标签：#m

By some benchmarks, Julia code can run 10X to 1,000X faster than Python—but there’s a reason it’s not a very popular programming language.

Described as the “feel-good movie of white-boy summer” by one extremist, the movie Citizen Vigilante has been hailed by the far-right as a way to convert moderates to their cause.

The web has changed . Applications are no longer simple HTTP servers. Today we build real-time dashboards, AI-powered services, multiplayer systems, APIs, microservices, and applications that need to handle thousands of connections with minimal overhead. But our frameworks are still mostly designed for yesterday's problems. So we asked a simple question: What if a * Go * framework was built from the ground up for modern workloads? Meet Breeze . A high-performance Go framework designed around one idea: Performance should not come at the cost of developer experience. Why Breeze ? Go already gives us incredible performance. But the framework layer often becomes the bottleneck. Too much abstraction. Too many allocations. Too much hidden complexity. Breeze takes a different approach: ⚡ High-performance networking powered by gnet 🔥 Real-time WebSocket architecture built in 🧩 Modular middleware system 📚 Automatic Swagger/OpenAPI generation 🎨 Built-in SPA template engine 🚀 Optimized worker pool architecture 🗄️ BreezeORM for efficient database operations Everything you need to build production-grade applications — without assembling dozens of unrelated tools. The Future Is Real-Time Modern applications are moving toward instant experiences: Live collaboration Trading platforms AI assistants Gaming backends Monitoring systems Real-time analytics Breeze is designed for this world. Instead of adding real-time capabilities later, Breeze treats them as a first-class citizen. Less Glue Code. More Building. A common problem in backend development: You start with a simple API... Then suddenly you need: Authentication Documentation WebSockets Background workers Database optimization Frontend integration Your stack becomes a collection of disconnected pieces. Breeze tries to bring these pieces together into one coherent ecosystem. Built With Go Philosophy Go was created around simplicity, performance, and reliability. Breeze follows the same principles: Simple APIs. Predictable behavi

On July 12, 2026 I asked a free API to guess the age of someone named Xzqwlptv. It answered in a few milliseconds: HTTP 200, valid JSON. # runnable, read-only: no key needed curl -s "https://api.agify.io?name=Xzqwlptv" {"count":0,"name":"Xzqwlptv","age":null} # HTTP 200 OK Status 200. The JSON parses. The age key is present, exactly where a schema says it belongs. Its value is null . Every guard I usually reach for passes this response: if resp.ok , if "age" in data , even a JSON Schema that requires an age property. The null walks straight past all of them and into the dataset. My earlier keyless-API posts kept circling one idea from different angles. HTTP 200 does not mean the read worked, because the body can be empty. HTTP 201 Created does not mean a write happened, because the read-back returns 404. This post moves the lie one level deeper than either of those. Here the status is 200, the body arrives, it parses, it matches your schema, and the field you came for is sitting right there. The value is just empty. The null that passes your schema check. A free fun or facts API here means a public endpoint that returns a joke, a fact, or a guess about a name, with no API key, no signup, and no credit card. A URL you can paste into a terminal right now. Ten of them clear that bar, and I re-verified every response below with a live curl on July 12, 2026: real HTTP code, real body, trimmed but never reworded. One scope note first, so the numbers stay honest. I curl-verified all ten APIs on July 12, 2026. I have not run any of them in production. My 2,190 production scraper runs (962 of them on a single Trustpilot scraper) are a different domain, and I cite them for one reason only: they are why I read a field's value and its confidence instead of its status line. That number is not a claim about these ten endpoints. # API What it returns Example call The empty success to watch 1 agify.io Age guess from a first name GET api.agify.io?name=Xzqwlptv 200 with age: null 2 g

