标签：#ai

Every patient in the public tour of my care platform is a computer science pioneer. Ada Lovelace has a pain score. Alan Turing is due for a check-in. And every one of them has a patient ID no real system could ever issue, an ID that is wrong the way a date in month thirteen is wrong. None of this is an accident. It is the most useful compliance idea I have had this year. A good fake is a liability Here is the problem with realistic demo data. Under HIPAA, nobody can tell a well-made fake from the real thing by looking. A screenshot of a fake patient named John Smith with a plausible ID looks exactly like a screenshot of a real one. So when that image turns up in a deck, or a tweet, or a forwarded email, someone has to prove it is clean. And the only way to prove it is to go back to the database and show the record does not exist. That is an audit. Every plausible fake carries a future audit inside it. So a good fake does not reduce your risk. It just moves it. The better the fake looks, the more it costs to prove it is one. The safety of a fake is not in how real it looks. It is in how obviously fake it is. A plausible fake needs an audit to clear it. An impossible fake clears itself. The fix is to stop making fakes plausible and start making them impossible. A patient named Grace Hopper with an ID that breaks the format on sight cannot be a real record. Anyone can check that from the pixels alone. No lookup, no audit trail, no meeting. Zero pixels The public showcase at clearpathcare.ai contains zero pixels from the production console. Every screen is a React recreation, rebuilt by hand to look like the product without ever touching it. What broke: An early draft of the marketing screens started as console screenshots with seeded test patients: realistic names, realistic IDs. Then I asked one question the images could not answer: prove there is no real record in this frame. I could not. So I deleted every screenshot and rebuilt the screens from scratch. The rebuilt

I remember when coding interviews happened at a whiteboard, no computer, no internet, just a marker and whatever you could hold in your head. When AI tools arrived, using one in an interview was the red flag. Now the red flag is the candidate who doesn't use AI enough. In about two years, the same tool went from forbidden to expected. And it only gets faster. Every few months another wave rolls in, a model out of some lab, a tool that does something it couldn't last year, and it resets what counts as normal. You ride it, or you let it break over you. Plenty of people imagine a third option, waiting on the beach with their arms crossed until the water goes calm, but the water never goes calm, and it was never going to wait for them. all in I've decided to ride it, in the most literal way I have. All of my code is written by AI now (is it mine at this point?), and somewhere along the way I stopped treating that as a threat to be managed and started treating it as leverage to be spent. I know the engineers who went the other way, who made a personality out of dismissing the tools, and the tools got better anyway while they just fell further behind. Going all in wasn't one decision; it's one I make again every few weeks. A better model ships, and I rebuild a working agent on top of it instead of staying on the old version, because the result comes out better and cheaper. Relying on older models would have been easier, and most people do. Riding means doing that over and over, long after the novelty wears off. I get why people stop trying to keep up. The volume is genuinely insane, more launches in a week than you could try in a month, and it isn't only engineers feeling it now, it's anyone whose work runs on a keyboard. People are overwhelmed and often giving up. But you don't have to keep up with everything; you just can't ignore it all. keep the thinking It means handing a lot of work to AI, and I hand over more every month. It writes code, drafts the first version of

Capture the ringleader first. The rest will scatter on their own. — The 36 Stratagems, Capture the...

Th Honda Prologue will no longer be sold in the U.S., joining a growing list of EV models to exit the market this year.

The Department of Justice says that federal employees can now download TikTok on their government devices.

There is a note in my runbooks that says the Enter key works. That is almost the whole note. Press Enter and the prompt submits. I wrote it in bold, with sources and a date, because one of my AI agents once fixed the Enter key. The fix was the bug. The Fix Was the Bug I run a fleet of Claude Code agents in tmux panes. An orchestrator script types a prompt into a pane and presses Enter for it. One day an agent decided the submissions were not going through, and it knew the fix: send a backslash before the Enter. That sounds plausible if you have ever fought a terminal. It is also exactly backwards. In Claude Code, backslash plus Enter inserts a newline. It is the multiline key. So the fix turned every prompt into a draft that quietly grew longer and never sent. The panes looked busy. Nothing was happening. The submissions had been fine all along. The agent just had not waited for the reply. What broke: An agent changed Enter to backslash-Enter to repair prompt submission. Backslash-Enter creates a newline, so the repair silently stopped every prompt from sending. The system it fixed had never been broken. There is a second note in the same genre. My monitoring dashboard answers its health check with a 302 redirect to the login page. That is what healthy looks like there. But a 302 looks like trouble if you are hunting for outages, and agents kept trying to repair it. So the runbook now says, more or less: the redirect is normal, do not fix the healthy system. Human teams do not write notes like these. Nobody pins "the Enter key works" to the wall of an office. A New Hire Every Session Why did I have to? Because a human hits a dead end once. The wince is the documentation. Whoever broke a build by fixing the Enter key would remember it for years, tell the story at lunch, and the whole team would absorb it without anyone writing a word. An agent has none of that. It has no episodic memory. Every fresh context window is a new hire: smart, fast, and seeing your system fo

