标签：#c

I've spent my career helping people build software. This is a series of letters about what happens when the tools for building change faster than the principles behind building. Each one is a reminder that while the technology changes quickly, the questions that matter often stay the same. -- Dear past Jenna, The thing that drew you to tech in the first place, that it's always changing, is the thing that will keep you here. Tools change (sometimes for the better and sometimes not) almost weekly. People who never consider themselves technical, much less a developer, will build apps in an afternoon with this new programming language called English. Products will go from idea to deployed before you finish your first cup of coffee (you have a toddler now, so you rarely get the full cup before it goes cold anyways). "I don't know how to code" or "I'm not technical" is no longer a barrier to building. And that's exciting, given you've focused nearly your entire career helping others build software. But we can't confuse the ability to build with the wisdom to build. One of the most valuable habits you've developed over the last two decades is asking a simple question: "Should we build it?" For most of your career, "Can we build it?" was a hard question. Time, budget, complexity, maybe the tech wasn't there yet. But those constraints were usually temporary. With enough people, time, and money, just about anything is possible. But the real questions were always: Should we build this? Is this the best use of our time? Does this solve a problem our customers actually need solved, or does it create new problems? What are we choosing not to build? Those questions haven't changed, but the environment around them has. Today, almost anyone can build software. Between tools like Lovable, Bolt, Replit, Claude Code, Codex, and whatever's next, the barrier to building software is lower than it's ever been. Now the question "Can we build it?" is too easy to answer. It's almost always ye

You followed an old breeding guide. You put Penking + Bushi into your breeding farm, dropped the cake, waited for the egg... and out hatched Sibelyx , not the Anubis the guide promised. You're not alone. Your guide isn't broken. The recipe changed. When Palworld hit 1.0, the breeding table got quietly rewritten. Almost every pairing that players had memorized from early-access now produces a different Pal. There's no in-game notice, no patch note that lists the hundreds of changed combos — just a lot of confused hatchings. So I dug into the data. Here's what I found, and the small tool I built to make sense of it. What actually changed in 1.0 I compared two snapshots of the game's breeding data — the pre-1.0 set and the current 1.0 release — both sourced from the open-source PalCalc project. The headline number: 97.7% of comparable pre-1.0 parent pairs now produce a different Pal. That's not a typo. If you take the breeding pairs that existed before 1.0 and run them against the current data, nearly all of them hatch something new. A few concrete examples players keep running into: Old recipe (pre-1.0) What it makes now (1.0) Penking + Bushi Anubis → Sibelyx ... (more pairs in the tool) The mismatch matters because most breeding guides and calculators on the internet still show the old results. Players follow them, breed, and get confused. The subtle trap: renumbering vs. real change There's a detail that trips up every breeding tool that tries to track this. When Palworld 1.0 launched, it also renumbered parts of the Paldeck (Pal #139 vs #116, etc.). A naive diff tool would see the number change and wrongly report "the breeding result changed!" — when really only the number changed, not the actual Pal. To avoid that false signal, I match Pals by their internal game name , not their Paldeck number. A renumbering is not mistaken for a changed breeding result. Only genuine recipe changes are counted. The tool: PalShift I wanted a dead-simple way to answer one question:

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the U.S. could sanction Chinese open AI models over alleged IP theft, expanding the Trump administration's campaign to slow China's AI advances.

Nostalgia for a time before smartphones Discussion | Link

Brain-like knowledge base with AI writing & deep research Discussion | Link

Rspack, developed by ByteDance, has released version 2.0, featuring enhanced performance, reduced dependencies, and a focus on modern ECMAScript modules. Key updates include a pure ESM core, improved static analysis, and support for RSC. Performance benchmarks show big improvements in build times. The project has experienced substantial growth, with npm downloads exceeding 5 million weekly. By Daniel Curtis

"Current economic conditions" have shifted TreeSize's business model.

Nvidia’s Vera Rubin platform combines CPUs and GPUs into a single system, reflecting the company’s growing ambition to power every layer of AI infrastructure.

Google is launching Gemini 3.6 Flash alongside a new security model dedicated to quickly finding and patching security vulnerabilities. In a blog post on Tuesday, Google describes Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber as a "cost-efficient and highly capable alternative" to larger, more expensive AI systems, such as the one offered by Anthropic's Mythos. The cybersecurity model […]

A few years ago, the team at Light shipped the most smartphone-like device they'd ever created. The Light Phone III still kept to its minimalist, no-distractions ethos, but it was a phone-size rectangle with a phone-size touchscreen, a camera, and a number of other features. Some people loved having an almost-smartphone, but Kaiwei Tang, Light's […]

13,000+ MCP servers, skills & plugins for AI coding agents Discussion | Link

TikTok recently settled its portion of the case with the plaintiff ahead of a jury trial that starts next week in Los Angeles. YouTube has also reached a deal, leaving Meta as the only remaining defendant.