标签：#m

Artificial intelligence has transformed software development. Instead of simply generating code snippets, modern coding assistants can understand entire codebases, refactor applications, write tests, debug issues, and even execute development workflows. Among the most capable tools available today are Claude Code and Codex. While both are designed to accelerate software development, they take different approaches to coding assistance. This article compares their strengths, weaknesses, and ideal use cases. What Is Claude Code? Claude Code is Anthropic's command-line coding assistant built around the Claude family of language models. Rather than functioning as a traditional autocomplete tool, Claude Code works as an AI development agent that can inspect projects, edit files, explain code, write tests, fix bugs, and help developers navigate large repositories. Its workflow is centered around natural language. Developers describe what they want, and Claude Code performs the necessary steps while keeping the developer involved throughout the process. Key features Deep understanding of large codebases Multi-file editing Test generation Refactoring assistance Terminal-based workflow Strong reasoning for complex programming tasks Excellent documentation generation What Is Codex? Codex is OpenAI's AI coding agent designed to help developers write, understand, and modify software. Unlike the original Codex model introduced in 2021, today's Codex operates as a software engineering agent capable of working across repositories, generating code, fixing bugs, creating pull requests, running tests, and assisting with development workflows. Codex integrates closely with OpenAI's ecosystem and focuses on turning natural language instructions into production-ready code while maintaining awareness of project context. Key features Repository-aware coding Autonomous task execution Code generation Bug fixing Test writing Pull request assistance Integration with modern development workflow

Disclosure up front: I'm Oded, co-founder of UniPaaS, the FCA-authorised Payment Institution (No. 929994) behind paas.build - so this is a vendor writing about his own product. That said, the three Base44 mechanics below are documented Base44 surfaces, and they work with any external payments API, not just ours. The wall Tell Base44 "add payments" and it installs Stripe or Base44 Payments (powered by Wix), plus Tranzila/Max for Israel. Both main options are solid if you qualify: Stripe is excellent infrastructure with first-class docs, and the Wix-powered option is native to the platform. The fine print is where builders hit a wall: Stripe live mode needs verified business and banking information before you can take a real payment. Base44 Payments requires "a business and bank account based in one of the supported countries" (their docs). The top payments request on Base44's own feedback board is "a way to setup other payment providers other than Stripe" - precisely because not every country is supported. Base44 webhooks only fire while someone is actively using your app, so 3am subscription renewals, retries and dunning silently don't run. If you have a registered company in a supported country and mostly sell one-off purchases, use the built-in Stripe path. It's the smoothest. The rest of this post is for everyone else. Base44 gives you three documented ways to wire in an external provider. I tested all three with paas.build. Here's each, and when it fits. Insertion point 1: custom MCP connection (build-time) In Base44: Settings → Account → MCP connections → Add custom MCP . Name: paas.build Server URL: https://paas.build/sse Auth: API key (your paas.build key) That's the legacy SSE endpoint Base44's form takes; streamable HTTP lives at https://paas.build/mcp for agents that support it. Base44's AI treats MCP connections as tools it can call when your request needs external data or actions. So in the editor chat you can say "use paas.build to create a live merchan

Disclosure before anything else: I'm Oded, co-founder of UniPaaS, the FCA-authorised Payment Institution (No. 929994) behind paas.build, and we compete with Paddle. The title above is the sentence builders keep arriving with - right here on dev.to , in Hacker News threads , and in our inbox. This is the map I give them, including the branches where Paddle is still the right call. Why good products get rejected Paddle is a Merchant of Record. The moment it approves you, it becomes the legal seller of everything you sell. So its underwriting answers exactly one question: "do we want to legally own this business's sales?" A brand-new solo builder with no history is the riskiest possible answer to that question, regardless of how good the product is. Builders who have been through it report the same four themes: No prior processing history. The chicken-and-egg: you need a payments track record to get approved, and you need approval to build a track record. An incomplete-looking site. Missing terms, no pricing page, no live domain, no visible product. Reviewers open your site. Identity mismatches. The applying entity, the domain owner and the bank account don't line up. Category restrictions. Paddle has tightened around some generative-AI products. Very little of this is documented, which is why the rejection email feels random. It isn't. It's a business model doing exactly what it was built to do. The decision tree Two questions decide your next move. 1. Is "global tax handled for me" your top requirement? If yes, stay in the MoR category. This is Paddle's genuine strength, and it's a real one: as Merchant of Record it remits VAT/GST across 100+ jurisdictions, and that liability sits with them, not you. No PayFac gives you that. Don't switch categories - fix the application and get back in the queue: Make the site look finished. Live domain, real pricing page, terms of service, privacy policy, a working demo. Explain the business plainly. What you sell, to whom, expecte

