标签：#c

Sam Altman's side project — which seeks to scan the world's eyeballs and turn them into unique digital identifiers — has raised some fresh cash through a crypto sale.

GitHub热门项目 | Solution for long term memory for agent coding CLIs and to facilitate handoff between different agent vendors | Stars: 1,212 | 186 stars this week | 语言: Rust

Let's be honest we mostly wrote about this because we think it's really cute.

The MCP (Model Context Protocol) ecosystem is growing fast. There are now hundreds of MCP servers available — but how do you know which ones are worth installing? After building and evaluating 60+ MCP servers ourselves, we developed a practical checklist that saved us from shipping broken tools. Here's the framework we use. The Problem Most MCP server listings tell you what the server does. Very few tell you how well it does it. You install something that sounds perfect, then discover: It activates on the wrong prompts (false positives) It pulls irrelevant context (retrieval drift) It sounds confident but gives wrong answers (ungrounded reasoning) It never improves from feedback Sound familiar? The 5-Dimension Evaluation Checklist Before installing any MCP server, ask these questions: 1. Trigger Precision Question: Does this server activate when (and only when) it should? Red flags: Overly broad trigger descriptions ("use for anything related to X") No documented activation conditions Activates on common words that appear in unrelated contexts Green flags: Specific, documented trigger scenarios Clear non-activation cases listed Tested against diverse prompts 2. Retrieval Quality Question: Does it pull the right context for the task? Red flags: Returns large chunks without filtering No citation or source tracking Retrieves plausible but outdated information Green flags: Targeted, minimal context retrieval Source attribution for every piece of context Version-aware (knows when data might be stale) 3. Reasoning Grounding Question: Are its conclusions tied to actual data? Red flags: Generates advice without referencing specific inputs Can't explain its reasoning chain Confident answers that contradict its own retrieved context Green flags: Every conclusion references specific evidence Explicitly flags uncertainty Gracefully handles missing information 4. Output Usefulness Question: Does the output actually solve your problem? Red flags: Generic responses that could appl

AI companies including Nvidia and Mistral urge policymakers to avoid broad restrictions on open-weight AI models as Washington debates responses to Chinese AI and alleged model distillation.

Many online image converters require users to upload their files to a remote server before processing. For ordinary images this may be acceptable, but for personal photos, screenshots and documents, privacy becomes an important concern. I built a lightweight online image converter that processes images directly in the browser. It currently supports: JPG PNG WebP HEIC GIF SVG BMP TIFF Why browser-based processing? The main goal was to make image conversion simple, fast and privacy-friendly. Because the conversion happens locally: Images are not uploaded to a server Users do not need to create an account There is no installation process Network upload time is avoided Private files remain on the user’s device The basic workflow is simple: Select an image Choose an output format Convert the file Download the result Challenges Browser-based image conversion still has some limitations. Different browsers support image formats differently, especially formats such as HEIC and TIFF. Large images may also consume more device memory during processing. Some format features may not be preserved after conversion. For example, transparency may be lost when converting to JPG, and animated images may become static depending on the selected output format. These limitations need to be handled through clear prompts and error messages.

Detecting what powers a website looks simple: send a request, read the response, match fingerprints. In real environments it rarely stays that clean. False positives slip through, infrastructure hides behind CDNs, old scripts linger after migrations, and fingerprints keep evolving. Developers who treat fingerprinting as a basic utility end up acting on misleading data. This guide covers the mistakes engineers make detecting website technologies and how to avoid them. Modern detection workflows lean on ProjectDiscovery's libraries, which cut these problems through structured pattern matching and maintained datasets. External resources: github.com/projectdiscovery/wappalyzergo projectdiscovery.io If you're new to the space, start with technology fingerprinting for developers before these pitfalls. Mistake 1: Trusting a single detection signal Relying on one clue is the fastest way to get a wrong answer. A script file may linger after a framework migration, a header can be spoofed, and a cookie might belong to a third-party service. Correlate several signals instead: headers, cookies, HTML patterns, script paths, metadata. When multiple indicators point at the same technology, confidence goes up. ProjectDiscovery's libraries are built around that multi-signal approach. Mistake 2: Treating detection as a one-time task Stacks change constantly. Organizations migrate infrastructure, update frameworks, and swap platforms more often than developers expect. Scan once and trust it forever and you're working from stale data. Schedule periodic scans. Many teams wire detection into automation pipelines so infrastructure changes get captured on their own. To operationalize this, see detect website technologies programmatically in Go . Mistake 3: Ignoring reverse proxies and CDNs Modern architectures hide origin servers behind proxy layers. You might detect a CDN and miss what actually powers the app. Detecting a CDN doesn't make the origin invisible. It means you need to look fur

Every engineering team that ships an AI feature eventually has the same meeting: someone pulls up a pricing page, someone else pastes a benchmark screenshot from a forum post, and the decision gets made on vibes. That's a bad way to pick the model provider your product will depend on for the next two years. The OpenAI vs Anthropic API decision isn't really about which model is "smarter" this quarter — model quality leapfrogs every few months, and today's edge is gone by the next release cycle. What actually determines whether your AI feature is pleasant to build, cheap to run, and easy to maintain is the shape of the API underneath it: how it handles conversation state, how reliably it calls tools, how it prices repeated context, and how much application logic ends up welded to one vendor's conventions. This post is a practical, engineering-first look at those structural differences, written for teams past the demo stage trying to ship something that works in production, at scale, for paying customers. Why the OpenAI vs Anthropic API Comparison Matters More Than Model Quality It's tempting to treat this as a leaderboard question — whichever model scores higher on the latest benchmark wins. That's the wrong axis to optimize for a production SaaS feature. Benchmarks measure narrow tasks under ideal conditions; your feature has to survive malformed input, network failures, cost constraints, and the reality that whatever model you pick today will be superseded within months. What doesn't change as quickly is the API contract: request and response schema, conventions for multi-turn state, the tool-calling protocol, and the caching and rate-limiting behavior your infrastructure has to accommodate. Get those decisions right and swapping model versions later is a config change. Get them wrong and you're rewriting your orchestration layer every time a new model ships. That's why an OpenAI vs Anthropic API comparison for a production team should spend more time on API design