标签：#m

You've probably seen this: Kubernetes probes are green, /health returns 200, CPU isn't on fire - and users are timing out. Process is up. Just not doing anything useful. Classic event loop freeze. Something sync and expensive (or a dumb busy loop) grabs the thread, and suddenly timers, HTTP, DB callbacks - all of it waits. Including your health endpoint, because that also needs the loop. monitorEventLoopDelay() is fine for dashboards. It won't yell at you while the process is stuck, and it definitely won't write a log line from outside the frozen loop. That's the part that annoyed me enough to build this. I made @js-ak/watchdog - tiny N-API addon. The monitor runs in C++ on its own thread and writes JSON lines to stderr/file even while the JS event loop is stuck. Your freeze / recovered handlers only run after the loop unblocks. Optional RSS/CPU, optional stack sample. npm install @js-ak/watchdog const watchdog = require("@js-ak/watchdog"); watchdog.on("freeze", (e) => console.log(e.event, e.duration_ms)); watchdog.on("recovered", (e) => console.log("back after", e.duration_ms, "ms")); watchdog.start({ freezeThresholdMs: 1000, logTarget: "stderr", // or "file" | "both" source: "payments-api", }); Real freezes usually aren't while (true) . More like giant JSON.parse, a cursed regex, sync crypto/compress, or some dependency doing sync I/O on a hot path. Stuff you only notice after people complain. Prebuilds for the usual platforms (Node 22+). MIT. Repo: https://github.com/JS-AK/watchdog Curious how other people catch loop stalls in prod - and what you'd actually want in the freeze payload. Roast the API if it's wrong.

You give the AI two examples of a new task. It understands. It completes the third example correctly. It has not changed its weights. It has not been fine-tuned. It has learned from the context of the prompt alone. This is in-context learning. It is one of the most remarkable properties of large language models. But it is not learning in the human sense. It is pattern matching. It is using the examples as a template. It is not generalizing. It is adapting. This is the distinction that matters: in-context learning is not true generalization. It is a form of rapid pattern completion. The model does not update its internal knowledge. It simply uses the examples to adjust its predictions. What Is In-Context Learning? In-context learning is the ability of a model to learn from examples provided in the prompt. The Process: The prompt contains a few examples. The model uses these examples to infer the task. It applies the inferred task to a new input. The Mechanism: The model does not update its weights. It uses the examples as a template. It generates the most likely completion. A Contrarian Take: In-Context Learning Is Not Learning. It Is Pattern Completion. We call it "learning." But it is not learning in the human sense. It is pattern completion. The model is not generalizing. It is matching patterns. How Does It Work? The mechanism of in-context learning is still debated. But there are leading theories. The Pattern Completion Theory: The model has seen similar tasks during training. The examples activate the relevant patterns. The model completes the pattern. The Induction Head Theory: The model has "induction heads" that detect repeated patterns. These heads identify the relationship between examples. They apply the relationship to the new input. A Contrarian Take: The Mechanism Is Not Important. The Outcome Is. We debate the mechanism. But the outcome is what matters. The model can learn from examples. The mechanism is a technical detail. The outcome is a practical

Hi, my name is Dan, I'm a frontend engineer and open-source maintainer. I've spent the last couple of years building Nano Kit — a lightweight, modular state management ecosystem for modern web apps: signals-based stores , a router , data fetching , i18n , and SSR support , all built on the same tiny reactive core. It recently hit 1.0 , and in this post I want to give you four honest reasons to try it. 1. It's fast At the heart of Nano Kit is a push-pull reactivity system based on the algorithm from alien-signals — one of the fastest signal implementations in the JavaScript ecosystem. I didn't use alien-signals directly, though. Nano Kit needed things it doesn't provide, so I built a dedicated fork called Agera : Signal lifecycles — you can listen to signal activation and deactivation, which powers Nano Kit's mountable stores (run setup logic on first listener, clean up on last). Real tree-shaking — Agera is designed so that only the code you use ends up in your bundle; alien-signals is not well tree-shakable. The result keeps almost all of alien-signals' raw speed. Here is how @nano_kit/store compares to other popular state management libraries in a reactivity benchmark : Library Latency avg (ns) Throughput avg (ops/s) alien-signals 294.00 ± 2.24% 3,559,763 @nano_kit/store 303.55 ± 0.75% 3,365,816 svelte/store 428.58 ± 0.61% 2,479,118 rxjs 454.74 ± 0.07% 2,250,397 nanostores 1,373.2 ± 5.96% 952,399 mobx 3,474.7 ± 1.86% 306,094 valtio 5,041.3 ± 11.46% 254,109 jotai 9,454.6 ± 16.45% 157,853 effector 24,885 ± 11.78% 62,744 @reatom/core 59,430 ± 15.61% 22,741 Benchmark was run on AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G with Node.js v24.14.1 That's ~3.5× faster than nanostores and an order of magnitude faster than most atomic state managers — while shipping lifecycles and mountable stores on top. 2. It's small Nano Kit exists largely because of Nano Stores . I love its philosophy: atomic stores, mountable resources, logic moved out of components, and an obsessive focus on bundle size. Nan

