标签：#c

I'm a father of two, 7 and 12. They are obsessed with Roblox, especially Rivals. Like a lot of parents, we did not love it. We tried the usual things: block it, limit it, set timers." It became a daily battle, a lose-lose situation. So I flipped the problem. Instead of fighting what they loved, I decided to lean into it, but with a twist. Why just play an FPS when you could build one together? My kids became the PMs. Claude and I became their engineer. I was shocked by how fast we moved. We pick

I’m building Euro Toolhub , a German-first index of European software, SaaS, cloud and AI alternatives. The idea is simple: many companies, agencies, developers and privacy-conscious users want alternatives to common tools when they care about things like data residency, open source, self-hosting, European jurisdiction or reducing dependency on non-European providers. But most existing lists stop at listing tools. I want Euro Toolhub to go one step further. Each provider profile can include: country and jurisdiction category alternative-to mappings open source status self-hosting availability EU data residency DPA availability certifications where known target audience strengths and limitations a transparent sovereignty score embeddable badges for providers The project starts in German because the first target market is DACH, but the structure is prepared for more languages later. The long-term vision is to build a practical decision platform for digital sovereignty: not just “which European alternatives exist?”, but “which one fits my actual use case?” Current categories include web analytics, cloud and hosting, newsletter tools, CRM, email, password managers, AI APIs, project management, video conferencing and e-signatures. I’m looking for feedback from developers, SaaS founders, privacy people and self-hosting communities: Which European tools should be added? Which categories matter most? What would make a sovereignty score trustworthy? Should the provider dataset be opened through GitHub for corrections and submissions? Project: https://www.euro-toolhub.eu/de Provider submission: https://www.euro-toolhub.eu/de/anbieter-eintragen ``

Note: If you're new to execution calculations, I'd recommend starting with my previous post which covers them in detail, then coming back here. What is attribute capturing and why would you use it Attribute capturing refers to directly exposing certain attributes to your execution calculation from attribute sets, to be used in execution calculations. Capturing attributes lets you handle things like damage in a more complex way. So for example, you could have advantages and weaknesses against certain damage types, or an attribute like armor that should reduce incoming damage. This is just two use cases, but once you learn how to do it, you should naturally be able to see in what other ways they can be used. In this example, I will show how to get attribute magnitude from captured attributes and using them in calculations, which is the most common way of using captured attributes. Capturing attributes Defining the struct, declaring and defining attribute capture definitions In this post, I will show how to use a static struct to access all your captured attributes, as a good performance-aware solution. You are also free to choose not to use the struct. For the struct approach, the first step is to go to the .cpp of the execution calculation, and define your struct there. In the struct, we first use the DECLARE_ATTRIBUTE_CAPTUREDEF() macro, passing in the name of your attribute. After that, we make the constructor of the struct, and in the constructor we use the DEFINE_ATTRIBUTE_CAPTUREDEF() macro, passing in the attribute set that has the attribute, the attribute from it, whether the attribute from the Target or Source should be used (the Target is the ASC the ExecCalc is outputting its result to, and the Source is the ASC that called it), and a bool for if the captured attribute should be snapshotted (if the attribute should be frozen at ExecCalc GE application (snapshotted) or if the value should be read at execution time). In my case, I will show 2 examples of non-

