标签：#RAM

One of the most notable changes is that Meta plans to implement a daily two-hour time limit for teens that can only be disabled with parental permission.

If your GitHub Actions jobs are stuck in "Queued" or waiting for a runner, GitHub has now confirmed there is an incident. GitHub says they identified an issue with a database primary and are failing over to a replica. Actions is affected, and GitHub Pages is also experiencing degraded performance. So if you have been checking your workflow, runner settings, permissions or billing, it might not be your configuration. Status page: https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/y1t7p9fzrlj2 Hopefully this saves someone else from spending an hour debugging their YAML. submitted by /u/Codeblix_Ltd [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Fine-Comparison-2949 [link] [留言]

I thought publishing more useful content would automatically give my website more opportunities to rank. Then I noticed something uncomfortable. Two articles on my site were covering almost the same subject. Both were useful. Both were properly indexed. Both answered similar questions. And both were competing for overlapping search intent. I had accidentally created a small SEO architecture problem inside my own blog. I'm building "SabrTime.in" ( https://sabrtime.in/ ), a small Islamic companion app focused on practical digital tools for everyday worship. As a solo developer, I also manage the website, content, SEO, and product development myself. While working on the site's content, I published two articles around Tasbeeh: How to Do Tasbeeh — A Complete Guide Digital Tasbeeh Counter: How It Works & Why Muslims Are Switching The first article is about the practice itself. The second is supposed to be about the technology and use case of digital Tasbeeh counters. Sounds different enough, right? At first, I thought so too. But when I looked at the actual content and search intent, the overlap became obvious. The Problem Wasn't Duplicate Content This is where SEO gets misunderstood. Keyword cannibalization doesn't necessarily mean you have two pages containing identical paragraphs. The more interesting problem is intent overlap. If two URLs are trying to satisfy essentially the same searcher's question, a search engine has less information about which page should be the primary result. For example, imagine these two pages: /page-a "How to Do Tasbeeh" /page-b "Digital Tasbeeh Counter" Their titles are different. But if both pages explain: what Tasbeeh means how many times to recite it common Tasbeeh counts the same hadith how to count Tasbeeh why Muslims use a counter FAQs about Tasbeeh ...then the distinction between the pages starts becoming blurry. That was happening on my site. The two articles were not technically duplicates. But parts of their search intent were d

Dear friends, Could I ask for recommendations for an alternative to CARTO please? We've been using them for a few years, and they've now decided (seemingly overnight) to require an API key to keep using the service. I have no beef with that in principle. What stung was the complete lack of notice: most of what we've built on it is shipped in apps that are live on the Play Store and App Store, so we've been left scrambling. To be clear, we're happy to pay if that's what they need to keep the lights on. But gating everyone without a word of warning is a bit of a d*ck move, and we'd much rather move to something maintained by people you can vouch for as, well, not d*cks. Any suggestions gratefully received. Please and thank you, Neithan submitted by /u/neithan_pixelzero [link] [留言]

System Design: Payment Processing System A capstone system design walkthrough — designing a payment processing system end to end — covering the core domain model, the ledger as the system's source of truth, idempotency and exactly-once-effect guarantees, integrating with external payment gateways and card networks, handling asynchronous webhooks, reconciliation, fraud and risk checks, and the specific correctness and compliance demands that make payments a uniquely unforgiving system design problem. Table of Contents Introduction Why Payment Systems Are a Different Kind of Hard The Core Domain Model The Ledger: Double-Entry Bookkeeping as the Source of Truth Idempotency: The Single Most Important Property Integrating with Payment Gateways and Card Networks The Payment State Machine Webhooks: Handling Asynchronous Gateway Callbacks The Saga: Coordinating Payment Across Multiple Services Reconciliation Fraud and Risk Checks Data Security and Compliance Consistency, Availability, and the CAP Trade-off for Money Scaling the System Observability for a Payment System Common Pitfalls Quick Reference Table Conclusion Introduction A payment processing system takes the general system design vocabulary covered in this series' System Design guide — databases, caching, queues, load balancing — and applies it to a domain where the ordinary consequences of a bug are dramatically higher: a double-charged customer, a lost payment, or a corrupted ledger isn't a degraded user experience, it's real money moved incorrectly, sometimes irreversibly. This guide walks through designing such a system end to end, drawing directly on this series' DDD, Event-Driven Architecture, Database Migrations, and Secret Management guides, each of which turns out to be load-bearing infrastructure for getting payments right rather than optional architectural polish. Client → Payment API → [validate, risk-check] → Payment Gateway (Stripe/Adyen/etc.) → Card Network → Bank ↓ ↓ (async webhook) Ledger (source o

submitted by /u/BluebirdDifficult260 [link] [留言]