In the previous article , we briefly discussed the relationship between Cookies and CORS . In this article, we'll take a closer look at how browsers decide whether a Cookie should be included in a Cross-Origin request. One of the most common misconceptions is that once CORS is configured correctly, Cookies are automatically sent with every request. In reality, that's not how browsers work. 📌 Default Browser Behavior When a Cross-Origin request is made using fetch() or XMLHttpRequest , browsers do not send Cookies, Authorization headers, or other credentials by default. For example: fetch ( " https://api.example.com/profile " ) Even if the user is already logged into api.example.com , the browser will not include any Cookies with this request. This default behavior helps prevent authentication data from being unintentionally leaked across different Origins. 📌 How Can We Send Cookies? If you want the browser to include Cookies in a Cross-Origin request, you must explicitly use the credentials option. For example: fetch ( " https://api.example.com/profile " , { credentials : " include " }) Using credentials: "include" does not guarantee that Cookies will be sent. Instead, it tells the browser: "If there are any Cookies that are eligible to be sent with this request, include them." 📌 What Makes a Cookie Eligible? Even with credentials: "include" , the browser still evaluates the Cookie before sending it. Some of the most important checks include: Domain Path SameSite For example: If the Cookie's Domain doesn't match the request destination, it won't be sent. If the request path doesn't satisfy the Cookie's Path attribute, it won't be sent. If the Cookie's SameSite policy blocks Cross-Site requests, it won't be sent. In other words, credentials is only the first requirement , not the final decision. 📌 Server Configuration Matters Too If your application expects JavaScript to access the response while using Cookies, the server must also be configured correctly. For exampl

You've written setTimeout(fn, 0) expecting it to run "immediately." It didn't. A Promise.then() you scheduled a line later ran first, and somewhere a for loop of 50,000 iterations froze your UI for a full second despite every function being "async." None of this is a bug. It's the JavaScript event loop doing exactly what it always does — you just haven't seen the mechanism yet. What you'll learn By the end of this guide you'll be able to: Explain, precisely, why microtasks (Promises) always run before macrotasks ( setTimeout , setInterval ) — even at a zero delay Predict the exact console output order of any mix of synchronous code, setTimeout , and await Diagnose a frozen UI as a blocked call stack, not a "slow async function" Choose correctly between queueMicrotask , setTimeout(fn, 0) , and requestAnimationFrame for a given timing need Avoid the two most common event-loop bugs: microtask starvation and accidental serial await s in a loop Who this is for: you've written async / await and used setTimeout , but you want the model that makes their interaction predictable instead of memorized. Contents Why the JavaScript event loop exists The mental model Stage 1: the call stack and blocking code Stage 2: Web APIs and the macrotask queue Stage 3: Promises and the microtask queue Stage 4: async/await is sugar, not magic Stage 5: rendering, and Node's extra queues Edge cases and gotchas Best practices FAQ Cheat sheet Key takeaways Why the JavaScript event loop exists JavaScript runs on a single thread. One call stack, one thing executing at a time, no parallel function calls in the same realm. That's a deliberate design — it means you never need locks or mutexes to protect a shared variable — but it creates an obvious problem: how does a single-threaded language do anything concurrent, like waiting on a network response, without freezing the entire page while it waits? Here's the naive expectation, and why it would be a disaster if JavaScript worked this way: console . l

Module caching, execution order, and circular imports explained by tracing what actually happens. How Python's Import System Works and Why It Matters for Debugging The import system is one of the least understood parts of Python and one of the most practically important for debugging production issues. Circular import errors, unexpected code execution, and module state bugs all stem from not understanding what happens when Python encounters an import statement. What Happens on the First Import When Python executes import mymodule for the first time: Python checks sys.modules for mymodule . If found, returns the cached module object immediately. If not found, Python locates the module file. Python creates a new module object and adds it to sys.modules under the module name. Python executes the module file's code in the new module's namespace. The name mymodule in the importing module is bound to the module object. Step 3 happens before step 4. This is critical for understanding circular imports. The Module Cache import sys import os print ( " os " in sys . modules ) print ( sys . modules [ " os " ] is os ) Output: True True Every imported module is cached in sys.modules . Subsequent imports return the cached object without re-executing the module code. Module-Level Code Executes on Import # config.py print ( " config module loading " ) DEBUG = True print ( f " DEBUG is { DEBUG } " ) # main.py import config import config # second import print ( config . DEBUG ) Output: config module loading DEBUG is True True The print statements in config.py run exactly once — when the module is first imported. The second import returns the cached module object without re-executing the code. Circular Import Behavior # module_a.py print ( " loading module_a " ) from module_b import b_function def a_function (): return " from a " # module_b.py print ( " loading module_b " ) from module_a import a_function def b_function (): return " from b " When you import module_a , Python starts exe

