标签：#ki

“Coffee” made with functional mushrooms like lion’s mane and chaga is all the rage. We tried the most popular brands to find which were the most palatable.

Two years after it turned Marg Monday into a daily, the Ninja Slushi is only $200. That’s the cheapest deal ever.

A consumer nav app tells the driver where to turn. It will not tell the dispatcher where the 11-hour driving clock runs out — and, more importantly, whether there is legal parking when it does. That second question is the one that strands a truck at 11 PM on the shoulder of an off-ramp with every nearby lot already full. Road511’s routing endpoint now answers it. Send the driver’s Hours-of-Service clock along with the route, and the response carries an hos[] array: every point on the corridor where the driver must take a break or stop driving under the selected regime, the projected time they reach it, the legal deadline, and — the part that matters operationally — the truck parking and rest areas actually reachable before that deadline. How It Works It rides the same call as everything else routing does: POST /api/v1/routing/route . You already send an origin, a destination, and a truck profile. To get the HOS projection, add an hos block inside the truck object describing the driver’s clock at departure. curl -X POST "https://api.road511.com/api/v1/routing/route" \ -H "X-API-Key: your_key" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{ "origin": { "lat": 41.8781, "lng": -87.6298 }, "destination": { "lat": 39.7392, "lng": -104.9903 }, "departure_time": "2026-06-08T06:00:00Z", "truck": { "profile": "tractor", "weight_t": 36.0, "height_m": 4.2, "axles": 5, "hos": { "ruleset": "us", "drive_remaining_s": 39600, "duty_remaining_s": 50400, "since_break_s": 0 } }, "enrichment": { "include_features": ["truck_parking", "rest_areas"] } }' That’s a Chicago→Denver run for a fresh driver on US rules: 11 hours of driving left ( 39600 s), a 14-hour duty window ( 50400 s), and zero driving time since the last break. Every counter is “seconds remaining” against the named ruleset’s limit. The HOS Clock The hos object is the driver’s state, not a fixed policy. Store only the ruleset on a reusable truck profile — the per-trip counters are supplied inline on each request and merge on to

From fake tickets to cloned websites, AI is magnifying World Cup scams. Can fans distinguish between what’s real and what’s not?

If you're building a SaaS AI agent product and you're already on Kinde, you already know the problem. Mastra is the TypeScript-first AI agent framework. It ships with official auth providers for Clerk, Auth0, Supabase, Firebase, WorkOS, and Better Auth. Kinde is not on that list. The obvious question is why not reach for one of those providers, since Auth0 is already there. Most developers who choose Kinde rely on far more than its login. Kinde ships with the organizational structures, permission systems, and monetization tools that products actually need, bringing auth, billing, feature flags, and multi-tenancy together in one platform. If you're building a B2B SaaS product on Kinde, you're using Kinde orgs to segment your customers, Kinde billing to manage subscriptions, and Kinde feature flags to gate features by plan. Switching to Auth0 or Clerk to support a Mastra agent would mean rebuilding all of that elsewhere, which is not a real option. That gap is the problem. You need Kinde to work with Mastra, and until now there was no clean way to connect them. That's why I built mastra-auth-kinde . What Mastra's auth system actually does When you add an auth provider to Mastra, it protects two things at once: all your API routes ( /api/agents/* , /api/workflows/* , and so on) and your Mastra Studio UI. Every request to a protected route goes through your provider before it reaches anything else. You extend Mastra's MastraAuthProvider base class and implement two methods: authenticateToken(token, request) verifies the JWT and returns the decoded user, or null if it fails authorizeUser(user, request) returns true to let the request through, or false for a 403 Mastra handles everything else: extracting the Bearer token from the Authorization header, calling your methods in order, and storing the verified user in the request context so your agents and tools can access it. Why Kinde specifically Beyond the billing and org story above, a few things make Kinde the right fit

