines code quality. As if renaming utils/ to pkg/shared/ is going to save us. God. folders don't create architecture. Dependencies do. You can meticulously organize your project like this: my-app/ cmd/main.go internal/ handler/ service/ repository/ pkg/domain/ pkg/utils/ And still write tightly coupled garbage. Handlers calling repositories directly. Services importing database drivers. Business logic mixed with HTTP concerns. Everything circular. Beautiful folders, though. Very organized looking on GitHub. There are better projects I've seen with just 5 packages, they just don't screenshot as well. Architecture Is About Dependency Direction The architecture is about making intentional decisions about how code depends on other code. Have a look at this: HTTP Handler ↓ Business Service ↓ Data Repository This isn't sacred because of folder names. It's valuable because of what it represents: The handler only knows how to translate HTTP The service only knows business rules The repository only knows how to fetch data Each layer depends on the layer below, never upw

Yesterday, I published a post titled "My Book 'AI, Ego & Regret' Paperback Is Live. Kindle Is...

Intro There's a pitch behind every AI coding assistant: it makes you faster. Fewer keystrokes, less boilerplate, more shipped features per sprint. The pitch is half true. What it leaves out is the gap between a tutorial demo and a real codebase under real pressure. In a demo, every suggestion is correct because the demo was built to make the suggestion look correct. In production, the assistant doesn't know your architecture, your team's conventions, or the ticket you're actually trying to close. It just knows what tends to come next in code that looks like yours. That gap is where the noise lives. The instant-accept trap Say a developer is mid-flow, wiring up a new endpoint. The assistant suggests a validation helper that looks reasonable, so they hit tab. It compiles, tests pass, they move on. Three weeks later a teammate finds two nearly identical validation helpers in the codebase: one written by a human eight months ago, one autocompleted last sprint. Nobody meant to duplicate logic. The suggestion was locally correct and globally redundant, and nothing about "correct code that compiles" caught that. (This is an illustrative scenario, not a specific incident, but most teams running Copilot or similar tools for more than a few months will recognize the shape of it.) Architecture creep, one suggestion at a time No single autocompleted line breaks your architecture. That's exactly the problem. An assistant trained on generic patterns will happily suggest a new abstraction, a new dependency, a new way of doing something you already do three other ways elsewhere in the codebase, because it has no visibility into "elsewhere." Accept enough of these one at a time and the codebase drifts into a dozen small dialects of the same idea, none of them wrong in isolation. The review tax The real cost isn't the code that's obviously bad, that gets caught. It's the code that's plausible enough to pass a quick glance and wrong enough to need real review time later. If you accept

Hey everyone! I bring you my development journey on what I have discovered, accomplishments for this...

AI’s most fervent and optimistic promoters promise a future where AI is innovating its way out of...

I recently built and open-sourced Flaky HTTP , a small Java 11 library for deliberately making HTTP calls less reliable. That may sound like an unusual goal. Most of the time, we work hard to make HTTP calls reliable. We add retries, timeouts, circuit breakers, fallbacks, caches, and monitoring. But eventually we need to answer a more difficult question: How do we know any of that behavior actually works? The original idea was simple: wrap Java's standard HttpClient , add controlled latency or synthetic HTTP errors to selected requests, and leave the rest of the application unchanged. That simple idea led to a few interesting decisions around API design, asynchronous cancellation, response body handling, deterministic testing, and the boundary between application-level failure injection and real network chaos. This article goes beyond a launch announcement. I want to explain why I built the library, how it works internally, where it is useful, and where it is deliberately limited. TL;DR Flaky HTTP is a lightweight wrapper around Java 11's java.net.http.HttpClient . It can: add fixed or random latency; return synthetic HTTP errors with a configurable probability; target requests using a full-URI regular expression; handle synchronous and asynchronous calls; propagate cancellation for delayed asynchronous work; and run without runtime dependencies beyond Java 11. The Maven coordinate is com.tapadyuti:flaky-http:1.0.0 . The shortest useful test setup is a deterministic failure: FlakyConfig config = FlakyConfig . builder () . failureRate ( 1.0 ) . errorStatus ( 503 ) . build (); Every targeted call now returns an empty synthetic 503 response without reaching the network. Replace 1.0 with 0.0 and add LatencyStrategy.fixed(500) when the test should exercise slowness without an HTTP error. It is intended for integration tests, resilience tests, local development, and controlled demonstrations. It is not a replacement for a network proxy or a full chaos-engineering platform

