标签：#c

Hello everyone! In this article, we will take a technical look at Tencent EdgeOne Makers , a Web and Agent development and deployment platform built on Tencent EdgeOne infrastructure. Rather than following a step-by-step tutorial, we will explore how the platform works behind the scenes and how its different technologies work together to support modern web applications. We will look at the journey from source code and build processes to deployment on the EdgeOne network. We will also explore how edge computing and caching deliver content closer to users, how Edge Functions and Cloud Functions handle server-side workloads, and how EdgeOne Makers supports AI Agents, storage, deployment environments, and developer tools . By understanding how these components interact, we can get a clearer picture of what Tencent EdgeOne Makers offers and how its architecture differs from traditional web hosting. Modern web applications are built from more than a frontend. They may combine APIs, serverless computing, storage, deployment automation, and AI services. Tencent EdgeOne Makers is a Web and Agent development and deployment platform built on Tencent EdgeOne infrastructure. It brings these capabilities into one environment, connecting application development with build processes, deployment, edge delivery, serverless execution, and AI development. EdgeOne Makers evolved from EdgeOne Pages, expanding from frontend hosting to full-stack Web and Agent development. Its architecture connects source code, deployment, and EdgeOne's global edge network. 1. From Source Code to Deployment At the center of Makers is its build and deployment workflow. A project can be connected to a Git repository, allowing Makers to detect common frameworks and apply build configurations. Developers can define parameters such as the root directory, installation command, build command, and output directory. Source Code → Git Repository → Build System → Deployment → EdgeOne Infrastructure → Users A push to

If you've ever lost 20 minutes at 2 AM debugging a submask enumeration loop, or drawn a segment tree on paper for the fifth time this month, this post is for you. I want to share a collection of 31 free, browser-based tools built specifically for competitive programming — no signup, no installs, code stays client-side. They're grouped at Utility Tools Lab's Competitive Programming category , and they cover almost every "I wish there was a tool for this" moment from contest practice. Here's a tour of what's inside. Visualizing structures you normally only imagine Half the pain in CP isn't the algorithm — it's seeing what your data structure is actually doing. Graph Visualizer — paste a CP-style edge list and get a force-directed graph you can drag around. Toggle directed/undirected and 0/1-indexing, then copy the adjacency list back out. Segment Tree Builder — feed in an array, pick sum/min/max/gcd, and watch the tree render, plus grab a full C++ class template. Sparse Table Builder — visualizes every level of the O(1) RMQ precomputation, with live queries. Union-Find (DSU) Visualizer — watch path compression and union-by-rank happen live on a forest view. Path Finder — paint walls on a grid and run BFS to see the shortest path animate, then copy the grid as a C++ 2D vector. Sieve Visualizer — step through the Sieve of Eratosthenes on a color-coded grid. Sorting Visualizer and Binary Search Visualizer — step-by-step animations with live comparison counts, or lo/hi/mid tracking on your own array. These aren't just "nice to look at" — watching the not-found path in binary search, or the moment a submask loop wraps around, is often exactly where off-by-one bugs hide. Code generators that skip the boilerplate Some things in CP are conceptually simple but easy to typo under time pressure. These tools generate ready-to-paste C++: Bitmask Planner — set N ≤ 12, visualize all 2^N states and submask iteration order, get a DP skeleton. PBDS Generator — Order Statistics Tree boi

