标签：#code

Netflix has detailed a cloud-based system for scaling camera file processing across global film and TV workflows. The pipeline handles ingest, validation, metadata extraction, and media transformation at scale using FilmLight API and distributed compute. It standardizes workflows across editorial, VFX, and color pipelines, improving consistency and reducing manual handling across productions. By Leela Kumili

On today’s episode of Decoder, my guest is Hayden Field, senior AI reporter for The Verge. Often when Hayden comes on the show, it’s because something has gone wrong in the world of AI. Last weekend, that something was a pretty intense mix of Anthropic, the Trump administration, and Anthropic’s new AI model, Fable 5. […]

VS Code 1.123 adds a two-hour delay before auto-updating extensions to newly published versions, creating a revocation window against supply chain attacks. The delay does not apply to trusted publishers like Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI. Similar cooldown mechanisms have now spread across pip, RubyGems, npm, pnpm, Yarn, and Bun. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

I have a confession: I roll my eyes at AI benchmarks. Every other week someone on Twitter posts a chart where a brand new model is suddenly beating Opus and GPT, the replies go crazy, and then you actually use the thing and it falls apart on the first real task. Beautiful numbers, ugly code. So when z.ai shipped GLM 5.2 and the timeline started shouting that an open-weights model was now nipping at the heels of the frontier labs, my instinct was the usual one. Sure. Prove it. This post is me proving it. I gave GLM 5.2 a real feature to build on my actual production website, with almost no hand-holding, and watched what happened. Spoiler: I was not expecting to write the sentence I ended up writing. If you'd rather watch me run the whole thing live (including the part where my tools crashed on camera), the video is right here: The claims I was here to test Let's get the hype out of the way first, because the claims are genuinely big. // Detect dark theme var iframe = document.getElementById('tweet-2066938937344495629-390'); if (document.body.className.includes('dark-theme')) { iframe.src = "https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=2066938937344495629&theme=dark" } GLM 5.2 is the same physical size as GLM 5.1 (744B total parameters, 40B active), but on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index it jumped 11 points, from 40 to 51. That score makes it the leading open-weights model , ahead of MiniMax-M3 (44), DeepSeek V4 Pro (44) and Kimi K2.6 (43). On the overall leaderboard it sits behind only Claude Fable 5 (60), Claude Opus 4.8 (56) and GPT-5.5 (55). For an open, MIT-licensed model you can download the weights for, that is a wild place to be. Here is the upgrade at a glance: GLM 5.1 GLM 5.2 Intelligence Index (v4.1) 40 51 Context window 200K 1M Total / active params 744B / 40B 744B / 40B Output tokens per task 26k 43k Cost per task ~$0.25 ~$0.46 Price (in / cache / out per 1M) $1.4 / $0.26 / $4.4 $1.4 / $0.26 / $4.4 License MIT MIT Two things jump out. First

I love Claude Code's subagents. But I kept noticing the same chore: every new project, I'd hand-write the same crew again — a builder, a reviewer, someone to keep the stack conventions straight. Good setups, but they lived in one repo and never got reused. So I built ccteams — a package manager for agent teams. One command drops a ready-made team of Claude Code subagents into your project. npm install -g ccteams ccteams use go-api // apply your favourite team That applies a Go builder + reviewer, tuned for net/http , to the current project. Switch when the work changes: ccteams use next-ts # Next.js App Router + TypeScript + Tailwind ccteams use generalist # scope -> design -> build -> QA -> ship, any stack Are you not sure which team you need? Don't worry, you can use /ccteams:choose-team and AI will choose the best team for you! /plugin marketplace add toffyui/ccteams /plugin install ccteams@ccteams /ccteams:choose-team I want to create a todo app. What's a "team"? A team is just a curated bundle of Claude Code subagents — each a markdown file with the usual name / description / tools frontmatter and a system prompt — plus an orchestration.md that gets merged into your project's CLAUDE.md . Nothing magic, nothing proprietary. It's the setup you'd build by hand, except already built and ready to reuse. ccteams ships with 8 teams: generalist — stack-agnostic, takes a feature scope → design → build → QA → ship next-ts — Next.js App Router + TypeScript + Tailwind frontend — framework-agnostic UI/UX and accessibility go-api — idiomatic Go HTTP APIs python-fastapi — FastAPI + Pydantic v2 rails — Ruby on Rails debug — reproduce → root-cause → fix → regression test research — compares options and recommends; writes no code What use actually does No black box. ccteams use <team> : Copies the team's agents into .claude/agents/ Writes .claude/active-team.md and adds an @.claude/active-team.md import to your CLAUDE.md Tracks everything in .claude/.ccteams-manifest.json so swi

Why your brain learns faster by doing than by studying, and the neuroscience that explains...

