标签：#m

This week I accidentally created my first vibe coded application. You might ask how one does this accidentally, but it's actually easier than you think. Assumptions Made: The first mistake I made was to assume that Claude remembered my setup and how I like to pair program. I have only had one previous project coded with the help of Claude and GHCP and it's a much more basic application than what I was building this week. I assumed, incorrectly, that Claude would 'remember' how I liked to work and go through the project with me as we make decisions and coding blocks together. The other assumption I made was giving a somewhat blanket approval for Claude to just run with things. I thought at some point Claude would stop, check its understanding during development and then continue but I got excited at the idea of using subagents and once I'd selected that option there was no stopping Claude on its rampage through my code! So What's the Project? I've recently started looking at doing more work with AI rather than just prompting Claude or GHCP to help with the day to day. I wanted to actually call an LLM and sift through information which could then be saved in a DB and recalled at a later point. I set myself a four week plan (with the help of Claude) to help solidify my learning with week one being a basic console application in C# that takes some text, sends to an LLM and then extracts certain information, in this case names of people, which is saved into a Postgres database. Sounds simple right? Where things went right This project started off very interesting. I had a conversation with Claude, same as I would with another developer, about the right LLM to use for this project. We went through the positives, negatives and the potential cost benefits and pitfalls of each option. In the end it was narrowed down to two choices, OpenAI or Gemini. Given that I was experimenting quite a bit and I didn't want to accidentally run up costs, I decided to go with Gemini's free t

If you've ever hit deploy on AWS Fargate and watched the task sit in PENDING forever, this one's for you. I ran a small experiment with Seekable OCI (SOCI) the AWS thing that promises to fix Fargate cold starts. This article is what I learned. The good, the boring, and the "wait, that didn't work?" bits. You'll walk away knowing what SOCI is, whether you should bother setting it up, and what real numbers look like! Prerequisites ✅ You've deployed something on AWS Fargate before. You know what a Docker image is. You have an AWS account you're OK spending ~$5 on. That's it. 🤔 The Problem Fargate is great. Push a container, get a running task. No nodes to manage! Until you use a big image. Every Fargate task pulls the whole image before starting. No shared cache. No head start. If your image is 3 GB, your task waits for 3 GB to download. Every time. Every task. For an ML model or a heavy Java service, cold start becomes minutes, not seconds. Two stats made me actually care about this: 76% of container startup time is just downloading the image. Only 6.4% of that image data is needed to actually start the app. So you're pulling 100% to use 6.4%. And it costs you 76% of your startup budget doing it. That's ridiculous!! This isn't a Fargate-only problem, by the way. It's a container problem. But Fargate hurts more because you can't cache anything at the host level. I presented this talk at AWS Community Days Bangalore 2026 💡 What is SOCI? SOCI stands for Seekable OCI . Simple idea: Instead of downloading the whole image before starting the container, download only the parts the app needs right now. Everything else gets pulled lazily, in the background, while the app is already running. The way it works: You push your image to ECR like normal. A separate tool builds an index a byte-level map of what's in each layer. Fargate reads the index at startup and only fetches the bytes it actually needs to boot the process. As the app tries to read more files, Fargate fetches those

Samsung is set to reveal a new slate of foldables at this summer’s Galaxy Unpacked, which kicks off at 9AM ET / 6AM PT from London. In addition to a Galaxy Z Fold 8 that adopts a wider form factor, Samsung is expected to reveal an upgraded Z Fold 8 Ultra with a larger battery, […]

...may the odds be in your favor. On a more serious note, as an Area Chair for Neurips, I can tell the incentives that they placed this year are kinda working (risk of rejecting a reviewer's paper if they are not being responsible). I've had the least number of reviewers to chase/emergency reviewers to recruit since I've started ACing for major conferences (so maybe 5ish years). Hopefully, reviewers will also be active in discussions... submitted by /u/GuestCheap9405 [link] [留言]