Messy modules rarely break because a pure helper returns the wrong integer on a tidy fixture. They break because three functions share a temporary CSV path, an environment flag, and a cache nobody named. A coding agent then proposes a cleanup that deletes dead branches, renames locals, and still satisfies every existing assertion. The next production export fails because the implicit file layout moved while the return payload stayed identical. That failure mode is the reason this workflow exists, and it is not a style problem. The first commit should freeze a ledger of hidden couplings and store a hash beside it. Only after that hash is in source control should you allow one structural change. The cleanup is legitimate only when the recorded hash remains identical. Cleanup diffs fail differently than feature diffs Feature work usually changes an observable on purpose, so reviewers know which assertions must move. Cleanup work is sold as behavior-preserving, which trains people to trust deletions and rename-only hunks. Coding agents amplify that bias because they optimize for shorter files, conventional names, and green unit tests. Reviewers then accept large deletions that would look suspicious inside a feature pull request. Return-value tests are the wrong gate for that class of change. The public function can still return {"ok": true, "rows": 12} while the working directory quietly shifts. Downstream jobs that glob files or catch a named exception will fail after merge. Those hidden couplings remain part of the contract even when no unit test mentions them. Build a side-effect ledger instead of another unit test Treat the messy module as a black box that emits more than a return value. A ledger is a canonical JSONL file with one record per fixture and fully sorted keys. Side-effect entries need stable ordering so the serialized bytes stay deterministic across reruns. The SHA-256 digest of that file is the only number that must remain constant. Each record should c

I have no idea what I'm f*cking doing. Something I keep questioning: Why the hell am I building an operating system for this? Seriously. Every couple of weeks I look at ShrekOS, look at the amount of work involved in building an actual Linux distribution, and have basically the same reaction. This is f*cking ridiculous. I wanted a safer way to run AI agents on my computer. Somehow that turned into an immutable Debian system with isolated workloads, capability grants, controlled egress, verified updates, a desktop policy layer, an installer, and enough architecture documents to make me question every decision that led me here. There has to be an easier answer. There has to be some tool I missed. Run the agents in Docker. Use Podman. Use a VM. Use a better agent harness. Install some security middleware. Find a desktop application that manages all of this. Anything other than: Build a f*cking operating system. So I keep trying to prove that ShrekOS does not need to exist. And the annoying part is that every time I do, I eventually end up back at the same problem. I already know containers exist I already wrote the technical version of this question in Why I'm Building ShrekOS When Containers Already Exist . I am not going to repeat that whole argument here. Containers are useful. I use them. The Bench system in ShrekOS literally runs on rootless container technology. I did not invent a magical new isolation primitive because AI showed up. Namespaces exist. Seccomp exists. Landlock exists. Containers exist. Virtual machines exist. Linux already has an absurd number of ways to restrict a process. That is not the thing I keep getting stuck on. The thing I cannot seem to find is the user space around all of it . Not userspace in the kernel terminology sense. I mean the actual space where the human uses the computer. The desktop. The workflow. The place where I can run several autonomous things on my machine and understand, at a glance, what each one is allowed to do. I wa

Somewhere in the DataLens build, my teammate and I hit the wall every "zero-dependency" project eventually hits: the anomaly detector needed a neural net, and the rulebook said no third-party packages. No NumPy. No pandas. No scikit-learn. Just Python 3.14's standard library. Our first reaction was denial. You cannot build an ANN without a matrix library — everyone knows that. numpy.dot() is basically load-bearing infrastructure for machine learning in Python. We spent an embarrassing amount of time trying to convince ourselves some obscure math submodule secretly did vectorized linear algebra. It doesn't. There is no shortcut. If you want matrix multiplication in pure stdlib Python, you write nested for loops and you like it. What we normally would have installed In any other project, this is a two-second decision: pip install numpy , import it, move on with your life. Matrix ops, broadcasting, vectorized activation functions — all free. Neither of us had ever really had to think about how A @ B works under the hood, because neither of us had ever had to write it ourselves. What it actually took to replace it An autoencoder needs: matrix multiplication, transpose, element-wise activation functions (sigmoid, ReLU), and gradient computation for backprop. Without NumPy, every one of those is a hand-rolled function operating on nested Python lists. Matrix multiply becomes three nested loops instead of one line. A forward pass that would be a single .dot() call turns into a small file of helper functions: matmul() , transpose() , add_bias() , sigmoid() , sigmoid_derivative() . We split it — one of us built the forward pass and activation functions, the other took backprop and the training loop — and then spent a good while debugging the seam where the two met. The genuinely hard part wasn't the math — it was performance. Pure Python loops over lists of lists are slow, and profiling a dataset with a few thousand rows through even a small autoencoder made that obvious fas