Revisar código es una de las actividades más subestimadas del desarrollo de software. La mayoría de los equipos la tratan como un trámite, algo que hay que aprobar antes de mergear. El resultado es que los PRs se aprueban con un “LGTM” después de dos minutos de scroll, y los problemas reales pasan de largo. Una revisión bien hecha no es leer línea por línea buscando typos. Es entender qué intenta hacer ese código, si lo hace de la manera correcta, y si introduce riesgos que no existían antes. Eso requiere un proceso, no un instinto. Este artículo cubre cómo estructurar ese proceso: qué revisar, en qué orden, qué preguntas hacer, y cómo detectar problemas de seguridad sin ser un experto en ciberseguridad. Empieza por el contexto, no por el código El error más común en code review es abrir el diff y empezar a leer desde la primera línea modificada. Antes de ver una sola línea, necesitas entender qué problema resuelve este cambio. Lee la descripción del PR. Si no hay descripción, o si dice “fixes bug”, ya encontraste el primer problema. Un PR sin contexto obliga al reviewer a reconstruir el razonamiento del autor desde cero, y eso aumenta la probabilidad de aprobar algo que no debería aprobarse. Lo que un buen PR debe explicar: Qué cambia no cómo, sino qué problema resuelve Por qué este approach si hay alternativas que se descartaron, decirlo Cómo probarlo, pasos para verificar que funciona Qué no cubre, scope explícito evita confusiones Si tienes esa información antes de ver el diff, tu revisión va a ser significativamente más efectiva. Qué revisar y en qué orden No toda línea de código merece el mismo nivel de atención. Un buen reviewer distribuye su energía de forma inteligente. Primero: arquitectura y flujo de datos. ¿El cambio tiene sentido a nivel de diseño? ¿Agrega una dependencia innecesaria? ¿Rompe alguna abstracción existente? Esto es lo más difícil de cambiar después. Segundo: lógica de negocio. ¿El código hace lo que dice que hace? ¿Los edge cases están cub

A couple of weeks ago I published a post with a tidy rule in it. When you add capability to an AI coding agent, reach for the lightest option first: a procedure file before a CLI, a CLI before a heavier integration, and only build the heavy machinery once you've proven you'll reuse it. My whole case rested on context cost. The heavy options load a lot of definitions up front and carry them every turn, so starting light keeps the window clean. I still think the front half is right. But it isn't the rule I'd write now, because a reader took it apart in the comments and handed it back as something better. This post is about that exchange, because the rewrite was sharper than my original, and pretending I arrived at it alone would be both a lie and the less interesting story. The hole, found in one comment The first comment didn't argue with the rule. It walked straight to the blind spot. The moment a tool touches anything external or stateful, lightest-first reverses on you: a lightweight call that fails silently halfway through is harder to debug than a heavier tool that surfaces the failure cleanly. Pay the complexity up front. My first instinct was to defend, and I did, a little. I said we were measuring different things, that I'd optimized for context cost while they were optimizing for failure observability, both real, different axes. I held the line by pointing out you can wrap a lightweight call to fail loudly, so the cheap path stays open. That was true, and it was beside their point, and they didn't let me hide behind it. The question that moved the rule They asked one question that did more work than my entire post: what's your actual trigger for paying the complexity up front, the type of state, or the class of error? Sitting with that is where my own rule changed under me. The honest answer is state type, and the moment I said it out loud, context cost stopped being what the rule was about. What makes a failure expensive isn't the error. It's whether the op