In 1996, Bandai sold 82 million Tamagotchis. Kids carried egg-shaped plastic keychains everywhere, frantically pressing three buttons to feed, clean, and play with a pixelated blob that would literally die if you ignored it during math class. It was the first time millions of people felt genuine emotional attachment to a piece of software. 30 years later, I rebuilt that entire experience — in the browser, with TypeScript, zero dependencies, completely open source. No app store. No download. No install. Just open a tab and adopt your pet. And in the process, I learned more about state machines, game loops, and emotional design than any computer science course ever taught me. Why Build a Virtual Pet in 2025? Three reasons: 1. Nostalgia Is a Distribution Hack People share things that trigger childhood memories. It's not rational — it's emotional. A browser-based Tamagotchi hits a nerve that no todo app or dashboard ever will. When I shared an early prototype, the response wasn't "cool tech stack." It was: "OH MY GOD I used to cry when mine died in second grade" That emotional reaction is worth more than any Product Hunt launch. 2. Game State Machines Are Criminally Underrated Every tutorial teaches state machines with traffic lights or toggle buttons. Boring. Useless. Forgettable. A virtual pet has dozens of interconnected states , real-time decay, evolution paths, conditional transitions, and edge cases that force you to actually think about state architecture. After building this, implementing complex UI flows in production apps felt trivial. 3. Not Everything Needs to Be a SaaS The indie dev world is obsessed with "revenue-generating side projects." Sometimes you should build something purely because it makes people smile. The best projects are the ones you'd use even if nobody else existed. Meet Your New Pet When you open Tamagochi, you get an egg. It hatches. A tiny pixelated creature appears. It has needs. Meet them, and it thrives. Ignore them, and... well, game

Divergence escalates the wrong population: unanimous misses auto-pass Agent Determinism Illusions (Part 7) Where this fits: This part does not continue Part 13's probe-vs-prose thread. It returns to Part 6 's L2→L3 escalation rule — Dipankar's move of treating vote disagreement as the human-review signal. Alexey Spinov's follow-up comment says that signal points at the wrong population. Two experiments check whether he is right, and what to put in the tripwire instead. Part 6 drew this control flow: L2 multi-perspective votes │ unanimous ──────────► AUTO-PASS / AUTO-REJECT │ divergence (e.g. 2–1) ► L3 human The caveat was already in the text: divergence measures ambiguity; it does not fix unanimous systematic bias. Alexey's point is sharper — and it is about routing , not about another caveat paragraph. 1. Alexey's population mismatch On the Part 6 thread, Alexey Spinov wrote (paraphrased tightly): The dangerous failures are high-confidence and directional — systematic. Systematic bias is shared across prompts, not idiosyncratic (your own P3: majority voting doesn't fix it). So the three perspectives will tend to agree on exactly those cases. Divergence-to-human then routes you the safely-ambiguous ones and auto-passes the confidently-wrong ones. The escalation signal is pointing at the wrong population. He proposed two cheap replacements: T1 — deterministic tripwire on known-reversal classes (escalate regardless of agreement). T2 — treat unanimous + high-confidence on a historically reversal-prone class as escalate — the inverse of “high confidence, auto-pass.” That is the claim under test. Not “divergence is useless,” but “divergence alone is the wrong primary tripwire for the failure mode you already measured.” 2. Experiment A — offline proxy on DF v2 (no new API) Part 6's Mike Update already showed: of 96 DF v2 MISS runs, 95.8% sat at self-reported confidence ≥ 0.9 (avg 0.969). That mass is concentrated — Part 6 also reported ~80% of MISS runs from qwen3:0.5b —