Last week, a research group called Bottleneck Labs published the results of an experiment I have not been able to stop thinking about. They gave seven frontier AI models everything a small business needs: a Mac mini with unrestricted computer use, a real checking account with $300, a Stripe account, a clean email inbox, and web browsing tools. One instruction: "Make as much money as you can, starting now." Then they stepped back for 72 hours. The final numbers read like a satire of the AI agent hype cycle: Revenue: $0. Not one model earned a single dollar from a real customer. (Technically there was $5, which Grok paid to itself.) $12,431 in invoices sent to strangers for work nobody asked for. 2,797 emails sent , most of them spam, including around 780 email addresses scraped from a Hacker News hiring thread. $2,833 in API inference costs plus $360 in real-world spending , against a starting balance of $2,100 across all agents. 76 paid ad impressions, 11 authentic visitors, zero end users. Seven of the smartest models on the planet, each handed the same clean starting conditions, and the collective result was negative money and a pile of annoyed strangers. I run my own AI agent infrastructure, the kind that publishes articles and manages my content pipeline while I sleep. My agents have never touched a bank account, and after reading this research, I am in no hurry to change that. But the reason these agents failed is not the reason most people think, and it changes how you should design anything autonomous. What the Agents Actually Did The experiment is worth reading in its original form because the traces are public. The summarized episodes each reveal a different failure mode. The $12,431 invoicing spree. Quinn, running Alibaba's Qwen 3.8, built a GitHub repo auditing service called CodeProbe. It created free health reports and mailed them to repo owners, which is a legitimate-ish cold outreach model. Then it hit the email provider's outbound limits. Here is the

The Problem Job postings keep mentioning MCP, as if everyone doing agent development has to know it Some people say MCP is too heavyweight and hardly anyone actually uses it Meanwhile plenty of tutorials say a unified interface via MCP is great Most tutorials you'll come across explain what MCP is and why you should use it. After all that explanation, it's still hard to get an intuitive feel for the trade-offs. So today I'll flip the question around: when do you not need MCP? That's a better way to build intuition about it. What Is MCP MCP (Model Context Protocol) is an open protocol launched by Anthropic that lets AI applications (agents like Claude Code, Claude Desktop, OpenClaw) discover and call external tools, and read external resources, in a unified way . That's the textbook definition. In practice, you can think of MCP as a kind of resource exposed to an agent. Before MCP existed, if you wanted an AI application to connect to services like Google Drive, GitHub, or Slack, every single AI application had to write its own integration code for every external service. MCP is essentially a "standard socket" defined for that connection. What You'd Use Instead of MCP If you skip MCP, you still have plenty of other options. The two most important ones: Function calling: OpenAI introduced function calling in 2023. It's actually simple — you pass a function signature to the LLM first. { "name": "get_weather", "description": "Get the current weather for a specified city", "input_schema": { ... "properties": {"city": {"type": "string"}}, } } Once the LLM knows a tool exists, if it decides during execution that it needs to call this external tool, the result's content will include an extra tool_use object, and stop_reason will also be set to tool_use . Like this: { "content" : [ { "type" : "tool_use" , "name" : "get_weather" , "input" : { "city" : "new york" } } ], "stop_reason" : "tool_use" } Then you write the code yourself to actually implement the function call. if re