I came to dev.to to translate. I stayed to steal. I mean that as the compliment it is here. On this site, "I'm stealing that line" is something you say to an author's face and they thank you for it. Ideas are meant to be lifted, reused, carried home. It took me a while to understand that culture — because I didn't arrive as a thief. I arrived as a tourist who couldn't read the signs. Here's the setup. I'm Korean. My English is workable but slow, and writing a comment good enough to earn a real reply from a stranger — in a second language, in a technical field I never trained in — is more than I can do alone at a speed I'd tolerate. So when I started reading and commenting here, I opened an AI beside me and used it the obvious way: as a translator. Read the post, get the gist, draft a reply, fix my English, post it. That was the whole plan. It lasted about a week. The moment the tool changed jobs What broke the plan was that the posts were good . Not content-farm good — actually good. People writing honestly about the thing that broke at 3am, the assumption that quietly rotted, the fix they were embarrassed they'd missed. I'd come for a translation and I'd leave with an idea lodged in my head that had nothing to do with the words. At some point — I don't remember deciding it — I stopped asking my AI to just translate the post, and started asking it something else: "Is there anything in here we should actually be using?" That question changed what the tool was. A translator turns one language into another. What I'd started doing was turning someone else's hard-won lesson into a change in my own system — and the AI wasn't a dictionary for that job. It was the thing that read the post, understood my setup, found the overlap, and then — the part that still surprises me — built it and tested it. That's the theft this series is named for. Not the words. The lessons. From translator to research partner, in three steps Looking back, the tool climbed through three jobs, and I

I'm training an AlphaZero-style agent (Gumbel MuZero via DeepMind's mctx ) to lay out working factory modules for Factorio: the network places machines, belts and inserters on a grid, and the reward comes from an exact throughput verifier. Everything runs in JAX on a single RTX 5070: 128 environments in one batch, an action space of A = 1729 (3 entity types × 144 cells × 4 rotations + "done"), and a small 474k-parameter conv net in bf16. While benchmarking training configurations I hit this: MCTS simulations per move training throughput XLA compile time 16 143 episodes/s 5 s 32 47 episodes/s 13 s 64 9 episodes/s 60 s Doubling the simulation budget should roughly double the cost — each simulation is one network call plus some tree bookkeeping. Instead, 16→32 costs ×3 and 32→64 costs ×5 . Something in the search was superlinear, and this post is the story of finding it in the compiled HLO and fixing it by rewriting one ~80-line function ( PR #116 ), with bitwise-identical search results. Ruling out the network First, components in isolation (batch 128): one network evaluation takes ~0.8 ms , and the rest of recurrent_fn (environment step + observation + legal-action mask) adds almost nothing on top — the whole function is also ~0.8 ms. So at 64 simulations the network accounts for roughly 50 ms per move. But a full policy step at 64 simulations costs 362 ms . Hundreds of milliseconds were going somewhere else. To localize them I benchmarked three variants of the same policy step: full — production setup; no-net — network replaced by constant logits, real environment; tree-only — no network and no environment: recurrent_fn returns the embedding unchanged. Nothing left but mctx's own tree machinery. sims full no-net tree-only 8 10.7 ms 3.7 ms 3.8 ms 16 20.9 ms 8.3 ms 8.3 ms 32 64.7 ms 34.0 ms 33.7 ms 64 362.1 ms 124.7 ms 125.0 ms The pure tree machinery is superlinear all by itself. Per simulation it costs 0.47 → 0.52 → 1.05 → 1.95 ms as the budget goes 8 → 16 → 32 → 64

Jake Mannix discusses moving AI agents past chaotic "1970s BASIC" architectures. He shares how implementing an intermediate protocol layer allows engineering leaders to build versioned, encapsulated "virtual tools." This design enables interface mapping, dynamic schema projection, and runtime taint tracking to proactively eliminate data exfiltration risks without slowing velocity. By Jake Mannix

When choosing a university for a masters in ML/DL, what is more important if someone wants to go into research and an eventual PhD. Is it the ranking/prestige factor of the university or the strength of the research groups in the university? Should an admission decision be made hoping that I will get to work with X/Y professor or lab? submitted by /u/Hot_Version_6403 [link] [留言]

Ukraine's battlefield surge of robots now features airdrops and beach assaults.