The Quest Begins (The “Why”) Picture this: I’m knee‑deep in a legacy codebase that feels like the Death Star’s trash compactor—every time I try to add a feature, the walls close in and I’m squashed by tight coupling. I’d just spent three hours tracking down a bug that only showed up when the payment gateway was mocked in a test. The culprit? A new PaymentGateway() buried deep inside an OrderService class. It was like trying to defeat Darth Vader with a butter knife—no matter how hard I swung, the Dark Force (aka hidden dependencies) kept pulling me back. I realized I was instantiating collaborators inside the very classes that should be oblivious to their implementation details . The result? Tests that needed a real database, a real Stripe account, and a sacrificial goat to run. Any change to a third‑party API meant hunting down every new scattered across the project. Onboarding a new teammate felt like handing them a map written in ancient Sumerian. Honestly, I was ready to quit coding and become a professional napper. Then, during a late‑night coffee‑fueled refactor session, I stumbled upon a tiny line of documentation that whispered: “Depend on abstractions, not concretions.” It sounded like Yoda giving me a pep talk. The Revelation (The Insight) The magic spell I uncovered is Dependency Injection (DI) —specifically, constructor injection . Instead of a class creating its own collaborators, we hand them in from the outside. Think of it as giving a Jedi their lightsaber rather than making them forge one in the middle of a battle. Why does this feel like discovering the Force? Testability explodes – you can swap in fakes, mocks, or stubs without touching production code. Flexibility skyrockets – swapping a payment provider becomes a one‑line config change, not a scavenger hunt. Clarity reigns – the constructor becomes an honest inventory of what a class needs to do its job. The moment I applied it, the codebase felt lighter, like Luke finally trusting the Force ins

By Sergio Colque Ponce — Software Engineering, Universidad Privada de Tacna. Full source code: github.com/srg-cp/design-principles-go When people say "this code is well designed" , they rarely mean it has clever tricks. They usually mean it is easy to change . New requirements arrive every week, and good design is what lets you absorb them without rewriting half the project. In this article I take a small, very common requirement — "send a reminder to the user" — and I show how four classic design principles turn a fragile module into one that is open to change and easy to test. Everything is written in Go , and you can run it yourself from the repository linked above. The requirement We are building the backend of a bank appointment system. When an appointment is created, the user should get a reminder. Today it goes by email . Next month, product wants SMS too. After that, WhatsApp . The pattern is obvious: the list of channels will keep growing. A first (bad) attempt The fastest thing to write is one function that does everything: func SendReminder ( channel , recipient , body string ) error { if channel == "email" { // ... open SMTP, format the email, send it } else if channel == "sms" { // ... call the SMS provider } else if channel == "whatsapp" { // ... call the WhatsApp API } return nil } It works on Monday. But look at what it costs us: Every new channel means editing this function and risking the ones that already work. The function knows about SMTP, SMS providers and HTTP clients all at once: it has many reasons to change . To test the email path you need a real (or faked) SMTP server, because the logic is glued to the transport. This is the design we want to avoid. Let's fix it one principle at a time. 1. Single Responsibility Principle (SRP) A piece of code should have one reason to change . Instead of one function that knows every channel, we give each channel its own type that only knows how to deliver through that channel. Here is the email one: // E

I used to think a serious developer needed a serious IDE. Big project? Open PhpStorm. Design work? Open Photoshop. Need every refactor, every inspection, every plugin, every panel, every button? Load the heavy tool and wait for the machine to breathe again. But something changed. Not overnight, and not because those tools suddenly became bad. They are still powerful. The change is that AI started taking over the parts of the IDE I actually needed most. Today, I spend more time in VS Code and the terminal than in heavy IDEs. My machine feels lighter. My workflow feels less crowded. And honestly, I do not miss the old setup as much as I thought I would. The old IDE was a safety net For years, big IDEs won because they could see the whole project. They understood symbols, imports, frameworks, database models, refactors, formatting, inspections, and tests. A good IDE felt like a senior assistant sitting beside you, quietly warning you before you made a mess. That was valuable. It still is. But AI has started to move that intelligence out of the IDE shell. The useful part is no longer tied to one huge application. It can live in your editor, your terminal, your pull request, your CI pipeline, or even in a chat window with access to your codebase. When AI can read the files, reason about the bug, generate a test, run the test, inspect the failure, and propose a patch, the IDE becomes less like the brain of the workflow and more like one possible place to type. AI is becoming the environment The phrase "AI coding assistant" already feels too small. Autocomplete was the first version. The newer pattern is closer to an AI developer environment. You ask it to find the bug. It searches the repo. You ask it to explain a weird error. It follows the stack trace. You ask it to write a benchmark. It can create the benchmark file, run it, compare the result, and tell you what changed. You ask it to add tests. It can inspect the code path and generate cases you probably would have de