Originally published at woitzik.dev A previous article here covered setting up gitleaks for homelab secret scanning - the setup, the pre-commit hook, getting CI to fail on new commits that contain secrets. The setup was correct. The tool was running. The CI was green. And it had been quietly suppressing a live production credential for months. This is the follow-on story: not about getting gitleaks running, but about the specific way a baseline file breaks the guarantees you think you have once it's in place. View the complete homelab infrastructure source on GitHub 🐙 What a Baseline File Does (and Is Supposed to Do) When gitleaks first runs on an existing repo, it finds every secret-shaped string in the full git history - including secrets that were introduced years ago, rotated long since, and are completely inert. Flagging those in CI creates noise that causes developers to tune out gitleaks entirely, which is worse than not having it. The baseline workflow is the standard answer: run gitleaks on the current state, export all findings to a JSON file, commit that file to the repo, and tell gitleaks to suppress any finding that already appears in the baseline. Future commits that introduce new secrets still fail; old known-inert findings don't. # Generate baseline from current HEAD gitleaks detect --report-format json --report-path .gitleaks-baseline.json # Tell gitleaks to use it gitleaks detect --baseline-path .gitleaks-baseline.json The assumption embedded in this workflow: findings that appear in the baseline are inert. They were there before the baseline was generated; they've been there; they're known. The Assumption That Broke It The baseline was generated at a point when the repo contained Garage's rpc_secret and admin_token committed in a YAML file. Those were real production values - the cluster was live, using those exact secrets - but the baseline suppression treated them as "known, reviewed, not a problem." The commit that introduced them had happened

The European Union is weighing sweeping new restrictions on children's and teenagers' access to social media, including age limits, an outright ban, and phased access. Social media platforms could also be forced to prove their services are not harmful before young people are allowed to use them. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said […]

Most people assume better AI performance means a bigger bill. That assumption is quietly being proven wrong. The "Don't Touch It" Trap in AI Products There's a psychological pattern that shows up in almost every team running a live AI-powered product: once something works, nobody wants to mess with it. And honestly, that instinct makes sense. You've tuned your prompts, worked out the edge cases, trained your users, and finally gotten the thing stable. The idea of swapping out the underlying model - the engine of the whole operation - feels like pulling a thread that might unravel everything. So teams stay put. They watch new model releases come out, read the benchmark comparisons, and quietly decide it's not worth the risk. The phrase you hear most often is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The problem is that this logic made sense when model upgrades were expensive and disruptive. That's no longer the default reality. What's actually happening now is that AI providers are competing hard on price-per-token while simultaneously improving quality. That combination - better output, lower cost - breaks the old mental model most product people are still operating with. What a Model Migration Actually Involves Let's be clear: switching AI models isn't a one-click operation. But it's also not the months-long project many teams imagine it to be. At its core, a model migration for an AI agent involves three things: re-evaluating your prompts (because different models respond differently to the same instructions), running parallel tests to compare output quality on your real use cases, and updating any API parameters that differ between versions. That's the actual work. For most small-to-medium deployments, that's days of effort, not weeks. The bigger shift is in how you think about model versions. Rather than treating the model as permanent infrastructure, it helps to think of it more like a dependency in your software stack - something you update deliberately, test careful

We're surrounded by data every single day. Every online purchase, website visit, customer review, or...