Olá, comunidade dev.to! Meu nome é Neto, tenho 17 anos e sou estudante de Ciência da Computação no UNIPÊ, em João Pessoa. Atualmente, estou cursando o segundo semestre da graduação e também estudando design profissional, área que considero importante para a criação de soluções digitais mais úteis, intuitivas e visualmente agradáveis. Minha trajetória na tecnologia ainda está no começo, mas já tem sido marcada por descobertas, aprendizados e desafios. Escolhi Ciência da Computação porque sempre tive curiosidade sobre como aplicativos, sites e sistemas funcionam. Quero aprender não apenas a programar, mas também a compreender todo o processo de desenvolvimento de um produto, desde a identificação de um problema até a construção de uma solução. Durante o curso, tive a oportunidade de desenvolver, com alguns colegas, um projeto relacionado à criação de um aplicativo. Essa experiência foi importante porque me mostrou que desenvolver um produto vai muito além de escrever código. Foi necessário discutir ideias, organizar tarefas, pensar nas necessidades dos usuários e encontrar soluções para os problemas que surgiram durante o processo. Mesmo enfrentando desafios simples, percebi como cada obstáculo pode contribuir para o nosso crescimento. Em alguns momentos, precisamos revisar decisões, corrigir erros e adaptar o projeto. Também aprendemos que uma equipe precisa manter uma boa comunicação, pois cada integrante possui habilidades, responsabilidades e pontos de vista diferentes. O estudo de design profissional complementa minha formação em computação. Estou aprendendo que uma aplicação não deve apenas funcionar corretamente: ela também precisa oferecer uma boa experiência ao usuário. Elementos como cores, tipografia, organização das informações, acessibilidade e facilidade de navegação influenciam a maneira como as pessoas utilizam um produto. Ainda tenho muito a aprender sobre programação, design e desenvolvimento de projetos. Porém, entendo que a evolução acontece aos po

submitted by /u/jfmengels [link] [留言]

Debian is polling its developers on how to handle AI-assisted contributions, with options that range from broadly permitting them to banning them outright. Whatever the outcome, I think this is one of the more consequential governance conversations in open source right now, and not for the reason the headlines suggest. The framing everyone reaches for is philosophical. Is generated code authored? Is it derivative? Does using a model make you less of a contributor? Those are real questions and I do not have confident answers to them. But if I imagine actually being a Debian maintainer, my problem is not philosophical at all. It is that my queue is full and my reviewing hours are finite. The bottleneck was never writing code Volunteer projects have always been constrained by review capacity, not by supply of patches. The scarce resource is someone knowledgeable enough to say "this is correct, this fits our conventions, I will own the consequences if it breaks." Assistants change the ratio between those two things dramatically. The cost of producing a plausible patch has fallen much faster than the cost of evaluating one. That asymmetry is the whole story. A project can absorb a lot of contributors when each contributor's output is roughly proportional to their understanding. It struggles when someone can submit a large, fluent, superficially reasonable change to a subsystem they have never read. I want to be careful here: plenty of experienced maintainers use these tools well, and their patches are better for it. The failure mode is not the tool. It is the decoupling of confidence from comprehension. Why detection is the wrong axis A ban sounds like a clean answer, and I understand the appeal. But I am skeptical it can be enforced in a way that means anything. You cannot reliably detect generated code, especially after a human has edited it, and especially for the kind of small idiomatic patch that makes up most of a distribution's traffic. A rule you cannot enforce d

Every so often a post reminds me that the most dangerous line of code in a system is the one that looks like it could not possibly be wrong. This week's version: calling .lower() on a string can be a security vulnerability. If your first reaction is skepticism, mine was too. Lowercasing is the plumbing of programming. We do it to normalize usernames, compare header names, canonicalize domains, and check things against blocklists. It feels like arithmetic. The problem is that case conversion is not a character-by-character mechanical operation. It is a linguistic one, defined by Unicode, and it has behavior that surprises almost everyone who has not been bitten before. Case is not symmetric, and not always local Two examples that break the mental model. Turkish has a dotless i, and correct locale-aware conversion maps between letters differently than English does, which means "the same" string can lowercase into two different results depending on locale settings. And there are characters outside ASCII whose lowercase form is an ASCII character, meaning a string that contains no k at all can become one that does after normalization. Sit with that second one for a moment, because it is the security-relevant shape. If you validate a string, then normalize it, you have validated something that no longer exists. Your check ran against one value and your system acts on another. That is the classic time-of-check versus time-of-use bug, except the mutation is not caused by an attacker racing you. It is caused by your own normalization call, quietly doing what the spec says it should do. I want to be careful not to overstate the specifics here, since the exact behavior depends on language runtime, Unicode version, and locale configuration. The generalizable lesson is what interests me. The pattern to look for in your own code Anywhere a string travels through this sequence, there is potential for trouble: Accept input. Check it against a rule: an allowlist, a blocklist, a com

