标签：#m

submitted by /u/Critical-Ratio-3190 [link] [留言]

Unpopulate opinion: Fewer PRs done with proper prompting, review, and refinement usually win long term. 3 thoughtful PRs a day > 40 poorly thought ones no matter how many AI agents reviewed them.

Cuando un SaaS quiere recuperar usuarios de prueba que se quedaron a medio camino, casi siempre empieza por email. El problema es que una sola prueva mal hecha puede mezclar cohortes, disparar métricas falsas y dejar a marketing discutiendo con backend sobre datos que nunca fueron confiables. Ese tipo de campaña merece más cuidado del que parece. A simple vista solo hay que revisar asunto, CTA y enlace final, pero en la práctica también hay que comprobar segmentación, ventanas de tiempo, estados de cuenta y eventos analíticos. Si alguien en tu equipo busca cosas como facebook temp email para crear usuarios rápidos, en el fondo está intentando resolver eso: probar sin tocar bandejas reales ni contaminar reportes. Por qué los correos de reactivación confunden más de lo que ayudan Un correo de reactivación no se envía a cualquiera. Sale cuando una persona creó cuenta, probó algo, se quedó quieta y entra en una regla específica. Si esa regla se valida con datos sucios, el equipo termina optimizando un mensaje para usuarios equivocados. En SaaS esto pega fuerte porque marketing y producto suelen mirar la misma campaña con preguntas distintas. Marketing quiere saber si el copy reabre interés. Producto quiere saber si el usuario vuelve al flujo correcto. Backend quiere confirmar que la automatización no reenvía a quien ya convirtió. Cuando esas capas no se prueban juntas, aveces el correo “funciona” y aun así el experimento sale mal. Si ya estás ordenando tus pruebas de onboarding en SaaS , el siguiente paso natural es tratar la reactivación como un flujo distinto. Tiene otra intención, otra ventana de tiempo y otro riesgo de mezclar datos. Paso a paso para probar una campaña sin mezclar cohortes La forma más segura es preparar un escenario por cohorte. En vez de mandar varios usuarios de prueba al mismo inbox, creá un usuario, asignale una condición clara y validá un solo recorrido de punta a punta. Este proceso suele ser suficiente: Crear una cuenta de prueba que realmen

I've noticed something about myself. It's become much harder to get things done. I see less movement compared to my previous self. And sometimes, when I see people get so much done, tasks, projects, anything, I wonder why I can't make progress like that. Now I'm not comparing myself to Elon Musk here, I'm just wondering if I'm doing my best. For the longest time, I've wanted to build a portfolio website. But for some reason or another, I never actually ended up making it, or should I say, starting it. Whenever I had a free block of time, I wouldn't know where to start. I also have this side project I've been wanting to work on. I started it, then never made any more progress beyond the initial feasibility analysis. Why did I never allocate time to either? The Overthinking Starts Early I wanted the portfolio website to be really good. I wanted cool additions, beyond the usual "about me" and "projects" sections, I wanted things like "songs I'm obsessed with right now" and "last night I slept at." I was also looking if my fitbit has an API to show my live heart-rate on my portfolio (why would someone do that?). I was obsessed with the features, and with using the right tech to make it as efficient as possible. What stack should I even use for a portfolio? Same story with this very blog. Before writing a single word, I was wondering what stack to use. I looked into a ton of existing blogs for inspiration, how do I track views, what about comments, how do I stop a DDoS from flooding my DB if I'm storing comments, should I require auth just to leave a comment, should I support font and background color changes, themes, what's the best tool to do all of that? I've noticed this pattern with almost everything I do. I'm so obsessed with doing things right on the first attempt that I never actually make the first attempt, because "doing it right" is just too demanding. Or a related trap, when I want to do something perfectly , I discover prerequisites, and those prerequisites

In case you were wondering in which country you should buy a Pixel phone, you world traveler you.

The $149 Dune keyboard can be a meeting controller at least and a script-executing keypad at best.

The companies’ Fourth of July plans include celebrating new reactor designs coming online. But there’s still a long way to go before they deliver energy at a meaningful scale.

It’s not easy to transplant a whole human eye. The surgery is difficult. And the eyes themselves start to degenerate as soon as they’ve left the body. When surgeons attempted it a few years ago, the newly-transplanted eye wasn’t able to see. But researchers believe they might have a solution: a device that maintains and…

The Fire HD 8 that launched in 2024 was the last new addition to Amazon's budget-minded tablet lineup, but the company has quietly updated the Fire HD 10 that debuted the year before. In 2023 it was offered with multiple storage configurations that each came with 3GB of RAM, but the 32GB version now ships […]

submitted by /u/Infamous_Sorbet4021 [link] [留言]

The Chevy Silverado EV is a solid first draft of an EV pickup truck. Here's what could make it better.