One of the biggest mistakes beginners make when learning Terraform is treating their local machine as the deployment server. A typical workflow looks like this: terraform init terraform plan terraform apply While this approach is perfectly fine for learning, it quickly becomes problematic when working on real-world projects with multiple engineers. Consider these questions: Who deployed the infrastructure? Was the infrastructure reviewed before deployment? Can someone else reproduce the deployment? What happens if the engineer's laptop is lost or misconfigured? How do we know exactly what changed? These are some of the reasons Infrastructure as Code (IaC) is almost always integrated with Continuous Integration and Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) pipelines in professional environments. In this article, we'll build a simple Terraform CI/CD pipeline using GitHub Actions. Instead of focusing only on the YAML syntax, we'll first understand why each stage exists and how they work together to produce safe, repeatable infrastructure deployments. What is Terraform CI/CD? Terraform CI/CD is the process of automating the validation, planning, and deployment of infrastructure whenever changes are made to Terraform code. Instead of running Terraform commands manually from a developer's laptop, a CI/CD platform executes those commands automatically in a controlled environment. The workflow typically looks like this: Developer │ ▼ Git Push │ ▼ GitHub Repository │ ▼ GitHub Actions │ ▼ Terraform Init │ ▼ Terraform Validate │ ▼ Terraform Plan │ ▼ Manual Approval │ ▼ Terraform Apply │ ▼ AWS Infrastructure This approach provides consistency, visibility, and security while reducing the chances of human error. Why Not Run Terraform Manually? Running Terraform from your laptop works well for personal projects, but it introduces several risks in a team environment. Manual Deployment CI/CD Deployment Requires someone to remember every command Runs automatically Easy to skip validation Validat

In 2023, Bitly's free plan gave you 100 links per month with full analytics. In 2025, they slashed it to 5 links per month . Five. And they started showing full-screen interstitial ads before redirecting — even on links you created years ago. In 2026, their cheapest paid plan is $10/month — just to shorten links without ads. I was paying $120/year to turn long URLs into short ones. A problem that takes 3 lines of code to solve. So I solved it myself. For free. Forever. Introducing ZipLink ZipLink is a fast, self-hostable URL shortener built with Next.js and Firebase. Deploy it once, use it forever. No monthly fees. No link limits. No ads. No "upgrade to unlock analytics." Your links. Your data. Your domain. Your rules. https://yourdomain.com/abc123 → https://some-really-long-url.com/path/to/thing?utm=whatever That's it. That's the product. Except you own it completely. The State of URL Shorteners in 2026 (It's Embarrassing) Let me show you what the "industry leaders" are charging for what is essentially a database lookup: The Comparison Table Feature Bitly Rebrandly Short.io Dub.co TinyURL Pro ZipLink Monthly cost $10-$300/mo $13-$349/mo $19-$149/mo $24-$299/mo $9.99/mo $0 Annual cost $96-$2,388/yr $156-$4,188/yr $228-$1,788/yr $288-$3,588/yr $119.88/yr $0 Free tier links 5/month 10/month 1,000 total 25/month Unlimited (no analytics) Unlimited Custom domain Paid only Free (1 domain) Required Paid only Paid only Yes (yours) Click analytics Paid only Paid only Free (basic) Paid only Paid only Full, free Link expiration Paid only Paid only Yes Yes No Yes Password protection Enterprise only Paid only Paid Paid No Yes API access Paid only Paid only Yes Yes Paid Full, free QR codes 2 free, then paid Paid Yes Paid Paid Unlimited Self-hostable No No No Yes (complex) No Yes (simple) Data ownership Their servers Their servers Their servers Their servers Their servers Your Firebase Ads/interstitials Yes (free tier) No No No Yes (free tier) Never Links disappear if you stop pay

good luck! submitted by /u/Business-Kale-1406 [link] [留言]

When a new platform team set out on implementing their roadmap through forced workflows with poor documentation, developer experience declined. Success came from simplifying governance, prioritizing what matters, and rolling out compliance incrementally through prevention, detection, and communication. Empathy, focus, and shared purpose drove successful adoption. By Ben Linders

Cordless, handheld, robot, and traditional—we tested them all to find the vacuum that’s fantastic for fur.

The resulting report is a near-random mixture of real problems and grievances.

New paper: “ Encryption and Globalization 15 Years Later: End-to-End Encryption and the Third Round of the ‘Going Dark’ Debate “: Abstract : This Article updates and expands on 2012 research on encryption and globalization, analyzing what the authors call “Round 3” of the Going Dark Debate: the current controversies over end-to-end encryption (E2EE). Governments around the world have proposed, and in some cases enacted, laws limiting E2EE for law enforcement and national security purposes. This Article explains the underlying technologies and market developments for a law and policy audience to assess those proposals critically. The Article proceeds in three parts tracking three rounds of the Going Dark Debate. Round 1 covers the Crypto Wars of the 1990s, when U.S. export controls on strong encryption ultimately fell in 1999. Round 2 covers the period roughly 2010 to 2015, when encryption-in-transit became widespread but lawful access remained available through cloud providers, giving rise to what the authors called a “golden age of surveillance” rather than a period of going dark. Round 3 addresses the current debate over E2EE, where no entity between sender and recipient can read the plaintext...

The EPA has proposed a rule change that would let states decide how much input the public has on air pollution permits. It would be a huge boon for data centers increasingly reliant on fossil fuels.