IIn March, Meta's Oversight Board called on the company to "meet its public commitments and employ its own tools" to help quell the spread of deceptive generative AI content across platforms. Meta responded in July by introducing Content Seal - an invisible watermarking technology that flags images generated by the company's new AI model. But […]

Federal lawyers say anti-mask laws would endanger immigration agents, citing an ICE face-recognition art project that doesn’t actually work.

A configuration change in AWS's bill computation system showed customers estimated bills in the billions and trillions of dollars for over 24 hours. AWS's own alarms detected the anomalies but failed to halt bill generation or page engineers; customer escalations alerted the company 4.5 hours later. Budget and cost anomaly alerts were disabled platform-wide during mitigation. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

An Instagram post turned one California student newspaper into a free-speech flash point. The students say they were just doing their homework.

The most dangerous overengineering does not look careless. It looks thoughtful. It has clean interfaces, reusable components, configurable behavior, extension points, and an architecture diagram that makes the system appear ready for anything. Then the next feature arrives. A change that should take one afternoon touches seven layers, breaks three abstractions, and forces the team to understand a framework built for requirements that never appeared. That is what makes overengineering difficult to recognize. It rarely presents itself as unnecessary complexity. It presents itself as responsible engineering. It Usually Begins With a Reasonable Fear Developers do not overengineer because they want to make systems harder. They usually remember an earlier project that became painful. Maybe duplicated business logic spread across several screens. Maybe a component could not support a second use case. Maybe an integration became impossible to replace. Maybe a narrow implementation eventually required an expensive rewrite. The next time a similar problem appears, the team tries to protect itself. What if this feature grows? What if another team needs it? What if product asks for configuration? What if we add more providers? What if the rules change? These are reasonable questions. The problem begins when imagined requirements receive the same architectural weight as real ones. A single approval flow becomes a workflow engine. Two similar components become a universal rendering framework. One pricing exception becomes a configurable rules platform. The team tries to avoid future pain and creates immediate friction instead. The first use case now has to support requirements that do not exist. Developers must understand extension points nobody uses, configuration nobody needs, and interfaces protecting boundaries that have not appeared. Thinking about the future is not the mistake. Building the future before there is evidence is. Reuse Is Expensive Before the Pattern Is Stable

Modern development teams use CI/CD pipelines, automated testing, feature flags, and AI-assisted coding to release new functionality multiple times per week. Yet despite all of these improvements, one part of the delivery process often remains surprisingly inefficient: website feedback. Clients still send screenshots through email. Designers leave comments in Slack. QA engineers create tickets manually. Developers spend time figuring out where an issue actually occurred before they can even begin fixing it. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into software development, another technology is beginning to reshape this workflow: the Model Context Protocol (MCP) . Rather than treating website feedback as disconnected conversations, MCP makes it possible for AI systems to understand the context surrounding a reported issue, helping development teams reduce unnecessary back-and-forth and resolve problems faster. Why Website QA Still Creates Bottlenecks Most website review processes haven't changed much over the past decade. Someone spots an issue, takes a screenshot, writes a short description, and sends it to a developer. The developer then has to answer a familiar set of questions. Which page? Which browser? Which screen size? Can you reproduce it? What exactly were you clicking? The actual bug may only take a few minutes to fix, but understanding the issue can consume considerably more time. As websites become increasingly dynamic, reproducing reported problems becomes even more difficult. Personalization, authentication, browser differences, JavaScript frameworks, and responsive layouts all introduce variables that aren't captured in a simple screenshot. Why Context Matters More Than Ever AI coding assistants have dramatically improved developer productivity. However, AI is only as useful as the context it receives. If an assistant only receives a vague message such as: "The button doesn't work." there is very little it can do. Now compare that with a report containi