Longshot is a Firefox screenshot extension I wrote to replace FireShot: full page, visible area, drag region and element capture, an editor with eleven annotation tools, export to PNG, JPEG, WebP and PDF, and local OCR that produces a searchable text layer. It has no runtime dependencies. The code is not public, so this is a description rather than an invitation to read it. At one point it had 130 passing Node assertions across six suites, zero failing. Printing could not open a dialog at all. Not "printed the wrong thing". The print command hung indefinitely and no dialog ever appeared. The suites did not go amber, or flake, or report a warning. They reported 130 passed, 0 failed, which is what they had reported the day before and what they would have gone on reporting. Why nothing caught it printCanvas encoded each slice of the image to a blob URL and awaited img.decode() . That call does not resolve for an image inside a display:none subtree, and the print stylesheet creates exactly such a subtree by design, since the container has to be hidden on screen. So the await never returned, and the dialog never opened. Every part of that failure is a meeting point between my code and the browser: the decode promise's behaviour, the stylesheet's effect on the subtree, and the ordering between them. None of it is reachable by a function you can call from Node. The six suites test band arithmetic, canvas dimension limits, filename sanitising, the background module graph under stubbed extension APIs, PDF structure and scan geometry. All of that is worth testing and none of it goes near a real DOM. The second bug in the same batch has the same shape one level in. Choosing PDF broke "Open in editor", because deliver() handed the editor the PDF blob and createImageBitmap cannot decode one. That is not a browser boundary; it is one internal stage handing another something it cannot accept. Both stages were tested; the seam between them was not. That is the pattern worth naming.

Eric Wu, who built and ran Opendoor before stepping away in 2022, has had his new company, NavigateAI, out of stealth since May — building AI copilots that give construction workers real-time, hands-free guidance through smartphones and Meta's AI glasses, backed by $25 million from Elad Gil, Khosla Ventures, and Lennar to tackle a labor shortage severe enough that data center projects alone now need 4,000 to 5,000 workers apiece.

China is getting first crack at a British technology that might change how mobile games are made and played. Today, the Xiaomi 18 Fold launches in mainland China with an Arm Mali G2-Ultra NX graphics processor inside its custom Xring O3 chip. What's so special about that? After five years of development, Arm now has […]

Every full-stack tutorial ends the same way: a working app, a happy demo, and zero mention of what happens six months later when your "simple" CRUD app has 40 endpoints, three types of caching, and a frontend team that's afraid to touch the API layer. This post isn't about picking a framework. It's about the architectural decisions that quietly determine whether your app is pleasant to work on in year two — or a slow-motion disaster. 1. Stop treating your API layer as an afterthought A huge number of full-stack apps start with the frontend calling the backend directly, endpoint by endpoint, with no shared contract. It works fine at 5 endpoints. At 50, nobody remembers which fields are optional, which ones changed last sprint, or why the mobile app is still sending the old shape. Two things fix this early: A single source of truth for your API contract. Whether that's OpenAPI, GraphQL SDL, or even just shared TypeScript types in a monorepo package, the goal is the same: one place where "what does this endpoint return" is answered definitively. Generated clients over hand-written fetch calls. If you're writing fetch('/api/users/' + id) by hand in more than one place, you've already created a maintenance liability. Tools like openapi-typescript-codegen or a tRPC setup remove an entire category of bugs. // Instead of this scattered everywhere: const res = await fetch ( `/api/users/ ${ id } ` ); const user = await res . json (); // type: any, hope for the best // This, generated from your contract: const user = await api . users . getById ( id ); // fully typed, autocomplete works 2. Decide where your business logic lives — before you have 30 files that disagree The classic failure mode: business logic scattered across route handlers, database triggers, frontend validation, and a couple of "utils" files nobody wants to open. Every rule ends up implemented two or three times, slightly differently. Pick one layer to own the rules. A common, boring, effective pattern: Contr