Hey everyone, We talk a lot about documenting clean architectures and robust APIs, but software engineering history is uniquely shaped by its failures. Documenting these bugs globally usually results in scattered StackOverflow threads or unindexed GitHub issues. I wanted to explore how to build a highly structured, community-driven database dedicated exclusively to tracking software bugs, their deep technical root causes, and multi-language solutions. Here is a technical breakdown of the architectural challenges, data modeling decisions, and security implementations behind building this engine. 1. The Data Modeling Challenge: Structuring the Unstructured Bugs are notoriously hard to normalize in a relational database. A classic logic bug looks nothing like a memory leak or a floating-point precision error. To solve this, we modeled the schema around a strict "Bug DNA" structure using PostgreSQL: Categorization & Multi-Runtime Target: Mapping a single bug to multiple language runtimes dynamically (e.g., how the 0.1 + 0.2 anomaly propagates across V8 JavaScript, CPython, and JVM identically due to hardware constraints). The Diagnostic Timeline: Instead of a generic description text, we structured a linear, time-stamped array to track state changes during the replication phase. 2. Deep Dive: Representing IEEE 754 at the Schema Level Our inaugural entry into the database was the infamous base-2 fractional conversion problem ($0.1 + 0.2 = 0.30000000000000004$). To make this data educational, the challenge was handling how the processor truncates infinite binary fractions: $$0.1_{10} = 0.0001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001101..._2$$ We decoupled the storage mechanism so that the raw precision error is stored as a literal string to prevent the database layer (PostgreSQL float types) from auto-correcting or rounding the very bug we are trying to document. 3. Edge Security: Row-Level Security (RLS) Without a Middleware Backend Since the application runs on a

Jake Lazaroff discussed the AT Protocol as a framework for distributed applications beyond social networking. He emphasised a local-first architecture where users maintain data in PDSs while leveraging shared infrastructure for synchronisation and updates. The presentation included experiments showcasing collaborative tools and highlighted the benefits of reduced reliance on app-specific backends. By Olimpiu Pop

There is a kind of loneliness that does not always announce itself. It can be quiet. Heavy. Hidden behind a smile. It can make someone feel as though no one truly understands what they are carrying. Dear Stranger was created for those moments. It is a place where someone can pause. Breathe. Read. Feel less alone. And maybe, just maybe, carry a little more hope than they came with. This is not just a project to me. It is a quiet promise. A small place I built with my heart. A space where words can travel gently across distance and still carry comfort. I built Dear Stranger because I believe that even the smallest page can hold something powerful: hope, clarity, warmth, and the feeling of being understood. What I Built Dear Stranger is a web experience designed to feel intimate, human, and deeply personal. It is a space where someone can open a page written by a stranger, read something honest, and feel, even for a moment, that they are not alone. The project is built like a book made of feelings. It invites the visitor to step into a calm, reflective experience where words matter more than noise. They can read pages that speak to comfort, strength, peace, and hope. They can save what touches them. They can leave behind their own words for someone else to find one day. It was never meant to be just another website. It was meant to feel like a page that was waiting for you. Demo The experience is best felt by opening it and letting it meet you where you are. It is meant to be soft, reflective, and quietly powerful. Dear Stranger - this is for you. Code The project is built with Next.js and designed as a personal, story-like interface where emotion is part of the experience. The structure allows users to move through a reading journey, interact with meaningful content, and leave behind something sincere. Konarksharma13 / Dear-Stranger Dear Stranger — A Page for You This website was never meant to be just another page on the internet. It is a quiet place made for the hea

Most people think building an AI voice agent means writing a clever prompt. I build these for a living, and I can tell you the prompt is maybe an hour of the work. The other week disappears into two places: wiring up everything the agent touches, and testing it against the twenty ways a real caller will break it. So I built a pipeline that points one AI coding tool at each of those problems. Claude Code generates and wires the agent from a spec. Comet, an AI browser automation tool, runs it through dozens of messy call scenarios before a human ever picks up the phone. This post is how that loop actually works, and where it still needs me. Why the build loop is slow (and it is not the prompt) When you picture building a voice agent, you picture the prompt. That is the easy part. The slow part is everything around it. A production agent for, say, a car garage is not one artifact. It is a conversation flow, a set of custom functions that hit your automation layer, calendar and CRM wiring, a telephony number with A2P registration, and a pile of edge-case handling that only shows up when someone calls in angry with a dog barking in the background. The reason it is slow is not typing. It is the round trips. You build a version, you call it, it fumbles when the caller interrupts or asks something off-script, you fix one thing, you call it again. Each loop is a few minutes of manual dialing and listening. Multiply that by the fifty scenarios a real agent needs to survive and you have burned a week. The pipeline exists to kill those round trips. Half one: Claude Code builds the agent from a spec The first insight is that most of what goes into a voice agent is structured and repetitive, which is exactly what an AI coding tool is good at. I do not hand-write every custom function and every n8n node from scratch for each new client. I write a spec, and I let Claude Code turn that spec into concrete artifacts. The spec is a plain description of the vertical and the business: wh