I read a short argument this week that tooltips need a delay before they appear, and then, once you are obviously working your way along a toolbar, they need to drop that delay entirely. It is a tiny piece of interface behavior. It stayed with me longer than most architecture posts I read this month. Partly because it is correct, and partly because it is not really about tooltips. It is about the fact that timing is something you design, the same way you design spacing or color. Most teams treat it as a leftover. We pick 200ms because it felt fine on a fast laptop. Or we pick zero because zero seems honest. Or we inherit whatever number shipped inside the component library we installed on day one and never revisit it. Then the product feels twitchy or sluggish, and the bug report says "it feels weird," which is the hardest class of bug there is. Two different users living in the same hands What makes the tooltip case interesting is that a single person switches modes mid-interaction. When my cursor is crossing the screen on its way somewhere else, a tooltip that fires instantly is noise. It flashes, it covers content, it makes the interface feel jumpy for no reason. The delay exists to filter accidental passes. But the moment I stop and read one tooltip, I have declared intent. I am now surveying. If the next four icons each make me wait 500ms, the interface is punishing me for exactly the behavior it was trying to encourage. The delay was a filter for accidents, and I stopped having accidents. So the right behavior is stateful: wait at first, then trust me until I leave the neighborhood. That is the whole insight, and it generalizes further than hover states. The same pattern, wearing other clothes Once you see it, this shape is everywhere: Autocomplete that should debounce while you are typing a word, then feel instant once you have paused and are clearly evaluating results. Confirmation dialogs that make sense the first time you delete something and become a wall

A program can produce the right answer and still contain work that does not help it reach that answer. Tests pass, the output looks correct, and unnecessary computations survive because they appear harmless. This becomes easier to miss in AI-generated code. A model can produce a plausible implementation in seconds, but plausible code often includes variables, conversions, or branches that the requirement never asked for. An intent alignment review adds one question to the usual correctness check: Does every instruction help achieve or explain the stated goal? This does not require a formal proof or an exhaustive line-by-line exercise. The useful result can be concise. Correctness and intent Correctness asks whether the observable behavior matches the specification. Intent alignment looks for code that contributes neither behavior nor useful clarity. The goal is not to produce the fewest possible lines. A named constant or helper function can be worthwhile even when the program could run without it. The concern is accidental complexity: code that suggests requirements or design decisions that do not actually exist. AI can help by reading the requirement and implementation together. It can confirm the working behavior, identify unnecessary instructions, and explain whether those instructions are harmful or simply unhelpful. A small Fibonacci example Consider this specification: The function should print to stdout the first hundred elements of the Fibonacci sequence. The phrase "first hundred" does not specify whether the sequence begins with 0, 1 or 1, 1 . For this review, we assume the intended convention begins with 0, 1 and prints one value per line. def print_fibonacci_100 (): a , b = 0 , 1 sequence_limit = 100 display_width = len ( str ( sequence_limit )) for index in range ( sequence_limit ): current_value = int ( a ) print ( current_value ) a , b = b , a + b checkpoint = ( index + 1 ) % 10 == 0 final_pair = ( a , b ) print_fibonacci_100 () Review The implementa

submitted by /u/yui01 [link] [留言]

Follow-up to my post a couple of weeks ago about a 2.5 GB PCAP that took 6-7 hours to process. Streaming tshark's output into Go got it to 70 minutes, but it was still single-threaded. The most common response here was: why not just add goroutines? Turns out you can't, and the reason is that tshark's dissection is linear state. What it reads in one packet determines how it decodes the next — TCP reassembly, connection tracking, anything under tcp.analysis.* reads and updates shared conversation tables as it goes. Strict ordering isn't a design choice, it's what dissection requires. Goroutines on the consuming side don't help because the bottleneck was never there. So the concurrency has to happen before tshark sees the file. Not by splitting on size — a TCP stream cut mid-conversation loses the state the dissector needs — but by session, so each chunk holds complete conversations and nothing crosses a boundary. Then N tshark processes run in parallel. The detour: I was using PcapSplitter from PcapPlusPlus in connection mode, which holds one output file open per flow. At 95-125 flows it started producing corrupted output. Two distinct failure signatures, reproduced on master and v25.05, on both pcapng and legacy pcap. pcapfix said the source was clean. Reimplemented the split in-process with gopacket and it went away. Honest ending: splitting only triggers above 100k packets, and 3 of the 57 files this pipeline actually handles cross that threshold. Full writeup: https://robinhayer.dev/concurrency-without-a-parallel-parser submitted by /u/Hot_Interest_4915 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Swimming_History_432 [link] [留言]