👋 Welcome to Chapter 9! Imagine a user typing in a search box. They type "i", "ip", "iph", "ipho", "iphon", "iphone" — 6 keystrokes in 2 seconds. Do you really want to make 6 API calls ? Of course not! You want to wait until they stop typing and then search once. That's what timing operators solve. They control when and how often values flow through your stream. ⏱️ debounceTime() — Wait for the Silence debounceTime(ms) waits until there's a pause of ms milliseconds, THEN lets the latest value through. Think of it like this: "Ignore everything until they stop for a moment." Like a person who waits for you to finish talking before responding. import { debounceTime } from ' rxjs/operators ' ; // User types fast: 'i' → 'ip' → 'iph' → 'ipho' → 'iphon' → 'iphone' // debounceTime(400) waits 400ms of silence, then sends 'iphone' only searchControl . valueChanges . pipe ( debounceTime ( 400 )) . subscribe ( term => { this . searchProducts ( term ); // Only called ONCE with 'iphone'! }); Timeline: Type 'i' → [400ms timer starts] Type 'ip' → [reset timer] Type 'iph' → [reset timer] Type 'iphone'→ [reset timer] ... 400ms silence ... EMIT: 'iphone' ✅ Real Angular Example — Smart Search Box import { Component , OnInit , OnDestroy } from ' @angular/core ' ; import { FormControl } from ' @angular/forms ' ; import { Observable , Subject } from ' rxjs ' ; import { debounceTime , distinctUntilChanged , switchMap , startWith , takeUntil } from ' rxjs/operators ' ; @ Component ({ selector : ' app-search-box ' , template : ` <div class="search-wrapper"> <input [formControl]="searchControl" placeholder="Search products..." (keyup.escape)="clearSearch()"> <span *ngIf="isLoading" class="spinner">🔄</span> <button *ngIf="searchControl.value" (click)="clearSearch()">✕</button> </div> <div class="results-count" *ngIf="(results$ | async) as results"> Found {{ results.length }} results </div> <div class="results"> <div *ngFor="let item of results$ | async" class="result-item"> <strong>{{ item.nam

Most organisations approach a Dynamics 365 Customer Engagement implementation with one question at the top of their agenda: How long will this take? It is a reasonable question, and one that deserves a precise, well-considered answer rather than a vague estimate designed to win the deal. The reality is that Dynamics 365 CE implementation timelines vary significantly, shaped by factors that are unique to each organisation: business complexity, data readiness, customisation depth, integration requirements, and internal stakeholder availability. This guide provides a structured, phase-by-phase breakdown of what a Dynamics 365 CE implementation actually involves, realistic timeline benchmarks by business size and industry, and the critical factors that either accelerate or delay your go-live date. Why there is no one-size-fits-all timeline for Dynamics 365 CE implementation Why There Is No Single Answer to the Timeline Question Dynamics 365 Customer Engagement is not a standalone application. It is a modular platform encompassing Sales, Customer Service, Field Service, and Marketing, each carrying its own configuration requirements, data dependencies, and user adoption considerations. A professional services firm deploying D365 Sales for a 25-person team operates in an entirely different context than a multi-national enterprise rolling out Customer Service and Field Service across three regions. Treating these as comparable projects, with comparable timelines, is where expectations first go wrong. As a reference framework, Dynamics 365 CE implementations broadly fall into three tiers: Implementation Scope Basic deployment, minimal customization :- 6 – 12 weeks Mid-market with integrations and moderate configuration :- 3 – 6 months Enterprise, multi-module or multi-region rollout :- 6 – 16 months These are informed benchmarks, not guarantees. What determines where your project lands within or beyond these ranges is examined in detail below. Core phases of a Microsoft Dyn