I think a lot of people still imagine AI coding as opening ChatGPT, asking for code, and copy-pasting the result. That's not really how I work anymore. The biggest shift for me is that planning matters far more than coding. Earlier, execution was expensive, so most of the effort went into writing code. Now execution is cheap. I can have an agent implement something in minutes. The hard part is making sure the plan is correct. Most of my effort goes into thinking through the architecture, edge cases, failure modes, test strategy, and how the change fits into the broader system. If the plan is vague, the agent will confidently implement the wrong thing. The quality of the result is mostly determined by the quality of the plan. Once I have a plan, I break it into small independent pieces. Each piece should be executable without additional clarification. If an agent needs to stop and ask questions, the task probably isn't broken down enough. Those pieces become tickets. Then an agent picks up a ticket and implements it. The important thing is that the agent isn't operating in a vacuum. I try to give it a good environment to work in: Clear architectural rules Reusable skills and workflows Guardrails Hooks for things that must always happen One lesson that really stuck with me is that instructions are guidance, not guarantees. At one point I had "always use a git worktree" written in AGENTS.md. The model still ignored it occasionally. When I dug into it, the answer was simple: models can drift from instructions. So if something absolutely must happen, don't rely on instructions. Enforce it. Put it in a hook, script, validation step, CI check, or some other deterministic mechanism. If it is important, make it impossible to skip. Once the implementation is done, the agent opens a PR. This is where another useful pattern comes in: don't let the same model review the code it wrote. I usually have one model implement and another model review. Different models catch different t

My AWS Bedrock Experiment Cost Me $8.43 in Just One Day What I learned about AWS Bedrock pricing the hard way, and why budget alerts saved me Why I Even Tried Claude Code on Bedrock I have been using Claude Code for a while now, connected to Anthropic directly. It works well. But two things were bothering me. First, the usage limits. Claude Code on Anthropic's native setup has 5hours session limit and a weekly usage cap. Once you hit it, you have to wait. If you are in the middle of something or just want to experiment freely, that gets frustrating fast. Second, billing. I already manage everything on AWS. I'm very familiar with it, the invoices go to one place, and I understand how to track and control costs there. Adding a separate Anthropic subscription meant one more billing account, one more credit card charge, one more thing to track. I just wanted everything under one roof. So I thought, why not try Claude Code connected to Amazon Bedrock? Same tool, runs on AWS, billed through AWS. Seemed like a clean solution to both problems. What happened next is why I am writing this post. The Two Ways to Run Claude Code Most people do not realise Claude Code can be configured to run in two different ways. Option 1: Claude Code via Anthropic directly You connect Claude Code to Anthropic's API or use it under your Claude subscription. Billing goes through Anthropic. If you are on a subscription plan, you pay a flat monthly fee and the usage limits apply to how much you can do within that. Option 2: Claude Code via Amazon Bedrock You connect Claude Code to AWS Bedrock as the backend. Same Claude models, but now AWS is your provider. Billing goes through your AWS account. No Anthropic subscription needed. From the outside, it looks and feels the same. But the billing model underneath is completely different, and that is where things get interesting. What Happened When I Tried It I set up Claude Code to use Bedrock and gave it a prompt. A fairly detailed one, nothing unusual