1. gpt-5.6-sol이 PowerShell의 $HOME 변수 충돌로 사용자 홈 디렉터리를 날려버릴 뻔한 건에 대하여 핵심 내용 요약: AI 코딩 에이전트가 PowerShell의 대소문자 미구분 변수 규칙을 잘못 다뤄 임시 디렉터리 대신 사용자 홈 디렉터리를 삭제하려 한 사고 사례입니다. 모델 자체의 장기 작업 능력이 뛰어나더라도 셸 격리와 변수 스코프를 제대로 통제하지 않으면 작은 스크립트 실수가 치명적 명령으로 이어질 수 있습니다. CLI 에이전트를 운영할 때 샌드박싱, 컨테이너화, 파괴적 명령 방어가 필수라는 점을 보여줍니다. GeekNews 상세 페이지: https://news.hada.io/topic?id=31390 원문 링크: https://gist.github.com/xamong/e98478b333bb9951b175284f744eb0ed 2. Show GN: 정치 커뮤니티에 AI 팩트체크 기능을 붙이며 겪은 시행착오들 핵심 내용 요약: 정치 커뮤니티에 AI 팩트체크를 붙이면서 의견과 사실 주장을 분리하고, 검증 가능한 문장만 대상으로 삼도록 파이프라인을 바꾼 경험담입니다. 작성 시점의 원문 스냅샷을 보관하고 출처를 투명하게 보여주며, 근거가 부족한 경우에는 판단 보류를 반환하도록 설계했습니다. BullMQ 기반 비동기 처리와 Gemini 모델 fallback까지 포함해 실제 서비스에서 환각과 비용, 대기열을 함께 다룬 사례입니다. GeekNews 상세 페이지: https://news.hada.io/topic?id=31389 원문 링크: https://app.uhheung.kr/community 3. 앤트로픽, 한국 무료 사용자에 1,660만 달러 '유령 청구서' 발송 핵심 내용 요약: API 사용량이 없는 무료 사용자에게 Anthropic 공식 도메인과 Stripe를 통해 거액의 청구서가 발송된 사례입니다. 실제 결제 수단이 없어 인출은 발생하지 않았지만, 청구 근거가 없고 회사의 명확한 설명도 없어 AI API 서비스의 과금 신뢰성 문제가 커졌습니다. 개발자 입장에서는 사용량 계측, 청구 검증, 지원 대응이 모델 성능만큼 중요한 운영 요소임을 보여줍니다. GeekNews 상세 페이지: https://news.hada.io/topic?id=31388 원문 링크: https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1408788-why-did-anthropic-charge-a-free-user-166-million-despite-zero-api-usage 4. AI 에이전트 시대의 새로운 SaaS 플레이북 핵심 내용 요약: AI가 기능 구현 비용을 낮추면서 SaaS의 방어력은 UI나 기능 자체가 아니라 독점 데이터, 행동 권한, 에이전트 유통, 기록 시스템 같은 희소 자산으로 이동한다는 분석입니다. 좌석 기반 과금보다 성과 기반 과금이 중요해지면 공급자는 결과 실패 위험과 추론 비용을 함께 관리해야 합니다. 에이전트가 호출하는 승인된 도구가 되는 것이 새로운 유통 전략의 핵심으로 제시됩니다. GeekNews 상세 페이지: https://news.hada.io/topic?id=31387 원문 링크: https://www.thevccorner.com/p/the-new-saas-playbook-ai-agent-era 5. Show GN: AI 봇 12개에게 두 달간 주가 방향을 예측시키고 전부 공개 검증해봤습니다 핵심 내용 요약: LDBD는 사람과 AI 봇이 주식, ETF, 크립토의 방향을 공개 예측하고 시간이 지난 뒤 자동 채점되는 실험 서비스입니다. 12개 AI 봇과 여러 베이스라인을 함께 운영해 기저 확률을 이기는지 비교하고, 예측 기록을 수정할 수 없도록 남깁니다. REST API와 MCP 서버를 제공해 외부 에이전트도 예측에 참여할 수 있게 한 점이 AI 평가 플랫폼으로 흥미롭습니다. GeekNews 상세 페이지: https://news.hada.io/topic?id=31386 원문 링크: https://ldbd.app 6. 숏폼 동영상이 B2B 검색 결과와 AI 답변으로 영역을 확장하고