After a full week of intensive Bitcoin programming training, the developers at Zone01 Kisumu moved into the most exciting phase of the bootcamp: building real-world solutions powered by Bitcoin, the Lightning Network, and LND. One thing I learned throughout the experience is that the human mind is truly fascinating. The room was filled with innovative ideas, each attempting to solve a different problem. As the saying goes, no idea is a bad idea—every concept had the potential to make an impact. A total of 17 teams were formed, and each team embarked on a 24-hour hackathon journey to transform their ideas into working products. After an intense day of development came the presentation phase, where we had the privilege of showcasing what we had built. Our team developed Kasi , a WhatsApp chatbot that enables Bitcoin transactions directly through WhatsApp. The goal was to make Bitcoin payments more accessible by leveraging a platform that millions of people already use daily. To build Kasi, we integrated the Twilio API for WhatsApp communication and utilized the Bitnob platform to facilitate Bitcoin transactions. Python was used throughout the development process. The project was brought to life by six developers: Claire, Lamka, Ijay, Dishon, Talo, and myself. Beyond the technical implementation, the hackathon strengthened our understanding of collaborative software development. We practiced Git workflows, team coordination, version control, task management, and effective communication under tight deadlines—skills that are just as valuable as writing code. Although we did not finish at the top of the leaderboard, the experience was incredibly rewarding. Every team brought something unique to the table, and the winners fully deserved their recognition. Congratulations to all the teams that participated and showcased their creativity, determination, and technical skills. One moment from the presentation will stay with me for a long time. As we were demonstrating Kasi to

Stainless-steel pans may lack nonstick coatings, but they’re unfussy, they sear well, and they’re built for a lifetime of hard work.

Python provides socket.AF_UNIX , asyncio.open_unix_connection() , and asyncio.start_unix_server() for working with Unix Domain Sockets on Unix-like operating systems. On Windows, however, support for Unix Domain Sockets tends to depend on the Python version and runtime environment. In particular, differences become apparent when trying to use the higher-level asyncio APIs in the same way as on Unix. To address this, I created a compatibility layer that hides the differences between Unix and Windows and allows AF_UNIX sockets to be used through a largely identical API. This article covers two types of APIs: An asyncio -based AF_UNIX compatibility API A synchronous socket -based AF_UNIX compatibility API Goal The objective is straightforward. On Unix, use the standard library APIs as-is. On Windows, fill in the missing functionality so that application code can remain as unified as possible. For example, on Unix you can write: reader , writer = await asyncio . open_unix_connection ( path ) And on the server side: server = await asyncio . start_unix_server ( handle_client , path ) The goal is to preserve this style of programming on Windows as much as possible. What Was Built The compatibility layer consists of two major components. 1. Asyncio Version This is the asynchronous implementation designed to match the asyncio Unix Domain Socket APIs. The main APIs are: await open_unix_connection ( path , * , limit = ...) await start_unix_server ( callback , path , * , limit = ..., backlog = ...) await create_unix_connection ( protocol_factory , path , ...) await create_unix_server ( protocol_factory , path , ...) install () On Unix-like systems, these simply delegate to the standard asyncio implementation. On Windows, they use Winsock AF_UNIX sockets and combine WSAEventSelect with event-loop handle waiting to implement asynchronous operations. 2. Synchronous Socket Version This version provides a traditional blocking-socket-style API without using asyncio . The main APIs ar

When a stronger model ships, there are two questions every skill author should want answered, and evals are the only honest way to answer either: Which skills just got absorbed? A model that now knows how to do X natively does not need a skill telling it to do X. Fewer skills to maintain, leaner context, lower cost. Which skills still matter? Behaviour-level guidance (conventions, preferences, project-specific workflows) is not something pretraining will fill in for you. Those skills should keep paying. Moonshot gave us early access to Kimi K2.6. We ran the Tessl agent skill evaluation harness on the same 21 skills and 100 paired scenarios against three solvers: Kimi K2.5, Kimi K2.6, and Claude Sonnet 4.5. A solver is the model whose output the grader scores; a paired scenario is the same task run twice per solver, once without the skill installed and once with it. These are early signals from one pre-release on one skill set. A deeper cross-model analysis with clean baselines across the board is in progress and will be its own piece. What does our setup look like? Scenarios and rubrics are held fixed across the two Moonshot runs. The only variable is the solver. Solver A: Kimi K2.5 Solver B: Kimi K2.6 Scenario generator: Claude Sonnet 4.5, up to 5 scenarios per skill, derived from each skill's SKILL.md Grader: Claude Sonnet 4.5, weighted-checklist rubric derived from the same SKILL.md Per skill × per solver: every scenario solved twice, baseline (no skill installed) and with-skill Per-skill n=5 is noisy; the aggregate over 100 scenarios is where the signal lives. Three findings: Kimi 2.6 is a better model than K2.5: Without skills, K2.6 sits ~2 pp (percentage points) above K2.5 in aggregate, with double-digit moves on specific skills. Kimi 2.6 holds its own against Sonnet 4.5. We picked Sonnet 4.5 as a competitive baseline, and found in this evaluation set that the K2.6 performed better both in the with/without skill scenario by around ~8 p.p . Skills remain a dura