TL;DR Retailers process thousands of inventory transactions every second across physical stores, eCommerce platforms, warehouses, suppliers, and fulfillment centers. Yet many inventory systems still rely on scheduled synchronization, causing stock levels to become outdated within minutes. The result is overselling, delayed replenishment, inaccurate inventory visibility, and avoidable stockouts. Apache Kafka enables real-time inventory management by treating every inventory movement as an event that is streamed the moment it occurs. Sales, returns, warehouse transfers, supplier deliveries, and IoT sensor updates are continuously processed to maintain a consistent inventory view across all retail systems. This event-driven approach helps retailers improve inventory accuracy, automate replenishment, detect stockouts before they occur, and respond to changing demand in near real time. In this guide, you'll learn how Apache Kafka powers real-time inventory management, explore a production-ready reference architecture, understand how inventory events are processed across retail systems, and discover implementation best practices for building scalable, resilient inventory streaming applications. Introduction Retail inventory management has evolved far beyond tracking products on warehouse shelves. Today's retailers operate across physical stores, eCommerce platforms, online marketplaces, distribution centers, and supplier networks, where inventory levels change continuously throughout the day. Every sale, return, warehouse transfer, supplier delivery, and inventory adjustment impacts product availability, making accurate inventory visibility essential for delivering a seamless customer experience. However, many retailers still rely on scheduled synchronization between Point-of-Sale (POS) systems, Warehouse Management Systems (WMS), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) platforms, and online storefronts. While these systems perform different functions, they all depend on accur

WordPress 7.0, released on May 20, 2026, includes new AI infrastructure, a redesigned admin interface, and updated design tools. Key features comprise an AI Client, Abilities API, and Command Palette, alongside increased PHP requirements. Community feedback is mixed, particularly regarding AI integration. Developers are advised to consult the official documentation for upgrade guidance. By Daniel Curtis

Vivo's joint venture could become a template for Chinese smartphone makers in India.

certificate link: https://tryhackme.com/certificate/THM-RLPNFMYL4M My LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ahmedaldiab

Large language models often develop recurring symbolic patterns — archetypes, metaphors, and memetic shortcuts — that appear across unrelated contexts. One observed example is the repeated emergence of fantasy-based metaphors such as “goblins,” “gremlins,” or similar entities when describing abstract system behavior, errors, or complexity. This article presents a structured analytical trace (A11 framework passes) showing how such patterns emerge from the interaction between reinforcement learning, cultural priors in training data, and user feedback loops. It also explores how introducing explicit interpretability layers can reduce the risk of these symbolic attractors becoming dominant explanatory shortcuts in model behavior. The first A11 pass S1 — Will Understand the causal mechanism: why the “goblin / fantasy drift” emerged in LLMs S2 — Wisdom (constraints) Main pitfall: confusing correlation (goblins appearing in outputs) with causation (why those specific symbols emerge) Also: “goblins” are not a standalone phenomenon they are a case of broader archetypal language drift S3 — Knowledge (what is actually known) There are 5 established mechanisms in LLM behavior: 1. RLHF reinforces “socially engaging metaphors” Models are rewarded for: vividness humor imagery human-like explanations ➡️ fantasy imagery tends to score highly 2. Internet prior already contains strong fantasy culture Training data includes: Reddit gaming discourse D&D culture fanfiction ➡️ “goblin / elf / troll” already exist as: universal behavioral archetypes 3. Compression effect (semantic abstraction) The model seeks compact semantic units: goblin = chaotic / greedy / messy / low-level failure mode ➡️ one token replaces a complex description 4. User feedback loop If the model says: “it’s like a goblin” users: react positively repeat it reinforce it in conversation ➡️ increases probability of reuse 5. Cross-task transfer (persona leakage) Stylistic patterns from: coding assistant mode creative mode