For years I thought I had a discipline problem. I had shipped code, finished a degree, built things, and still the dominant private feeling was that I was getting away with something, that the gap between what I could do on a good day and what I could do on a normal one was a character flaw I was hiding. The reframe that changed everything was clinical, not motivational: I do not have a discipline problem. I have an executive function problem. And executive function, unlike character, can be supported from the outside. This is the most personal of the three posts in this cluster. The other two are practical: the CLAUDE.md guide and the five skills . This one is the why underneath both. What Is Executive Function, Actually? Executive function is the brain's management layer. It is not intelligence, and it is not knowledge. It is the set of processes that turn knowing-what-to-do into actually-doing-it. The National Institute of Mental Health describes ADHD as fundamentally a disorder of these self-management processes rather than of attention alone. It is not one function. For the purposes of getting work done, it is at least four distinct ones, and ADHD disrupts each of them in a different way: Working memory , the mental scratchpad holding what you are doing right now. Task initiation , the ability to start, to cross the gap from intention to action. Context switching , the ability to drop one task, pick up another, and come back without losing the first. Time perception , the internal sense of duration that lets you pace and estimate. Calling them out separately matters, because "I struggle with executive function" is too vague to act on. Each of the four breaks differently and each one needs a different prosthetic. Lumping them together is how you end up trying to fix a time-perception problem with a task-initiation strategy and concluding you are just broken. What Is an Executive Function Prosthetic? A prosthetic does not heal. It compensates. Glasses do not repa

I have built 114 Claude Code skills. Most of them are engineering plumbing. But five of them exist for one reason only: my executive function has specific, repeatable holes, and I got tired of falling into the same ones. These five are not productivity hacks. Each one maps to a named ADHD deficit, and each one fills it the same way every time so I do not have to re-improvise around my own brain at 2pm. If you want the broader system this sits inside, start with my Claude Code ADHD workflow and the CLAUDE.md guide . This post is the skills layer specifically. What Is a Claude Code Skill? A skill is a named, repeatable workflow you invoke with a slash command. Instead of re-prompting Claude Code from a blank slate every time ("okay, help me figure out what to work on, here is my situation again..."), you type /adhd-task-triage and it runs the same defined steps it ran yesterday. For an ADHD brain, that determinism is the feature. The skill does not depend on me remembering how to drive it. It just runs. Custom skills live in a .claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md file that describes what the skill does and when it should fire. You can build one for any gap you fall into more than twice. 1. adhd-task-triage: Energy-Based Prioritization The gap it fills: task initiation paralysis. Standard task managers sort by priority or deadline. That assumes you can act on the top item by willpower. ADHD does not work that way. The top-priority task and the task you can actually start right now are often different tasks, and trying to force the high-priority one when your initiation circuit is offline produces zero output and a guilt spiral. adhd-task-triage sorts by available energy , not importance. You tell it where you are (wired, foggy, depleted), it looks at the work in front of you, and it hands back the task that matches the state you are actually in, not the one you wish you were in. /adhd-task-triage Why it helps specifically: it removes the moral framing. The question stops bei

I reopened a file I had already fixed that morning. Not metaphorically. I literally re-fixed a bug I had closed four hours earlier, because between the fix and the reopen, my brain had quietly deleted the entire afternoon. That is the ADHD tax most productivity advice never names: it is not that you cannot focus, it is that the working model of what you were doing does not survive the gap between sessions. CLAUDE.md is the cheapest fix I have found for that specific failure. This is the companion to my Claude Code ADHD workflow ; that post is the full system, this one zooms all the way in on the single file doing most of the work. What Is CLAUDE.md, Actually? CLAUDE.md is a Markdown file that Claude Code reads automatically at the start of every session. You do not paste it. You do not remind Claude it exists. It just gets read, every time, before the first line of work. There are two places it lives: ./CLAUDE.md at a project root holds rules for that project: the tech stack, the conventions, the gotchas. ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md holds your global rules: things true across everything you build (your voice, your defaults, the things you never want re-litigated). For a neurotypical developer this is a convenience. For an ADHD developer it is a prosthetic. The difference is what the file is replacing. Why CLAUDE.md Is External Working Memory for ADHD Brains Working memory is the mental scratchpad that holds "what I am doing right now and the three things I just decided about it." ADHD shrinks that scratchpad and makes it leaky. Every interruption, a Slack ping, a stray thought, a context-switch to email, knocks items off it. When you return, the scratchpad is blank and you rebuild it from scratch. The American Psychological Association puts the rebuild cost at roughly 23 minutes per context switch for a typical brain. For an ADHD brain that involuntarily switches more often and rebuilds slower, the real cost is higher and it compounds. Ten switches a day is not ten minutes

At WWDC 2026, Apple introduced Xcode 27, which makes it easy to kick off tasks with coding agents, iterate on new project ideas, and customize the workspace. It also introduces DeviceHub for unified simulator and device management, along with enhancements to Organizer and Instruments, among many other improvements. By Sergio De Simone