In a world completely powered by technology, have you ever wondered what actually keeps our digital lives from crashing down? Enter the unsung heroes: system and network administration . Think of an operating system like Windows or Linux as a computer's command center, orchestrating everything from the heavy-lifting CPU to the smallest plugged-in device. To keep your data safe and your machine stable, it cleverly splits its brain into two zones: a restricted "user mode" where your everyday apps play, and a highly secure, privileged "kernel mode" reserved strictly for critical system operations. When individual computers connect to form massive global networks, the complexity skyrockets. This comprehensive guide breaks down those complex environments into simple, bite-sized concepts. Here is a quick snapshot of what we will cover: Host & OS Administration : This module covers how an operating system functions as the primary intermediary between a user and a computer's raw physical hardware. It explains how the system kernel manages critical computing processes, memory allocation, local storage file systems, and administrative tasks like security patching and automated scripting. Networking Concepts, Topologies, and Protocols : This module explores how individual computer systems connect and communicate across localized or global distances. It details the structural design of network topologies, addressing rules like IPv4 and IPv6, and the standardized layer frameworks that ensure safe and efficient data transmission. 🏛️ Part 1: Operating Systems & Host Administration 🖥️ Computer Resources and Functions At its core, every computer system is a collection of physical machinery and digital structures working together to solve problems. To understand how an operating system manages these pieces, it helps to look at the foundational puzzle blocks of a computer. This section maps out the primary hardware and data elements the system has to control, alongside a simple breakd

On June 9th, Anthropic released its Fable generative AI model. Three days later, the US government classified it as a dangerous munition, and used its export-control authority to prohibit any foreign nationals from accessing it. Unable to differentiate between Americans and foreigners, the company shut off access for everyone. The government’s actions won’t help . The problem isn’t any one particular model; it’s the general trend of increasing AI capabilities. And any real solution requires the sort of collective action that just isn’t possible right now...

The Breville Barista Express and Ninja Luxe Cafe Pro are two of the best early Prime Day deals I’ve seen in 2026.

Google Open Knowledge Format: Why Enterprise Agents Need a Knowledge Layer, Not Just More Tools Most enterprise AI conversations still start in the wrong place. They start with the model. Which model should we use? Which framework should we adopt? Which vendor has the best agent platform? Which tools should we connect next? These are fair questions. But in real enterprise architecture, they are not the hardest questions. The harder question is this: Can our AI systems actually understand how our business works? That is why Google Cloud’s article on Open Knowledge Format caught my attention. The article talks about a simple but important idea: representing knowledge in a way that humans can read and machines can use. In OKF, that means markdown for the content and structured metadata for context. At first glance, that may sound too simple. But that simplicity is the point. Enterprises do not need another place where knowledge goes to die. We already have enough portals, catalogs, wikis, dashboards, folders, and internal tools. What we need is a practical way to package knowledge so it can be reviewed, versioned, governed, searched, and reused by both people and AI agents. That is where this idea becomes very relevant for agentic AI. The Real Enterprise AI Problem Most organizations already have the knowledge their AI agents need. They have it in databases, dashboards, tickets, architecture notes, runbooks, Confluence pages, data catalogs, code comments, incident reports, old project documents, and the heads of experienced employees. The issue is not that knowledge does not exist. The issue is that it is fragmented. Some of it is outdated. Some of it is duplicated. Some of it is tribal. Some of it is locked inside tools. Some of it is written for humans but not structured enough for AI systems to use reliably. This becomes a serious problem when we move from AI assistants to AI agents. An assistant can give a helpful answer. An agent does more. It plans, selects tools