Designing Systems That Contain Failure — CS Week Perú 2026 On August 13, 2026, I had the opportunity to speak at CS Week Perú 2026 , an event organized by IEEE Computer Society student chapters across Peru. My session was: “Isolation and Trust Boundaries in Production: Designing Systems That Contain Failure” The talk explored how production systems can be designed to limit the impact of failures through explicit trust boundaries, architectural invariants, and evidence-based validation. The central idea was simple: The goal isn't to prevent every failure. The goal is to control its blast radius. Production systems fail. Requests overlap, processes crash, memory is exhausted, credentials can be compromised, and dependencies can become unavailable. Reliable engineering is not about assuming that none of these things will happen. It is about deciding what can be affected when they do . From Unit Tests to System Properties A green unit-test suite demonstrates that the tested units behave correctly under the conditions we defined. But it does not necessarily demonstrate that the system as a whole preserves its architectural properties under concurrency, multiple tenants, resource exhaustion, or real deployment conditions. A function can be correct in isolation while the system still violates an important invariant. That led to one of the central questions of the talk: What properties must never be violated? Trust Boundaries I used the concept of a Trust Boundary to make architectural assumptions explicit. For each boundary, we can ask three questions: What are we protecting? What is allowed to cross the boundary? What happens if the condition is violated? From there, we can define invariants : properties that the system must preserve under the conditions established by its design. In the architecture discussed during the session, three dimensions were particularly important: Context → Logical isolation Identity → Cryptographic isolation Execution → Physical/process isolat

submitted by /u/WeatherZealousideal5 [link] [留言]

Background The site edit modal kept accumulating fields — site name, category, SSH connection details, WordPress install location — until editing anything meant scrolling up and down a single long form to find the right field. To clean this up, we split it into three tabs: "Registration info," "SSH," and "WordPress info." That change broke form submission itself, in a way that was hard to spot at first. What tabbing broke The tab implementation itself is straightforward. Each tab's fields live in a <div class="site-tab-content" data-tab="..."> , and CSS toggles which one is visible. .site-tab-content { display : none ; } .site-tab-content.active { display : block ; } An inactive tab is hidden with display: none . Nothing unusual so far, and visually it worked fine. The problem showed up when a required field sat in a tab that was not currently active, and the user left it empty while saving from a different tab. Clicking the save button did nothing . No error message appeared. The form just looked stuck. Root cause: a browser cannot report an error on a field it cannot show HTML5 form validation works by having the browser automatically block the submit event whenever a constrained field (like required ) fails, then focusing that field and showing its standard validation bubble (equivalent to calling reportValidity() ). Note: reportValidity() is a method from the HTML5 Constraint Validation API. It checks whether a form element's value satisfies its constraints (required, pattern, etc.) and, if not, displays the browser's standard error bubble. But when the failing field sits inside a tab hidden with display: none , the browser has nowhere to anchor that error bubble. It still faithfully blocks the submit — but it cannot visualize the error, so it simply stops without any visible feedback. From the user's side, this looks exactly like a button that does not respond. Before tabbing, every field lived on the same screen, so this never surfaced. Introducing tabs — a UI

Last post, I said "the book is under review." Now the paperback is live. The Kindle edition is...

submitted by /u/Ok_Stomach6651 [link] [留言]