Most AI assistants forget everything after each session. Memoria remembers, forgets, and evolves—extracting personal facts, resolving contradictions, and reflecting on what it knows. This post shares the journey of building a production‑ready MemoryAgent for the Qwen Cloud Hackathon, Track 1 . Inspiration Every conversation with a typical chatbot starts from zero. You tell it you're allergic to peanuts on Monday, and by Wednesday it recommends pad thai with crushed peanuts. The model doesn't forget; it never had long‑term memory in the first place. Without durable knowledge about who you are, real personalisation is impossible. We built Memoria to solve that problem: a personal AI with human‑like memory that remembers what matters, forgets what fades, resolves contradictions, and evolves its understanding of you over time. Real memory isn't a bigger context window—it's extraction, prioritisation, decay, consolidation, and reflection. The hackathon challenged us to deliver a memory‑efficient, production‑grade MemoryAgent, and we built one from the ground up on Alibaba Cloud. What Memoria does Memoria organises knowledge in three deliberate tiers: Session Memory (Redis) – the last 10 messages of the active chat. Personal Memory (PostgreSQL 16 + pgvector) – user‑centric facts embedded with text-embedding-v3 , ranked by hybrid scoring, and subject to decay, consolidation, and conflict resolution. Context Archive – full transcripts stored for on‑demand search, never polluting routine retrieval. Other key features: Autonomous memory lifecycle : daily decay, weekly consolidation, and background reflection. Personal Intelligence toggle : global memory access vs. session‑only. Memory‑Less incognito mode : no memory reads or writes. MCP skills server : exposes get_core_memories , get_user_preferences , forget_memory , and strengthen_memory to any Qwen agent. Conflict detection & versioning : contradictory facts are automatically flagged and superseded. Persona customisation :

If your team has ever spent 20 minutes on a pull request arguing about brace placement instead of the actual bug, welcome to the club. StyleCop was the tool to keep C# codebases from turning into everyone's personal-style soup. It did its job. But it's also old, slow, and wasn't built for a world where half your codebase might be vibe coded. The good news: .NET now ships with everything you need to enforce style natively, faster, and without an extra NuGet package. This post walks through why the old approach creaks under modern workloads, and gives you a copy-pasteable migration plan to fix it. Table of Contents The Real Cost of Style Debates Quick Refresher: What Is StyleCop? Do We Even Need Linters Now That AI Writes Code? The Problem With StyleCop: It's Slow The Modern Toolbox The 3 Layer Guardrail Strategy Step by Step Migration Guide Before and After Seeing It In Action Key Takeaways Wrapping Up The Real Cost of Style Debates Nobody has ever gotten a promotion for winning a tabs-vs-spaces argument. Yet these debates eat real time: PR bikeshedding ,reviewers nitpick spacing instead of catching actual logic bugs. Noisy git diffs ,one developer's auto-formatter touches 300 lines to fix a 3-line bug. Cognitive overhead ,jumping between services that each "feel" different slows everyone down. A linter's whole job is to make these arguments boring and automatic, so humans can focus on things that actually matter,like whether the code works . Quick Refresher: What Is StyleCop? StyleCop (and its Roslyn-based version, StyleCop.Analyzers ) is a static analysis tool that checks the visual grammar of your C# code,not bugs, not security holes, just style: Are public members documented? Are namespaces organized consistently? Do braces follow the "approved" pattern? It's not checking if your code is correct . It's checking if your code looks correct. Do We Even Need Linters Now That AI Writes Code? Short answer: yes, more than ever. AI coding assistants (Copilot, Cursor, and