Here is the detailed, deep-dive article tailored for DEV.to, written in a natural, highly technical style, completely free of icons, and designed to resonate with developers building agentic workflows. Building an Autonomous AI Experience Engine: Taming the Multi-Agent CLI Fleet As developers integrate more AI tools into their workflows, a new architectural problem has emerged: agent sprawl. We have incredible tools like Claude, Grok, and Codex running in our terminals, but they operate in silos. They lack shared memory, they step on each other's toes, and coordinating them feels like herding cats. To solve this, I built TechSphereX Studio — an open-source, polyglot AI Experience Engine. It is an autonomous multi-agent platform designed to intercept AI coding actions, orchestrate goal-driven work across a fleet of CLI agents, and mathematically learn from every session to improve future outcomes. Here is a deep dive into how I moved from isolated prompt engineering to a fully automated, self-learning agentic brain. Key Architectural Pillars 1. The 3-Layer Intercept Pipeline Before any CLI executes a command, TechSphereX intercepts the action to determine if the system already knows how to solve the problem based on past experiences. This happens across three highly optimized layers: Layer 1 (Read-only Filter): Evaluates the action in under 1ms. If the action is non-destructive (like a simple read), it skips heavy processing to save resources. Layer 2 (Semantic Search): Uses Qdrant running locally to perform vector embeddings and search the system's history for similar past tasks in under 50ms. Layer 3 (LLM Rerank): Passes the semantic results to a local Ollama instance to filter out contextually irrelevant data in under 500ms, ensuring the execution agent only receives high-fidelity context. 2. The Agentic Brain & Multi-Role Teams Instead of throwing a massive, complex prompt at a single coding agent, TechSphereX mimics a multi-role engineering team. The pipeline st

The average knowledge worker switches between apps 1,200 times per day, according to a 2024 Harvard Business Review analysis. Each switch is small. The cumulative cost is not. For freelancers managing their own tool stack, the problem is both a productivity drain and a billing leak. What the Research Actually Says The most cited figure comes from Gloria Mark at the University of California, Irvine: it takes an average of 23 minutes and 15 seconds to fully refocus after an interruption. That number gets quoted a lot, but the context matters. Not every app switch is a full context switch. Checking Slack for two seconds is different from switching from deep coding work to a client call. A more useful framing comes from the American Psychological Association, which distinguishes between task switching (changing what you are working on) and tool switching (changing which app you are using for the same task). Both have costs, but tool switching is uniquely wasteful because it does not change the work -- only the interface. You are still working on the same problem but spending cognitive effort navigating a different app. For freelancers, the most expensive switches are the ones between a task manager and a time tracker, between a calendar and a task list, and between a project view and a communication tool. These happen multiple times per hour during active work, and each one breaks the low-level focus that produces billable output. How to Audit Your Current Tool Stack Before consolidating tools, figure out what you actually use. For one week, keep a simple log: every time you open an app to do work (not social media or entertainment), note it. At the end of the week, tally the list. Most freelancers find they use 6-10 tools daily. The typical list looks something like this: Task manager (Todoist, Asana, Notion) Time tracker (Toggl, Clockify, Harvest) Calendar (Google Calendar, Outlook) Communication (Slack, email) File storage (Google Drive, Dropbox) Invoicing (FreshBook

Clair Health will track inflammation and bloating markers, energy levels, and cycle phase classification to give insights into cycle irregularities and perimenopause, as well as hormonal fluctuations, and how to navigate those changes.

When managing Shared VPCs, most teams allocate dedicated IP subnets for each service project to keep firewall rules simple, but this isolation often leads to poor IP utilization — it is not uncommon to see subnet IP utilization hovering in the low teens. On the other hand, using large shared subnets requires coordinating workload deployments to ensure there is enough internal IP address space for everyone. To optimize these shared networks, you need real-time visibility. The WITH_UTILIZATION query parameter on the Method: subnetworks.list | Compute Engine API solves this by returning the exact count of allocated and free IP addresses for each subnet IP range. This capability is designed for query-time decisions. For example, if you need to deploy a GCE workload requiring 100 instances, you can search for a subnet with enough capacity. This query-time data comes directly from Google Cloud's internal IP allocator and includes both primary and secondary CIDR ranges. Automating the search with gcloud and jq To automate capacity checks before you deploy, you can script this check. The script below uses gcloud compute networks subnets list | Google Cloud SDK to grab the utilization data as JSON, and then uses jq to parse, filter, and sort the subnets based on your required capacity: #!/bin/bash # --- Configuration (Replace with your details) --- PROJECT = "<YOUR_PROJECT_ID>" NETWORK_NAME = "<YOUR_VPC_NETWORK_NAME>" REGION = "<YOUR_REGION>" REQUIRED_IP_CAPACITY = 100 echo "Searching $NETWORK_NAME in $REGION for subnets with >= $REQUIRED_IP_CAPACITY free IPs..." echo "------------------------------------------------------------------------" # Fetch subnets with utilization data, output as JSON, and pipe to jq gcloud compute networks subnets list \ --project = " $PROJECT " \ --network = " $NETWORK_NAME " \ --regions = " $REGION " \ --view = WITH_UTILIZATION \ --format = json | \ jq -r --argjson min_ips " $REQUIRED_IP_CAPACITY " ' [ .[] | { name: .name, cidr: .ipCidrRange, #