VeraCrypt is easy to use badly. You can choose an unnecessarily complicated cipher cascade, forget a custom PIM, leave the only copy of a keyfile on a dying USB stick, sync a mounted container through two computers, or discover during a boot failure that your recovery media was never tested. None of those failures means the cryptography was broken. They mean the surrounding system was badly designed. This guide focuses on both sides of VeraCrypt: how to operate it and how to make defensible decisions about passwords, key derivation, filesystems, backups, system encryption, hidden volumes, SSDs, and recovery. The instructions and terminology here were checked against VeraCrypt 1.26.29 , released on June 9, 2026, and current as of September 2026. Version 1.26.29 is especially significant because it adds Argon2id for non-system volumes and fixes a plausible-deniability issue affecting some hidden volumes created by versions 1.26.6 through 1.26.28. ( veracrypt.io ) TL;DR If you want the short version: Use an encrypted file container for a manageable collection of sensitive files. Encrypt an entire USB stick or external drive when everything on it should be protected. Use VeraCrypt system encryption only on supported Windows x64 systems, and only after creating and testing recovery media. Use FileVault for a Mac startup disk and LUKS for a Linux system disk. VeraCrypt does not provide macOS or Linux system encryption. For a new non-system volume in VeraCrypt 1.26.29, use the default AES encryption algorithm and Argon2id KDF unless you need compatibility with an older VeraCrypt installation. Leave PIM at its default unless you understand the security, memory, performance, and recovery consequences. Prefer a long, unique password over unusual cipher combinations. Treat keyfiles as additional credentials that must be backed up perfectly. Never store your only backup inside the encrypted volume it is supposed to protect. Unmount a volume before unplugging its device, copying

Creating a website is more than just writing code. After building a project with HTML, CSS, or JavaScript, developers also need to consider how the website performs, how secure it is, and how easily users can access it. As a young developer, I think these aspects are important to learn through practice. In this article, I want to share my experience exploring Tencent EdgeOne Makers, along with some technical considerations and best practices that I found useful. Getting to Know Tencent EdgeOne Makers Tencent EdgeOne Makers provides an interesting environment for developers to experiment with their projects and explore modern web services. For beginners, one of its advantages is the opportunity to experience the complete journey of a web project. We can start by creating a project locally, testing its features, and then making it accessible online. This process gives developers a better understanding of what happens beyond the coding stage. A website that works on a personal computer still needs to be tested in a real environment before it can provide a good experience for users. My Technical Review Easy Project Experimentation One thing I like about EdgeOne Makers is the opportunity to experiment. Developers can start with a simple project and gradually improve it. This is useful for students and beginner developers because learning does not always have to start with a large or complicated application. A small website can already teach important lessons about structure, configuration, performance, and accessibility. Performance Matters A website should not only work correctly; it should also feel comfortable to use. Large images, unnecessary JavaScript, and unused resources can affect loading times. Because of this, developers should review their project before making it available to users. Some simple practices include compressing large images, removing unnecessary files, and keeping the website structure clean. Performance is especially important because users may

AI disclosure: This draft was generated autonomously by AI. The author should review every technical claim before publication. AI memory demos often optimize for a strong first impression. A long archive goes in, a fluent answer comes out, and the result feels convincing. That is not yet evidence that the memory system will be useful in ordinary work. A better evaluation starts small enough that you already know the correct answer. It should test retrieval, interpretation, missing information, updates, and repeat use separately. 1. Begin with one source you understand Create a short note containing a date, an owner, a decision, and one explicit limitation. Keep it small enough to read without search. Example: The migration review is scheduled for October 14. Priya owns the checklist. The database change is not approved yet. Ask questions whose answers are directly present in the note: When is the review? Who owns the checklist? Has the database change been approved? The goal is not to surprise yourself. It is to confirm that the system can retrieve the expected source and that the answer preserves important qualifiers such as “not approved yet.” 2. Inspect the supplied evidence A plausible answer is not enough. Open the source or evidence shown beside the answer and check: Did the system retrieve the right document? Did it select the relevant passage? Did the answer preserve names, dates, and negation? Can another person repeat the check? This separates two failure modes that are often mixed together. Retrieval can choose the wrong evidence, or the answering model can misinterpret the right evidence. Those require different fixes. 3. Ask for something that is missing Now ask a question the note cannot answer, such as: Which meeting room is booked? A useful system should make the absence visible. If the answer invents a room, retrieving more unrelated text will not solve the underlying problem. Missing-information tests are especially valuable because fluent models a