Episode 1/4 of the mini-series The week Supabase lied to me 4 times . The three following episodes cover a mutation silently swallowed by the SDK [CANONICAL URL EPISODE 2: to fill in after push], an RLS recursion resolved by a JWT hook [CANONICAL URL EPISODE 3: to fill in after push], and a query that stops at exactly 1000 rows without saying so [CANONICAL URL EPISODE 4: to fill in after push]. The Tuesday the security probe spoke It's 9:12am on a Tuesday in May. The daily drift probe has been running automatically for three weeks — an aclexplode query across all public objects, filtered on anon . I don't open it every morning. That morning, it's waiting for me with a row that has no business being there. Niran sets a coffee on the corner of my desk without a word. He reads the output over my shoulder. A PII backup table — personal data in plaintext, created two days earlier for a bulk reclassification — shows up in the list with SELECT , INSERT , UPDATE , DELETE granted to anon . Accessible to any unauthenticated curl request. He lets three seconds pass and says: "It's not RLS." Then he goes back to his hoodie. He's right. It's not an RLS bug. The table itself is open, at the GRANT layer, before RLS even applies. Three objects, three doors, one mechanism That week, I realize I'm not dealing with an isolated incident. Three distinct objects, in three different migrations, each open a door nobody thought they'd opened. The backup table first. Then a policy set TO public because the public landing page needs it, which lets a POST {} from anon through with an HTTP 400 NOT NULL response instead of 401 Unauthorized . And finally four SECURITY DEFINER functions written to execute transactional operations with their owner's privileges, all invocable by anon because EXECUTE defaults to TO PUBLIC at CREATE time. Three objects, three superficially distinct mechanisms, yet one shared root. At every CREATE , Postgres completes the migration with an implicit GRANT the author nev

The question you don't dare ask out loud It's 10:40 PM on a Tuesday, I just closed an ADR — the seventy-fourth in this setup, written conscientiously, dated, cross-referenced with its migration, its contract test, and the commit that triggered it. And the question rises, the way it always rises at that hour when you've been coding alone for ten hours: who did I just write this for . No tech lead to convince, no PR review that'll catch it, no hypothetical acquirer to reassure, no architecture committee to brief tomorrow. Just the file, just me, just the doubt. It's the question of a solo dev at 70 days of serious practice. It has an honest answer, and that answer is neither "it'll pay when you sell" nor "it'll pay when you hire". Those two ROIs belong to other trajectories. The ROI of the solo dev who documents is an ROI he buys himself — deferred, intangible at moments, but materially countable if you force yourself to measure it in the first person. Here's mine, over 74 ADRs and 18 doctrine rules accumulated in 70 days, with no external observer to validate the grid. The false economy of "I'll remember" First trap, the one that cost me three weeks before I learned the lesson. The solo dev believes he doesn't need to write down what he decided because he decided it himself — his memory is worth an ADR. False at 14 days, systematically false at six weeks. Not because general memory fails, but because technical memory has a deceptive shape: you remember perfectly that you decided , you no longer remember why you decided that way. Three weeks after the May 5 session where I wrote ADR-0051 (FK ON DELETE SET NULL + CHECK NOT NULL incompatible, DELETE failing silently), I reopen the migration to add a column. I reread the diff, I don't understand why a certain CHECK constraint is phrased like this — the alternative I mentally dismiss today seems simpler, and I'm two clicks from refactoring. I go check the ADR. The answer is there, dated, sourced, in three lines. The simpl

The evening Étienne asked to see the numbers Tuesday evening, end of the day, the open space had cleared except for Étienne. Étienne holds sixty percent of the house and spends his working week at a fund that acquires software publishers, and he looks at ERPs all year the way others read balance sheets. He sat on the edge of my desk, a metal water bottle in hand, and said what he always says when he senses someone is telling themselves a story. "What's that based on?" I was about to answer with a narrative. Sixty days of solo production on Rembrandt with Claude Code, learning the doctrine, the in-flight retractions, the incidents that hardened the rules. The declarative form was ready. But Étienne doesn't ask for a narrative, he asks for the material inventory. So I opened a terminal and let wc -l speak. This article is what I should have given him without waiting for him to ask — the dry, numbered balance, what worked, what didn't, what I would do differently. Not a success story, not a cautionary tale . Just the audit nobody runs on DEV.to because we're all too busy publishing the parts that shine. What's at stake behind Étienne's question is less the performance of a device than the possibility of measuring it honestly. Sixty days of practice with an AI assistant on a production project is a rare object at this stage. Most publications circulating on the subject are either brief demos from a hackathon or marketing announcements from vendors. The field return at sixty days, delivered with its numbers and retractions, barely exists. That's the gap I intend to close here, without more pedagogy than is strictly needed. The dry material inventory Sixty calendar days between the first session and today. Fifty-eight active days out of sixty , meaning two days without a commit and explaining why the rest of my life barely held. Over that window, the repo accumulated nine hundred and eighty-four commits bearing my name — an average of sixteen commits per working day, on d