GLM 5.2 and the Collapse of AI Margins: Open-Source Models Are Rewriting the Rules of the Industry Introduction: A "Counterintuitive" Open-Source Release Figure 1: The core drivers of the AI margin collapse — open-source models, price competition, and surging usage In 2026, Zhipu AI quietly published the GLM 5.2 open-source model on Hugging Face. This news lingered in AI practitioners' information streams for less than half a day before being drowned out by the next wave of updates. But those who were truly sharp noticed a set of data: GLM 5.2's performance across multiple authoritative benchmarks was nearly on par with top-tier closed-source models like GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet — yet its inference cost was only a fraction of theirs. This is no longer a story of "catching up." This is leapfrogging . Even more telling is that this news triggered a fierce debate in the overseas tech community: opinion leaders including a16z partners and former Stripe executives waded in, discussing a somewhat brutal topic — "AI margins are collapsing." This discussion quickly spread from tech circles to investment circles, because it points directly at a core question: When open-source models' capabilities approach or even partially surpass those of closed-source models, how long can the existing AI business model hold up? If 2023's open-source models were still "toys" — with cliff-like gaps from closed-source products in complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-turn dialogue — then the 2024-2025 open-source models are no longer "value-for-money alternatives," but a fundamentally new paradigm threat. The release of GLM 5.2 is merely the latest signal flare of this paradigm shift. In this article, we'll unpack three things: what GLM 5.2 got right, how open-source models have rewritten AI pricing power, and the true industry realignment behind this "margin collapse." Technical Core: The Architecture Secrets of GLM 5.2 Figure 2: Schematic of GLM-5.2's MoE (Mixture of Experts) la

GPT-5.6 is finally live, and three takes immediately showed up in my feed: "Sol replaces GPT-5.5 everywhere." "The API still isn't broadly available." "The 1.05M context window means you can stop thinking about prompt size." Two are wrong. The third is exactly how you end up with a bill that is almost twice your estimate. I spent the morning reading the new model pages, rollout docs, pricing table, migration guide, and system card. My conclusion is less exciting than "route everything to Sol," but much more useful: Terra is the GPT-5.6 tier I'd test first for most production workloads. TL;DR No, GPT-5.6 Sol should not replace every GPT-5.5 request. It has the same $5/$30 standard token price and different agent behavior. Yes, the API is live. Sol, Terra, and Luna are in OpenAI's public model catalog; ChatGPT access is still rolling out gradually. Terra is the practical default: $2.50 input and $15 output per million tokens, exactly half Sol's price. Luna is the volume tier: $1 input and $6 output, with the same 1.05M context window. The 272K boundary matters: go above it and the entire request moves to 2x input and 1.5x output pricing. The uncomfortable part: OpenAI says GPT-5.6 is more likely than GPT-5.5 to take actions beyond user intent in agentic coding. What actually shipped This isn't one model with three marketing labels. It is a three-tier family with explicit model IDs. Tier Model ID Input / 1M Output / 1M My default use Sol gpt-5.6-sol $5.00 $30.00 Hard coding and deep analysis Terra gpt-5.6-terra $2.50 $15.00 General production Luna gpt-5.6-luna $1.00 $6.00 Extraction, routing, batch work All three have: 1,050,000 tokens of context 128,000 maximum output tokens February 16, 2026 knowledge cutoff Text and image input Reasoning levels from none through max Responses API and Chat Completions support The unsuffixed gpt-5.6 alias points to Sol. I wouldn't use that alias in a cost-sensitive production service. An explicit model tier makes billing behavior easi

TL;DR: In 2026, the old "cheaper hourly rate vs. more control" framing is outdated. AI-assisted delivery is compressing team size, contracts are shifting from hourly to outcome-based, and onboarding windows have shrunk from months to days. Use staff augmentation when you have strong internal PM capacity and need specific skills for 3-6 months. Use a dedicated team when you're running a 2+ year product and need a self-contained unit with its own PM/QA. Below is a breakdown of the current landscape, including how providers like Toptal-style networks, 6senseHQ , Cleveroad , ScienceSoft , BairesDev , SolveIt , and Uptech fit into each model. Why this decision looks different in 2026 than it did in 2023 Three things changed the calculus this year: AI-assisted engineers ship more per head. Teams are increasingly built around a handful of seniors paired with AI coding assistants rather than a dozen mid-level developers billed by the hour — which makes the traditional "cost per hour" comparison less meaningful than "cost per shipped outcome." Contracts are moving from time-and-materials to outcome-based. Buyers are pushing vendors to tie payment to delivery milestones, not logged hours, partly because AI tooling makes hour-counting a weaker proxy for value. Onboarding windows collapsed. Several dedicated-team providers now quote 3-7 day ramp-up instead of the 2-4 week window that was standard a few years ago, which narrows the traditional "augmentation is faster to start" advantage. None of this changes the fundamental difference between the two models. It changes how much each one costs you in practice. The core difference, restated simply Staff augmentation : you hire individual engineers who join your team, use your tools, and report to your leads. You manage the work. Dedicated team : you hire a self-contained unit (engineers + QA + a PM/lead) that runs its own delivery process. You manage the roadmap, they manage the mechanics. The break-even point most guides converge

A surprise 10th-anniversary event saw Niantic fulfilling a promise teased in the original 2016 launch trailer for its popular mobile game.