"I don't think you get a model this strong and this quickly on the heels of Fable doing strictly distillation," one expert told TechCrunch.

A few weeks ago, a back-of-envelope calculation told us that scaling Tula Spaces to 100,000 concurrent listeners would need roughly 100 small VPS boxes. That number was scary enough to derail a roadmap conversation — and, as it turned out, almost entirely wrong. This is the story of how we got from that panic number down to a real, measured, production-ready plan: five boxes, not a hundred, with every claim backed by a test rather than a guess. If you're building anything real-time at scale — live audio, video, multiplayer, anything running over QUIC — the failure modes we hit are probably waiting for you too. The panic number was built on an assumption, not a measurement The original math went something like: X% of a CPU core per listener, therefore Y cores needed, therefore Z boxes. It felt rigorous because it had numbers in it. But every number in that chain was inherited from an untuned, default configuration nobody had actually interrogated. The first rule we relearned the hard way: a scary capacity number is a hypothesis, not a fact, until you've tried to break it on purpose. Myth #1: "It's too much crypto for one core" Our relay runs one process per box, encrypting media for every connected listener over QUIC. At ~0.4% of a CPU core per listener at a modest bitrate, the instinctive explanation was cryptographic overhead — AES doesn't usually struggle at these data rates, so something had to be off. It wasn't crypto. It was packet count . Our encoder was emitting one CMAF fragment every 21 milliseconds — about 47 fragments a second, each one a separate send over the wire, per listener. That's a syscall and framing tax, not a cipher tax. Crypto didn't even show up in a profiler trace once we went looking. The instinct to reach for "batch the fragments" didn't work, though — that's the first place the story took a turn. Myth #2: Batching the container doesn't touch the wire We tried extending the CMAF fragment duration from 21ms to 200ms, expecting a straightfor

MAGA-coded adult content playing off immigration crackdowns, white supremacy, and obeying the “natural order” is finding rabid audiences on X.

Jeremy Edberg & Qian Li discuss why external orchestrators decrease reliability and how to use your existing database for durable execution. They share how DBOS Transact uses standard tables, SKIP LOCKED queues, and unique primary keys to manage complex, fault-tolerant AI workflows with minimal latency, all without the operational overhead of separate distributed systems. By Jeremy Edberg, Qian Li

QCon AI New York 2026 (Dec 15-16) has opened registration at The Westin Jersey City Newport. Six tracks on production AI, chaired by Eder Ignatowicz with Faye Zhang and Wes Reisz. First sessions announced in August, full program by November. By Artenisa Chatziou

Ink & Switch published bijou64, a variable-length integer encoding where every number has exactly one byte representation, closing the canonicality bug class behind attacks on PKCS#1, JWT libraries, and Bitcoin. The design also decodes two to ten times faster than LEB128. Community ports to Elixir, Go, Perl, and Java followed, while HN commenters debated SIMD performance and residual range checks. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

The fast fix If your GitLab CI job fails with Cannot connect to the Docker daemon at unix:///var/run/docker.sock , your docker client is looking for a local socket that does not exist inside the job container, because DOCKER_HOST is not set. Point the client at the docker:dind service over TCP and the error goes away: build : image : docker:28.3 services : - name : docker:28.3-dind alias : docker variables : DOCKER_HOST : tcp://docker:2376 DOCKER_TLS_CERTDIR : " /certs" DOCKER_CERT_PATH : " /certs/client" DOCKER_TLS_VERIFY : " 1" script : - docker info - docker build -t my-app . That is the whole fix for the common case. The rest of this page explains why the socket variant of the error is different from the tcp://docker:2375 variant, and covers the two other setups (socket-mounted runners and the Kubernetes executor) where the same message shows up for a different reason. Why you get the unix socket variant specifically This error is not the same as Cannot connect to the Docker daemon at tcp://docker:2375 . The address in the message tells you exactly what the client tried: Cannot connect to the Docker daemon at unix:///var/run/docker.sock. Is the docker daemon running? When DOCKER_HOST is empty, the Docker CLI falls back to its compiled-in default, the local unix socket at /var/run/docker.sock . Inside a GitLab CI job that uses the docker executor, that socket file simply is not there. The daemon runs in a separate docker:dind service container, not in your job container, so there is nothing listening on the local socket. The client connects, finds no socket, and prints the message above. The tcp://docker:2375 form is the opposite problem: DOCKER_HOST is set correctly but the dind service is not reachable (missing service, no privileged mode, or a TLS mismatch). If you are seeing that address instead, read the companion write-up on the tcp://docker:2375 form of this error , which walks the service and privileged-mode causes in detail. This page is about the case w