A few months ago, I was searching for a backend engineering job. Every day looked the same: Open LinkedIn Open Naukri Search for Python jobs Open dozens of tabs Read every job description Apply Repeat The frustrating part wasn't finding jobs. It was finding the right jobs . I kept getting recommendations for roles that technically matched my resume because they contained words like Python , Backend , or API , but after reading the description I'd realize they wanted a completely different skill set. I started wondering: Why are job boards still matching keywords instead of understanding what a developer actually knows? That question eventually turned into a side project called Jobspiq . The Problem Imagine these two jobs: Job A Python FastAPI PostgreSQL Redis Job B Java Spring Boot Oracle Kafka Both are "Backend Engineer" roles. A keyword-based system often treats them as similar. As developers, we know they're not. What I Built Instead of matching keywords, I built a system that compares a developer's profile with a job description to understand how well they actually fit. The platform: Collects jobs from multiple sources. Removes duplicate postings. Scores every job based on how closely it matches your profile. Sends alerts only for high-quality matches. Helps track applications in one place. The goal isn't to show more jobs. It's to show fewer, better ones. What I Learned Building the product taught me something interesting. Writing the software was the easier part. Helping people discover it is much harder. That's why I'm starting to build in public and share what I'm learning along the way. If you've ever built search systems, recommendation engines, or developer tools, I'd love to hear your thoughts. You can check out the project here: https://jobspiq.in Feedback is always welcome.

Carter Sherman has been covering sex, gender, and the complex personal and national politics that accompany them for years. She was a senior reporter for Vice and has written for Elle, Ms. magazine, and Los Angeles magazine as well. Along the way, she's garnered a Scripps Howard Award, a National Press Club Journalism Award, and […]

Every team I've worked with has a version of the same Slack message. Someone posts a PR link, adds a...

I run a scheduled agent that writes and publishes DEV.to articles twice a day. Step 5 of its instructions has always said the same thing: write the log entry, commit the drafts, push. I've read that line a dozen times without questioning it. This morning I actually checked what "commit the drafts" had been doing for the last month, across more than thirty published articles. The answer: nothing. Not once. the check that should have happened on day one The task instructions reference source files like drafts/scheduled-agent-shared-quota-no-memory.md and drafts/one-env-key-two-usernames.md in every log entry — real filenames, written by the agent, presumably sitting in the repo as a record of what was drafted before it got published. I went looking for one of them: $ git log --all -- drafts/ $ # (nothing) Empty. Not "one commit, then deleted later" — completely absent from git history since the very first commit in this repo. Every single run that logged "committed drafts + the log" had, in fact, only ever committed the log. why git let this happen silently .gitignore in this repo has listed drafts/ since the initial commit: . env __ pycache__ / *. pyc codes / drafts / . omc / . claude / CLAUDE . md That line predates the scheduled publishing task entirely — it was almost certainly written back when drafts were just scratch files someone edited by hand before a publish script existed. Nobody revisited it when the publishing task's instructions later started saying "commit the drafts." The instruction and the ignore rule have been quietly contradicting each other since before either was written by the same person in the same sitting. Here's what actually happens when a script (or an agent) runs git add drafts/whatever.md in this repo: $ git add drafts/gitignore-ate-my-drafts-folder.md The following paths are ignored by one of your .gitignore files: drafts hint: Use -f if you really want to add them. hint: Turn this message off by running hint: "git config advice.addIgn

What launched Stashr started as an invite-only waitlist, then opened up as a free public beta . Today it leaves beta for good. That means three things: It's a finished product, not a preview. Everything the beta promised as "coming next" is live: AI tagging, meaning-based search across your media, and a full agent stack. Nothing on this page is a maybe. Pricing is real. Stashr is now a paid app with a 7-day free trial and no permanent free tier. More on the plans below. It's stable. Thousands of saves, big bulk imports, deleted-post edge cases, and the weird stuff you all threw at it during beta are handled. Thank you for breaking it. It's much sturdier for it. If you're new here, the fastest way in is to [create an account(/signup), install the browser extension , and keep saving the way you already do. What Stashr actually is In one line: it's a capture-first bookmark manager. The moment you save something on any platform, Stashr copies the full post into a private library that's genuinely yours, then tags it and makes it searchable in plain English. That "copy" part is the whole point. A normal bookmark is just a pointer at someone else's servers. The day the author deletes the post, goes private, or gets suspended, your save resolves to nothing. Stashr keeps a real copy, so what you saved is still there months later even when the original is gone. If you've ever wondered where your saved posts actually go or watched your links quietly rot into 404s , that's the gap this closes. It works in three moves: Capture A browser extension watches for saves on the platforms you already use. Bookmark on X , favorite on TikTok , save on Reddit , tap the ribbon on Instagram , exactly as you always have, and the full post lands in Stashr automatically. You don't change a single habit. A bulk import pulls in the backlog you already built too. Organize Every save is read and auto-tagged by AI on the way in, so the filing happens for you. No folders to babysit, no tagging discip