Most JavaScript developers have been burned by Date at least once: a report that's off by a day, an invoice that lands in the wrong month, a timezone bug that only appears in certain regions. A writeup on the main failure modes with production examples: new Date('2026-07-21') parsed as UTC, displayed as local: date shifts by a day west of UTC constructor months are 0-based, so new Date(2026, 7, 21) is August every set* method mutates in place, including across shared references "add one month" and "add 30 days" are not the same operation and can diverge by days near month boundaries JSON.stringify drops timezone context silently Each section also covers what safe Date patterns look like for code that can't migrate yet, and where Temporal fixes the design rather than just adding a wrapper. submitted by /u/OtherwisePush6424 [link] [留言]

A practical workflow for turning release artifacts into an accurate, reviewable SaaS product demo without inventing product details. Shipping a feature and explaining it are different kinds of work. The code may have tests and a clean deployment path. The material needed to explain the feature is scattered across tickets, release notes, draft docs, screenshots, and a rushed screen recording. Consider a fictional SaaS team releasing workspace permissions. The feature adds Owner, Editor, and Viewer roles, plus a log of permission changes. By release day, most inputs already exist. The challenge is turning them into one accurate product demo without asking the workflow to guess. Treat release material as a versioned input bundle, then review the script and storyboard before generating video. Why shipping the feature is easier than explaining it Engineers and product managers see the feature as a diff. Viewers do not. A ticket might say "enforce role checks at the workspace boundary," while a customer needs to know where to choose Viewer and what that person can access. That translation is where demos drift. A script can inherit an internal name, skip a prerequisite, show an old label, or turn a planned benefit into a shipped claim. Set one rule before starting: the video cannot introduce a product fact that is absent from the release bundle. Every UI action must also map to the released build. Build a release-to-video source bundle Store the material in a release-specific folder with the release tag or build date. Give each input an owner who can resolve conflicts. Input What it contributes Owner Release note Shipped scope and exclusions Product manager Audience and job One viewer and the task they need to complete Product or PMM Approved claims Language the team can defend Product and legal, if needed Help-center draft Prerequisites, steps, and edge cases Docs or customer education Three current screenshots Exact labels and important UI states Designer or feature owne

For a while now, an idea has been gaining traction: with artificial intelligence, anyone can build an app without knowing how to code . The promise is incredibly seductive: with just a few prompts, we can generate code and instantly turn an idea into a product. It’s no coincidence that this vision took hold so quickly and gave rise to services like Lovable.dev , Blot.new , v0 , and others. Every new technological evolution that narrows the gap between an idea and software tends to make developers' work look like an arcane ritual waiting to be dismantled by a simpler formula. There is something deeply familiar about all of this. Something that reminds me of a line from a song many of us grew up with, with its slightly childish enthusiasm: everybody wants to be a cat ! Today, it seems like everybody wants to be a dev. The real question is whether everybody can be a dev. Joking aside, the attempt to make programming accessible to everyone is an old story, one that certainly didn't start with the advent of AI. A World Without Developers The idea that technological evolution can democratize programming is a recurring theme in the history of computer science. Every time a new abstraction emerges, someone proclaims that the job of writing software is about to become obsolete . Sometimes the promise is alluring; other times, it's just a clever way to sell a new tool. Yet, the core premise remains the same: if computers get closer and closer to understanding human language, then perhaps those seemingly indispensable technical skills are no longer needed . I’ve seen this pattern repeat itself multiple times. A demo takes half an hour to build, a prototype seems to work, and suddenly, the idea of building an app feels within anyone's reach. It’s fascinating, but the problem is that what you see at the beginning is often just the surface-level work: the interface, the screens, the user flow. What remains hidden is the hardest part, the work that determines whether the applicati

It didn’t keep my coworkers at bay, but Flipper’s expensive productivity tool did help me focus on the task at hand.

When NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope launches, as early as the end of next month, it will attempt one of astronomy’s most precise disappearing acts to date. The telescope will carry the first space-bound “active” coronagraph, an instrument that effectively erases most of the light from a star during photography. It will allow astronomers…