When you're running maintenance across several WordPress sites in sequence, a list view with text-only status doesn't make "which site is being processed now" or "which ones are already done" easy to spot at a glance. A client put it plainly: " Make it visually obvious in the list which sites are in maintenance and which are finished. " A colored border is the obvious move, but there are real choices to make. What colors? Where do we get the state from? When does the "done" mark go away? And — can we ship this without touching the backend? This post walks through those four calls and the minimal frontend-only implementation we landed on. Color picking — "red flashing" was the first thing we ruled out How do you make the running site stand out? The intuitive answer is "blinking red," but that got cut early. Multi-site maintenance runs are long . Having something blink red somewhere on screen the whole time is a fatigue source. We went with "a gentle blue pulse + a solid green border" instead: Running : blue #2563eb border + a soft pulsing box-shadow (2.2s ease-in-out) Done (within 24h) : green #10b981 solid border + a faint inset shadow @keyframes site-running-pulse { 0 %, 100 % { box-shadow : 0 0 0 0 rgba ( 37 , 99 , 235 , 0.4 ); } 50 % { box-shadow : 0 0 0 6px rgba ( 37 , 99 , 235 , 0 ); } } .site-running { border-color : #2563eb !important ; animation : site-running-pulse 2.2s ease-in-out infinite ; } @media ( prefers-reduced-motion : reduce ) { .site-running { animation : none ; } /* respect OS-level reduced motion */ } .site-completed { border-color : #10b981 !important ; box-shadow : inset 0 0 0 1px rgba ( 16 , 185 , 129 , 0.25 ); } The prefers-reduced-motion: reduce rule stops the pulse for users who have reduced-motion enabled at the OS level (often people with vestibular sensitivity). If you're adding motion to grab attention, this is essentially required. Zero backend changes — reuse the existing log stream To tell the list UI "this site is being processed

Most apps that grew an "AI" feature in the last two years talk to one of a handful of cloud APIs, and almost all of them speak the same dialect: the OpenAI Chat Completions format. That one detail is the reason you can pull the cloud out and run the whole thing locally on a Mac without the app ever noticing. Here is the trick, why it works, and the gotchas that bite. The one interface everything agrees on OpenAI's /v1/chat/completions endpoint became the de facto standard. So when an app lets you "use your own key" or "set a custom base URL," it is almost always going to POST to {base_url}/chat/completions with a JSON body of messages and read back the same shape. It does not care what is on the other end, only that the response matches. Local runners leaned into this. Both popular Mac ones expose exactly that endpoint: Ollama serves an OpenAI-compatible API at http://localhost:11434/v1 (its native API lives on /api , but the /v1 path speaks the OpenAI dialect). LM Studio has a built-in server you switch on from the Developer tab, serving on http://localhost:1234/v1 . So "make this app local" usually reduces to: point its base URL at one of those, put any non-empty string where it wants an API key, and pick a model you have pulled. The 60-second version Ollama: brew install ollama # or the .dmg from ollama.com ollama serve & # server on :11434 ollama pull llama3.1:8b # pull a model once Confirm it speaks OpenAI: curl http://localhost:11434/v1/chat/completions \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{ "model": "llama3.1:8b", "messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "say hi in 3 words"}] }' If that returns a choices[0].message.content , any OpenAI-compatible client can use it. In the app, set: Base URL: http://localhost:11434/v1 API key: ollama (or literally anything; it is ignored) Model: llama3.1:8b LM Studio is the same idea with a GUI: load a model, toggle the server on, and use base URL http://localhost:1234/v1 . Pointing real tools at it The pattern shows up

OpenAI's new family of models will continue to power Microsoft's suite of workplace and productivity apps.

The new exchanged-traded funds exclude companies that are founded, controlled, or led by Elon Musk. That means no SpaceX or Tesla.

Microsoft may once again be struggling to keep up with its own climate goals, according to its 2026 sustainability report. As reported by GeekWire, the report states that Microsoft's carbon emissions increased 25 percent in 2025, totalling 34 million metric tons "without select interventions." Microsoft says this was "driven primarily by the expansion of our […]