As a developer, I got a bit scared and fed-up of blindly merging massive pull requests and losing context on my own codebase, so I built FluencyLoop . https://github.com/baokhang83/fluencyloop It is an open-source, local-first workflow plugin for Claude Code and Codex that ensures your code and your codebase fluency are produced together. Instead of letting an agent dump raw code, it tracks your technical familiarity locally and pauses to explain complex architectural choices or rejected alternatives only on topics you do not know yet. It also produces documentation and tracks the decisions it makes along the way. Try it out ! It feels really good to get the AI caring for my understanding 🤣

A closer look at why companies like EvenUp are difficult to compete with, and what this means for the future of AI-powered legal technology. Introduction A few weeks ago, I went down a rabbit hole trying to understand how EvenUp built one of the most successful AI products in personal injury law. Like many people, I assumed the competitive advantage would come from a proprietary large language model, sophisticated prompt engineering, or some secret AI architecture hidden behind the scenes. Instead, I found something much less glamorous—but far more valuable. There is no magical prompt. There is no proprietary model that nobody else can build. The real competitive advantage is data. Hundreds of thousands of real personal injury cases. Millions of medical records. Actual settlement outcomes connected to real case facts. Years of attorney corrections, paralegal feedback, negotiations, settlements, and litigation outcomes—all continuously improving the system. Once you realize this, you begin to see the same pattern across almost every successful vertical AI company. The model is rarely the moat. The data is. Why "AI for X" is mostly noise right now Today, almost every industry has dozens of startups claiming to build: AI for law firms AI for healthcare AI for accounting AI for insurance AI for real estate Scratch beneath the surface, however, and many of these companies are built on the same foundation: GPT Claude Gemini Llama The underlying model changes every few months. The interface changes. The branding changes. The product positioning changes. But underneath, many products are simply orchestration layers around publicly available foundation models. That isn't inherently bad. Good user experience matters. Workflow automation matters. Tool integrations matter. But none of those create a durable competitive advantage. Anyone with API access, a competent engineering team, and enough time can recreate that layer. What they cannot recreate overnight is years of proprie

📓 Stop Memorizing English — I Built an AI App That Actually Works ⚡ The Hook You try to learn English. You memorize words. And then… you forget them. 🧠 The Real Problem Most people learn English the wrong way: memorizing random word lists switching between apps and dictionaries learning without context That’s why nothing sticks. 🚀 The Idea What if learning English felt like this: 👉 You read something interesting 👉 You click a word you don’t know 👉 You instantly understand it No interruptions. No friction. ✨ Introducing: English Notebook A modern AI-powered app where you learn English by interacting with real content . generate stories click unknown words build vocabulary automatically 🤖 Generate Stories Based on Your Level This is one of the most powerful features. You choose your level: A1 → Beginner A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 → Advanced And the app generates a custom story just for you . 🖼️ Story Generator 📖 Learn by Clicking Words No more: copy-pasting opening dictionary tabs losing focus Just click any word: definition translation (your language 🌍) example sentences 🖼️ Word Interaction 📚 Smart Vocabulary Notebook Every word you click: 👉 automatically saved 👉 turned into a flashcard You can: review anytime mark as mastered ✅ 🖼️ Vocabulary Notebook 📊 Track Your Progress (Game Changer) This is where things get serious. You don’t just learn — you measure your growth . Dashboard shows: total words learned active vs mastered words daily streak 14-day activity trend 🖼️ Dashboard What gets measured gets improved. 🕘 Nothing Gets Lost (History System) Every story you generate is saved. You can: revisit old stories continue reading anytime track your learning journey 🖼️ History 🔊 Learn with Audio listen to stories follow highlighted words improve pronunciation naturally 🌍 Multi-Language Support You can choose your translation language: Persian 🇮🇷 Arabic Spanish Hindi and more 🎯 Why This App Is Different Most apps: ❌ force memorization ❌ feel like school ❌ break your focus English Note