Last week, it came to light Cursor had mostly finished migrating from SolidJS to React . This migration happened about seven months ago. But it became a central focus of discussion following the Solid 2.0 RC release . Then yesterday, a week later, it came to my attention that the Anthropic docs example command for their large-scale migration feature is: I admit that my gut reaction was not great. Out of all the examples they could have chosen... Years of my work became a canonical example of the thing you migrate away from — in the same week we shipped the biggest release in the project's history — stung in a way I won't pretend it didn't. My second reaction was to assume that, like the other trickle-down posts I'd seen this week, this rode the same week-old news cycle. Then I checked the Internet Archive and realized this has been there since at least April 2026 . Four months before the Cursor story broke. At this point, the whole public footprint was a mention of an experiment sandwiched between bigger updates in a Cursor blog post posted in January. The kind of thing that no one outside the industry would even really pick up on. No reasoning, no benchmarks, no argument. Stop to think about what that means. I should be careful here because I can't prove anyone at Anthropic ever read that Cursor post. Nobody can. Maybe a docs writer saw the experiment. Maybe Claude drafted its own example. But think it through. Either it traveled from a buried line in one company's release notes into another company's official docs, or it needed no origin at all. It was already assumed before any public migration existed. Our industry has quietly started broadcasting conclusions where it used to transmit arguments. We couldn't have picked a worse time, because — as I'll get to — arguments are the only source that still matters. Why This Matters More Than It Used To It would be fair to ask, hasn't it always been like this? Teams cargo cult large players. Netflix or Facebook uses thi

Originally published at parvejshah.com/blog/why-browser-agents-fail-in-production-without-semantic-layers by Parvej Shah . The Fragility of Machine Vision in Modern DOMs Maybe the next evolution of frontend engineering isn't just designing interfaces for humans. It is designing interfaces that machines can reliably understand too. Browser agents don't always fail because the AI model is bad. Often, the web page itself is fundamentally hostile to machine parsers. Modern single-page applications (SPAs) render deeply nested <div> trees with ephemeral, auto-generated class names (such as Tailwind or CSS-in-JS hashes). While this provides fluid visual rendering for human users, it strips away semantic meaning for automated agents. graph TD A[AI Browser Agent] -->|Fragile Visual OCR / Coordinate Guessing| B[Opaque Div Hierarchy] B -->|Frontend Code Deploy / CSS Hash Shift| C[Broken Automation & Flaky Selectors] A -->|Direct Deterministic Query| D[Semantic Schema & data-agent Attributes] D -->|Refactor-Proof Contract| E[Deterministic Task Execution] Moving Beyond Ephemeral Selectors We already treat accessibility (a11y) as a non-negotiable contract between the frontend and assistive technologies through ARIA attributes. Why not extend that exact engineering rigor to AI agents? Imagine components exposing explicit, stable machine intent: // The machine contract: deterministic, testable, refactor-proof < button data - agent = " checkout-submit-button " data - agent - action = " complete-transaction " className = " btn-primary " > Confirm & Pay < /button > With explicit semantic attributes: Zero Layout Guesswork: The agent does not need to guess which button to click based on pixel coordinates or fragile CSS selectors. Deterministic Interaction Paths: Continuous integration (CI) test suites can validate machine contracts alongside accessibility audits. Reduced Latency & Token Costs: Vision-language models (VLMs) introduce non-deterministic latency and high token costs when in

Originally published at parvejshah.com/blog/why-browser-agents-fail-in-production-without-semantic-layers-test by Parvej Shah . The Semantic Contract Modern web applications optimize DOM trees for human eyes with nested divs... graph TD A[Vision Model] -->|Fragile OCR| B[DOM Tree] C[Semantic Layer] -->|Deterministic Contract| B const button = document . querySelector ( " [data-agent=submit] " ); Parvej Shah is a Lead Full-Stack Web Developer & Platform Architect based in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Explore full architecture case studies and production code at parvejshah.com .

I want to become a platform engineer, but I don't have experience on my resume. If you have a medium sized workload you want to deploy on my AWS account, I can do it for free for you because I want to gain some troubleshooting experience that I can mention in interviews. I am RHCSA certified and I am going to get my CKA certification in September. I am very interested and well versed in Kubernetes and Linux internals. Please contact me if you are interested. I'm also available for DevOps roles. submitted by /u/acompleteunknownnn [link] [留言]

After a 10-week hiatus since the last batch of Spring ecosystem releases, there was a flurry of activity during the week of August 17th, 2026, highlighting first milestone releases of: Spring Boot, Spring Framework, Spring Data, Spring Security, Spring Integration, Spring HATEOAS, Spring Modulith, Spring Batch, Spring AMQP and Spring for Apache Kafka. By Michael Redlich

I like Jekyll a lot. Hope you find it useful. If you notice any errors or have thoughts to share, don't hold back in the comments or DMs. All feedback is genuinely welcome 🙂. submitted by /u/sarans22 [link] [留言]