Today, I’m talking with Adam Bry, who is CEO of Skydio, the leading US maker of autonomous drones. Before we recorded this episode, I actually got to remotely operate one of Skydio’s drones in the Bay Area from Adam’s laptop in our podcast studio in New York and fly an indoor drone around our office. […]

After failing 3 coding interviews, I realized the problem wasn't practice it was how I was practicing. I spent 6 months grinding LeetCode before my first FAANG interview. 400+ problems solved. Every "Blind 75" problem is memorized. I felt ready. Then the interviewer asked a sliding window variation I hadn't seen before. I froze. Drew a blank. Bombed the interview. The problem wasn't that I hadn't practiced enough. The problem was that I had practiced incorrectly. I memorized solutions instead of understanding patterns. I can recite code, but I struggle to adapt when problems change slightly. So I built something different. Introducing AlgoPatterns A pattern-first DSA learning platform with visualizations that actually show you how algorithms work. algopatterns.in What Makes It Different 1. Pattern-First, Not Problem-First Most platforms throw 2000+ problems at you and say, "Good Luck." AlgoPatterns organizes everything around 17 core patterns: Two Pointers Sliding Window Binary Search BFS/DFS Dynamic Programming Backtracking And 11 more... Master the patterns, and you can solve any variation. 2. Visualizations That Actually Help We have 50+ interactive visualizers that show algorithms step-by-step: Watch two pointers converge in real-time See the DP table fill cell by cell Trace BFS spreading level by level Visualize the call stack during recursion Reading code is one thing. Seeing it executed is completely different. 3. Curated, Not Overwhelming 315 hand-picked problems organized by pattern. Each problem includes: Company tags (Google, Amazon, Meta, etc.) Frequency indicators Pattern classification Difficulty rating No more random grinding. Practice the right problems in the right order. 4. Real Code Templates Every pattern comes with: Java templates (copy-paste ready) "When to use" indicators Common mistakes to avoid Key insights from each pattern Who It's For Interview preppers who want to learn patterns, not memorize solutions CS students who find textbook expla

La trahison du chiffre Vendredi 15 mai, 16 h 13. L'alerte Sentry remonte sur le téléphone. La première réinscrite Phase 1 attend devant l'écran de paiement, son nom est en haut de mon onglet. Je pose la canette, je rouvre l'écran. La tasse à tête de Françoise, sur le poste d'à côté, capte un reflet jaune que je remarque sans le regarder. La stack trace tient en plein écran. Le stack trace s'ouvre, neuf champs sur dix à null , et un chiffre que je n'ai pas vu venir. type = "StripeConnectionError" message = "An error occurred with our connection to Stripe." code = null statusCode = null requestId = null duration = 9 ms Neuf millisecondes. Sur une route Vercel en région Paris, un DNS résout en quarante millisecondes, un handshake TLS coûte cent à deux cents. Neuf millisecondes, ce n'est pas un appel réseau qui a échoué. C'est un appel réseau qui n'a jamais eu lieu. Le SDK n'est pas arrivé jusqu'à la fibre. L'instinct propose immédiatement trois patchs. Timeout serverless Vercel — j'ajoute maxDuration , je redéploie. Clé révoquée — je vais la rouler. Compte Stripe restreint après le passage en mode live — j'ouvre un ticket support. Ces trois hypothèses sont plausibles. Aucune des trois n'est falsifiable par le symptôme seul, et c'est précisément ce qui les rend dangereuses : chacune ouvre un cycle de quinze à trente minutes avec rollback à la fin si elle se trompe. Multiplié par trois, on tient une demi-journée perdue avec la cliente toujours en train de cliquer. Je n'ai pas le temps. Une réinscrite attend. Quatre tests, dans l'ordre Je connais la classe d'incident — « preview marche, prod casse » , ou son symétrique. La règle, pour cette classe, c'est qu'on ne corrige rien tant qu'on n'a pas discriminé les couches. Quatre tests, exécutés dans l'ordre. Chacun élimine une famille d'hypothèses, pas une hypothèse isolée. Et chacun est conçu pour réfuter ce qu'il vient interroger — parce qu'un test qui cherche à confirmer trouve toujours, par sélection, ce qu'il cherche. Te