Hi, I am supposed to prepare for SLM and its software part for an on campus internship, i've worked with local models like ollama generally,in my projects and also with open claw so can anyone guide me the last 2-3 days tips on what should i go through for this internship prep?? submitted by /u/Idea_less_ [link] [留言]

The latest week-long speedrunning marathon starts on July 5.

submitted by /u/CrociDB [link] [留言]

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

You wire up the OpenAI SDK, ship the feature, and it works. Three weeks later someone in finance forwards a screenshot of a bill that tripled and asks what happened. You open the provider dashboard, see one big number, and… that's it. No per-feature breakdown, no idea which change caused it, no way to tell whether it's a bug or just growth. I've watched this happen at enough teams that I now treat "we can't explain our AI bill" as a predictable stage every company hits about two months after their first LLM feature ships. Here's how to get ahead of it — starting with plain code, then the tradeoffs, then where a dedicated tool actually earns its keep. Disclosure up front: I work on StackSpend, which does the full version of this. I've kept the first 80% of this post vendor-neutral because most of it you can and should build yourself before you buy anything. The core problem: the bill is a single number, your costs are not Provider dashboards give you total spend over time. What you actually need to make decisions is spend broken down by the dimensions you care about: Per feature — is it the summarizer or the chat assistant that's expensive? Per customer / tenant — which accounts cost more to serve than they pay? Per model — how much are you spending on GPT-4-class vs cheaper models? Per environment — is a runaway staging job quietly burning money? None of those dimensions exist in the raw bill. You have to attach them yourself, at call time, because after the request is gone the context is gone with it. Step 1: capture usage at the call site Every major provider returns token usage in the response. The trick is to log it with your own business context attached — the feature name, the tenant, the environment. Here's the pattern in TypeScript with the OpenAI SDK: import OpenAI from " openai " ; const openai = new OpenAI (); // Prices per 1M tokens — keep these in config, they change often. const PRICING : Record < string , { input : number ; output : number } > = { " g

Book: The Complete Guide to Go Programming Also by me: Hexagonal Architecture in Go — the companion book in the Thinking in Go series My project: Hermes IDE | GitHub — an IDE for developers who ship with Claude Code and other AI coding tools Me: xgabriel.com | GitHub You reach for unsafe.Pointer to skip a copy. Maybe a []byte you want as a string without the allocation, maybe a struct you want to reinterpret as another. The code compiles. go vet stays quiet. Tests pass. Then, weeks later, under GC pressure, a rare crash shows up in a place that has nothing to do with your change. The Go unsafe package documentation is one long doc comment. It lists the conversions that are valid and warns that everything else is not portable and not guaranteed to keep working. The trouble is that "everything else" includes a lot of code that looks obviously correct. The rules are narrow on purpose. There are effectively four patterns you are allowed to write, and the standard library stays inside all four. Here they are, in the shape you will actually use them in Go 1.23+. The one fact under every rule unsafe.Pointer is a pointer the garbage collector understands. It keeps the object it points at alive and it moves with the object if the runtime relocates a stack. uintptr is a plain integer. The GC does not treat it as a reference. Convert a pointer to a uintptr , store that integer in a variable, and as far as the runtime is concerned nothing points at that memory anymore. That single fact is behind three of the four patterns. Every legal conversion either avoids uintptr entirely or keeps it inside one expression where the compiler can prove the pointer stays live. Pattern 1: reinterpret *T1 as *T2 with the same layout The first pattern converts a *T1 to *T2 when the two types have the same memory shape. You take the address, run it through unsafe.Pointer , and cast to the target pointer type. The standard library does exactly this in math.Float64bits : func Float64bits ( f float64

By Vilius Vystartas This is the follow-up to What Actually Changed in Two Weeks . That one was about setting up a project for AI-speed delivery. This one is about something I keep re-learning on every fast delivery. You start shipping faster with AI. The code works, the feature lands, it feels good. Then a few weeks later the feedback comes back, and some of it catches you off guard. Not because anything is broken — but because a few things that seemed obvious to you weren't obvious to the other side. No drama. It happens. Here are five things I'm learning to check earlier. 1. What does "done" look like from their side? To me, done means working software. To someone else it might mean pixel-match with a design. Both are valid. What helps: A quick "what does good enough look like to you?" before the work starts. One sentence can save a lot of back and forth. 2. When will they actually look at it? Sending something doesn't mean it gets reviewed immediately. It lands in a queue like everything else. What helps: Naming a review date alongside the delivery date. "I'll share this Tuesday — could you take a look by Friday?" Turns silence from a mystery into a signal. 3. What needs to be perfect vs what can be improved later? Not everything in the feedback is the same weight. A label change and a broken flow are different things. Without saying so upfront, everything looks like an emergency. What helps: Two buckets agreed early. "Here's what I'll get right before it ships. Here's what I'd revisit in a follow-up." Makes the first feedback session more productive. 4. Could they see something before the full delivery? The first time someone sees your work often sets the tone. Showing one page or one flow halfway through can catch mismatches before they multiply. What helps: A mid-point check-in. "First page is ready — want to see if this matches what you had in mind?" Five minutes that can save a round of revisions. 5. Do they have the full picture? You've been living in this

submitted by /u/Frequent-Football984 [link] [留言]

Despite the fact that smartphones have become impressively capable shooters, standalone point-and-shoot cameras are enjoying a renaissance. The tiny Kodak Charmera is still wildly popular, while influencers are scrambling to find aging Canon cameras on eBay. Godox, a company best known for its photography lighting products, is the latest to join the simple camera craze, […]