What you need to know about the expiration of keys securing your machine's boot sequence.

The deployment should have taken a few minutes. The application was running, DNS was configured correctly, and the domain was already pointing to the server's public IP. Caddy was configured as a reverse proxy and was listening on ports 80 and 443. Every item on my deployment checklist appeared healthy. Yet every Let's Encrypt validation attempt kept failing. The error looked simple enough: authorization failed timeout during connect likely firewall problem At first, I believed it. I checked DNS resolution, verified firewall rules, confirmed that Caddy was listening on the expected ports, and made sure the application itself was reachable. Every check came back clean. That was the first clue that the problem might not be where the logs were pointing. The Obvious Things The first assumption was DNS. I verified that the domain resolved to the correct public IP. dig +short my-domain.com Everything looked correct. Next came the firewall. sudo ufw status Ports 80 and 443 were open. There were no unexpected deny rules, and nothing suggested inbound traffic was being blocked. Then I checked whether Caddy was actually listening. sudo ss -tulpn | grep -E ':80|:443' Again, everything looked normal. The application itself was healthy too. curl http://localhost:3001 returned a valid response. At this point I had checked most of the things engineers typically check when certificate validation fails. DNS looked good, the firewall looked good, the reverse proxy was healthy, and the application was running. Yet the validation errors continued. The Part That Sent Me In The Wrong Direction The error messages kept mentioning connectivity problems and possible firewall issues. That wording influenced my thinking more than it should have. I spent time investigating firewall rules, reverse proxy configuration, TLS settings, and domain configuration. Every new hypothesis felt reasonable, but none of them explained why local tests consistently succeeded while external validation continued

You've built a checkout reactor that reserves inventory, charges a card, generates a shipping label, and sends a confirmation email. It runs through Sidekiq. When something fails, compensation logic rolls it back. It works. Then your team asks: "How many checkouts failed this week? Which step? How long does the charge step take at p99? Can we see a trace through the entire system?" Before v0.5.0, you'd need to add logging calls to every step, build a custom Sidekiq middleware, and figure out how to correlate traces across async job boundaries. Now it's one line of config. Enter Middlewares Ruby Reactor 0.5.0 introduces a middleware pipeline — the same pattern that powers Rack, but designed for saga execution. A middleware is a plain Ruby object that hooks into the reactor lifecycle: class TimingMiddleware < RubyReactor :: Middleware def initialize ( ** options ) super @started = {} end def on_start_step ( step_name , _arguments , _context ) @started [ step_name ] = Process . clock_gettime ( Process :: CLOCK_MONOTONIC ) end def on_complete_step ( step_name , _result , _context ) started = @started . delete ( step_name ) return unless started elapsed = Process . clock_gettime ( Process :: CLOCK_MONOTONIC ) - started logger . info ( "step #{ step_name } took #{ elapsed . round ( 4 ) } s" ) end end This middleware times every step. Register it globally: RubyReactor . configure do | config | config . middlewares = [ TimingMiddleware ] end Now every reactor — every checkout, every refund, every data import — gets step-level timing, for free. The full lifecycle (20+ events) Middlewares can observe the complete execution lifecycle: Phase Events Reactor on_start_reactor , on_complete_reactor , on_failed_reactor Step on_start_step , on_complete_step , on_failed_step , on_retry_attempt Compensation on_start_compensation , on_complete_compensation , on_failed_compensation Undo on_start_undo , on_complete_undo , on_failed_undo Coordination on_lock_acquired , on_lock_failed , on_