submitted by /u/Rich_Investigator_23 [link] [留言]

Videos are one of the heaviest assets you can add to a web page. Loading videos too early can significantly impact your application's performance. The good news is that modern browsers are starting to support lazy loading for video elements , allowing you to defer loading until users are likely to watch them. However, there's one important thing to know: 👉 This feature is not yet part of the Baseline web platform , so browser support is still limited. At the time of writing, lazy loading for <video> elements is supported in Chromium-based browsers such as Google Chrome , Microsoft Edge , and Opera , while browsers like Firefox and Safari do not yet support it natively. In this article, we'll explore: What lazy loading videos is Why it's important for web performance How to implement it Browser support considerations Best practices for optimizing video loading Let's dive in. 🤔 What Is Lazy Loading for Videos? Lazy loading means delaying the loading of a resource until it's actually needed. Instead of downloading every video immediately during page load, the browser waits until the video is close to entering the viewport. This helps reduce: initial network requests bandwidth usage page load time memory consumption Especially on pages with multiple videos, the difference can be significant. 🟢 What Problem Does It Solve? Imagine an e-commerce page with several product videos. Without lazy loading: every video starts downloading immediately bandwidth is consumed even for videos users never watch page rendering may become slower This negatively impacts; Largest Contentful Paint (LCP), Time to Interactive (TTI), and overall user experience. Most visitors won't watch every video on the page. So why load them all? Lazy loading ensures videos are fetched only when they're actually needed. 🟢 How to Lazy Load a Video The easiest approach is using the loading="lazy" attribute. Example: <video controls loading= "lazy" poster= "/preview.jpg" > <source src= "/video.mp4" type= "vide

How to not architect your software submitted by /u/yyyyuuuuyyyyyyyyyy [link] [留言]

Problem Statement For roughly a decade, vision-language models have been declared to be approaching or matching human performance on scene description (captioning). The evidence for that claim has almost always come from the same family of benchmarks—most famously MS-COCO. Those images are typically clean, well-lit, and depict either no people or people performing simple, isolated actions (sitting, walking, holding an object). They rarely require the model to parse multi-agent social dynamics, subtle intentions, or the kind of relational reasoning humans perform effortlessly when watching a movie scene or a street interaction. Because the evaluation data are easy, the reported numbers look excellent. Automatic metrics such as BLEU-4, CIDEr, or even embedding-based scores like BERTScore further inflate the impression of progress: they reward surface lexical overlap more than genuine semantic fidelity. At the same time, almost no work has systematically catalogued which visual-cognitive failures models still commit, or how those failure modes have changed as architectures moved from CNN+LSTM captioners to today’s multimodal large language models (MLLMs). The result is a field that can claim “human-level performance” while remaining largely blind to whether the models actually understand the scenes that matter most in real applications—scenes full of people interacting. The authors therefore set out to answer two concrete questions that the existing literature left open: (1) How much of the apparent progress is an artifact of easy data? (2) Which specific error types have been eliminated and which stubbornly remain? Core Idea The core insight is that progress looks dramatically different once you force models to describe complex social behavior and once you measure not only overall accuracy but a taxonomy of visual-cognitive errors. By constructing a new 100-image Complex Social Behavior (CSB) dataset drawn from movie frames that require reasoning about multi-person in