Vibecoding: How to Manage an AI Coder and Not Drown in Spaghetti Code Forget fairy tales about AI doing everything for you at the touch of a button. Without strict control, vibecoding quickly turns into a mess of broken, unmaintainable code. Modern vibecoding isn't blind generation — it is strict architectural supervision . To build real products, you must change your approach to context and redefine your role in the process. Forget Persona Prompting: Context is the Only King of Modern Prompting Fables like "Act as a Senior Developer" were left back in 2023. Modern LLMs don't need roleplay — they need the cleanest, deepest context possible . Why "Persona Prompting" is Outdated AI doesn't start coding better just because you called it a senior dev. It needs concrete technical boundaries. Skip the foreplay and provide the AI with technical specifications: Stack and versions: Not just "React", but React 18, Next.js 14 (App Router), Tailwind CSS . Architectural constraints: Show folder structure, naming conventions, and API response formats. Rule files ( .cursorrules / .clauderules ): Load strict rules into the project that the AI must follow at all times (e.g., "Never use any in TypeScript, write functional components only" ). Humans as Strict Regulators, Not Blind Consumers of Code The biggest danger of vibecoding is shipping AI-generated garbage straight to production without looking. If you blindly consume whatever the AI spits out, your project is doomed. 1. Total Quality Control and Code Review You act as the Technical Regulator and Censor . You never take the AI's word for it. Read every diff : Check exactly what the AI changes. Don't let it rewrite working modules from scratch just to add one button. Don't know how to code? Use basic logic: adding a single button shouldn't make 30 lines of code disappear from main.py or app.js . Force it to justify decisions: If the AI suggests a library, ask: "Why this one over a native solution? Will it impact performance?" 2.

The people who know your AI agent best may be the people least able to see all of its flaws. Not because they are bad engineers. Because they built it. Years ago, when I was taking art classes, my teacher told me something I've never forgotten: “Sara, you can't judge your own art.” I remember thinking, of course I can. 😂 Then she explained. After spending hours looking at the same piece, your eyes get filled with it. You stop seeing what is actually there. You see what you expect to see. I've used that lesson everywhere since. And I think AI agents have the same problem. You designed the requirements. You designed the system. You know why every decision was made. Then you design the evaluation and ask: “Does my agent actually work?” That's where the blind spot can appear. Your evaluation may end up testing the system according to the same assumptions that created it. The evaluator can inherit the system's assumptions Consider a simple requirement: “The agent should answer customer questions accurately.” Seems reasonable. So the team creates an evaluation set with questions that have clear intent and well-defined answers. The agent performs beautifully. 94%. Green dashboard. 🎉 But an external evaluator might ask a different question: What happens when the customer's request has two plausible interpretations? Now you have a different test: “Can I change my billing address?” Does the agent answer immediately? Does it ask which account or address the customer means? Does it make an assumption? The original evaluation may have been technically correct. It just never tested the ambiguity. That is the blind spot. Internal evaluation is still essential This isn't an argument that internal teams shouldn't evaluate their own systems. They absolutely should. The people who built the system understand its requirements, architecture, constraints, tools, and intended behavior better than anyone. That knowledge is extremely valuable when designing evaluations. But it can also crea

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

Your backend framework will outlive your current team. Choose one that the next team can still navigate — here's why .NET has been that framework for Netflix, GitHub, and Stack Overflow for over two decades. Summary Twenty-three years. That's how long .NET has been running in production. Most frameworks from that era got abandoned, forked beyond recognition, or replaced entirely — .NET kept showing up. Netflix still uses it. GitHub uses it. Stack Overflow, which has probably saved more developer careers than any single resource on the internet, runs on ASP.NET. None of these teams are using it out of inertia. They're using it because it works under conditions that expose every weakness in a poorly designed system. This article gets into how .NET actually works, what it gives teams day-to-day, and whether it makes sense for what you're building now. Key Takeaways: One codebase, five platforms — Windows, macOS, Linux, Android, iOS. No rewrites, no platform-specific forks. Three languages, one project — C#, F#, and Visual Basic coexist without forcing a rewrite. The performance tooling ships with it — JIT compiler, AOT compiler, CLR memory management, Garbage Collector. All out of the box. Why Is .NET Still Around? Honestly, this question is worth sitting with for a second — because in software, most things don't survive twenty years. They solve the problem of the moment, get widely adopted before anyone finds the sharp edges, and then get quietly replaced when something newer comes along and the migration pain seems worth it. .NET didn't go that way. Some of that is Microsoft backing — resources, long-term support commitments, a developer community that doesn't dissolve when priorities shift. But backing alone doesn't explain it. Plenty of well-resourced frameworks have died. What actually kept .NET alive is that the foundational architecture held up. The cross-platform capability wasn't duct-taped on in 2020 because everyone suddenly cared about Linux. It was in the