A follow-up to Part 1: the self-recall thesis — the series runs through Part 6 . Code: RE-call — everything below is measured and reproducible ( make eval ), full study in docs/ENTAILMENT_SUPERSESSION_STUDY.md . I published a thesis post about agent memory and got five comments that were better than the post. Two of them didn't just critique the design — they described, precisely, why it would fail and what would fix it. So I did the only reasonable thing: I turned both into experiments, ran them on the same eval harness the series is built on, and shipped what survived. That's RE-call v0.3 , and this post is the receipt. I want to be explicit about why I'm writing it this way. The point of publishing this series was never broadcast — it was error-correction . A design you keep in a drawer accumulates conviction; a design you publish accumulates objections , and objections are the cheapest high-quality signal you will ever get. The comment section of Part 1 did more for this codebase than any week of solo iteration. This post exists to pay that back with the thing commenters almost never receive: evidence that someone listened, measured, and changed the code. Comment 1: "A similarity score is not a confidence score" Vinicius Pereira put it in one line I've been quoting since: Proximity is a candidate; entailment is the evidence. His argument: the near-misses that hurt most are high-similarity and wrong — memos semantically adjacent to the query that don't answer it. A threshold-based gap_warning (Part 3, Part 5) waves them straight through by construction , because their similarity clears any threshold you could calibrate. The abstention signal cannot be the retriever's own score. You need a separate check that the retrieved memo actually entails an answer. He was right, and measurably so. I built a held-out challenge set of 10 near-miss queries — each names a strongly on-topic memo that does not contain the asked-for fact ("how much did the cache reduce memory usag

Part 6 (finale) of Retrieval-Augmented Self-Recall. Code: RE-call . Part 5: the gap threshold that didn't transfer . I fine-tuned the embedder on my own domain expecting a win. I measured it properly, on held-out queries. The improvement was exactly zero. Δ+0.00 MRR. Δ+0.00 nDCG@10. Not "small". Not "within noise". Zero. It's also the result I wanted, which takes some explaining. That's the first half of this post. The second half is how the whole engine ships, so an agent can actually use it. The fine-tune that did nothing After Part 5, the natural next question: if calibrating the threshold helps, would a better embedding help more? So I fine-tuned one on my domain. The setup: all-MiniLM-L6-v2 , OnlineContrastiveLoss on query/gold-chunk pairs, trained on the 14-document corpus. The result: Model Test MRR Test nDCG@10 Base 1.00 1.00 + Fine-tuned 1.00 1.00 Δ +0.00 +0.00 Zero lift. And that is the correct outcome, not a failed experiment. Here's the reasoning, because it's the whole point. The base model already scores a perfect MRR and nDCG@10 on this corpus. There is no headroom left to recover. The only ways to manufacture a "gain" from here would be dishonest ones: evaluate on the training set (and measure memorization, not retrieval), or artificially cripple the baseline so fine-tuning has something to fix. Reporting +0.00 is the honest read, and the honest read is that off-the-shelf embeddings already saturate this corpus. But the full result is more nuanced, and more useful. On a harder , opaque-jargon corpus — one where the base model genuinely struggles to map queries to the right chunks — the same fine-tuning gave +0.24 MRR . So the real conclusion isn't "fine-tuning doesn't work." It's: Fine-tuning helps when the base model doesn't already cover your vocabulary. When it does, you get nothing. Know which regime you're in before you spend the GPU hours. That's the value of a null result. "+0.00" told me my corpus was already well-covered by a general-purpose

Hi, friends! Welcome to Installer No. 136, your guide to the best and Verge-iest stuff in the world. (If you're new here, welcome, hope your neighborhood isn't as smoky as mine, and also you can read all the old editions at the Installer homepage.) This week, I've been recording the next season of Version History […]

It's been a good few weeks for games on rails. Nintendo's Star Fox remake wisely kept the tightly scripted, action-packed levels from Star Fox 64 largely the same, and they're still fun to fly through nearly 20 years later. Denshattack!, a new game from Undercoders, similarly features levels packed with carefully orchestrated sequences to great […]