标签：#m

With these high-tech automatic litter boxes, gone are the days of scooping and smells. Welcome to the future.

I saw an issue today on a fairly popular project (better-auth, see the link to the issue attached). No repro, no context, just a wall of caps and profanity ending in "fuck you". The maintainers ship this for free. People run production businesses on top of it, for free. And the thanks is someone raging into a text box because a minor bump cost them an afternoon. I maintain and contribute to a few projects myself, so this hits a nerve a bit. Something people don't see from the outside: it's not enough to know how to build the thing. You also have to know how to defuse a thread where someone's insulting you and not fire back, even though most of us aren't paid for any of it, let alone the work of staying civil while being told to get fucked. I'm not pretending breaking changes don't cause real pain (that's what the issue is about). But I keep coming back to a boundary question: if you're not paying for it, do you actually get to demand anything? (Obviously yes, but we still need some boundaries) submitted by /u/swithek [link] [留言]

After Trump's claims, Tylenol usage dropped during pregnancies.

Planning a Fourth of July getaway? Use less gas—and cut your emissions—by easing up on the pedal.

Dbrand is the company that shipped a product that told Nintendo's legal team to "go fuck yourself," and the company that had a second set of lawyer-dodging PS5 plates ready when Sony threatened to sue over the originals. But on June 29th, the company finally ate some serious humble pie, canceling its Portal-themed Companion Cube […]

AWS Blocks handles authentication, databases, file storage, AI agents and more out of the box. But...

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

Fujifilm is expanding its QuickSnap lineup with a new disposable camera focused on taking monochrome photos and another built to survive harsh outdoor environments. The $22.90 QuickSnap Black and White and the $24.75 QuickSnap Active are expected to launch sometime later this fall, to the delight of Gen Z snappers driving the current resurgence in […]

The Problem When you put RabbitMQ's Management UI behind an nginx reverse proxy under a sub-path like /rabbitmq/ , queue detail pages and many API calls break silently. The root cause: nginx normalizes the request URI before proxying. It decodes %2F (the URL-encoded forward slash) into a literal / . RabbitMQ's Management API uses %2F to represent the default virtual host ( / ) in API paths: GET /api/queues/%2F/my-queue When nginx decodes it: GET /api/queues///my-queue ← broken What Doesn't Work The common advice of using merge_slashes off or a rewrite directive doesn't fully solve this because nginx still normalizes $uri before forwarding. The Fix Use $request_uri inside an if block. Unlike $uri , $request_uri holds the raw, undecoded URI exactly as the client sent it — nginx never touches it. nginx # RabbitMQ: API paths — use $request_uri to preserve %2F (never decoded by nginx) location ~* ^/rabbitmq/api/ { if ($request_uri ~* "^/rabbitmq/(.*)") { proxy_pass http://rabbitmq:15672/$1; } proxy_buffering off; proxy_set_header Host $host; proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-Proto https; } # RabbitMQ: general UI (JS, CSS, static assets, non-API pages) location ~* ^/rabbitmq/ { rewrite ^/rabbitmq/(.*)$ /$1 break; proxy_pass http://rabbitmq:15672; proxy_buffering off; proxy_set_header Host $host; proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-Proto https; }

Trump has remade the nation’s capitol in his own image. Ahead of the Fourth of July, WIRED guides you through the dizzying effects of DC’s makeover.

This week was largely a Claude story: Sonnet 5 landed with enough benchmark muscle to make Opus feel redundant for most workloads, and GitLab's production data backs up the claims. Alongside that, GitHub Copilot quietly dropped its JetBrains friction, and Google's image model got cheaper and faster on Vercel's gateway. Here's what's worth acting on. Claude Sonnet 5 launches on Vercel AI Gateway Sonnet 5 is available now via Vercel AI Gateway at anthropic/claude-sonnet-5 . Launch pricing is $2/$10 per million input/output tokens—identical to Sonnet 4.6—but that rate expires August 31, after which it steps to $3/$15. The model matches Opus 4.8 on coding and agentic benchmarks, which means you can stop routing hard tasks to Opus and absorb a 50–67% cost reduction in the process. For AI SDK users, this is a one-line change. Stronger long-context handling and document parsing are the practical wins for RAG pipelines and multi-turn agent workflows—two areas where Sonnet 4.6 had real rough edges. Verdict: Ship. Update your model identifier before August 31 while the launch pricing holds. Zero breaking changes, and there's no reason to stay on 4.6 for new work. Sonnet 5 closes Opus gap at lower cost Beyond the Vercel integration, the broader Sonnet 5 release deserves its own read. The model is now the default reasoning tier replacing Sonnet 4.6 across Anthropic's plans, and the capability jump is specifically on agentic task completion—planning, multi-step tool use, brownfield code navigation. Early testers report that tasks which previously stalled midway through agent loops now finish end-to-end, which is a qualitatively different outcome from incremental benchmark gains. The economics are straightforward: Opus-level performance at Sonnet prices through August, then a modest step up to $3/$15. If you're running production agents today, the cost-per-completed-task improvement compounds because you're paying less and spending fewer cycles on failure recovery and re-promptin

TL;DR codegraph , codebase-memory-mcp , and serena all got there first, handing a coding agent code intelligence over MCP so it stops grepping. On my own open-ended questions the token bill didn't budge: the agent kept sliding back to grep, and no amount of forceful prompting could stop it. So I built @ttsc/graph . It gives the agent an index the TypeScript compiler already resolved, never the source bodies, through a single tool with a forced chain-of-thought. On "how does this work?" questions that works out to roughly 10× fewer tokens, and the answers are no worse. That figure is a median, and a conservative one. Repository: https://github.com/samchon/ttsc Benchmark: https://ttsc.dev/docs/benchmark/graph 1. Preface 1.1. What @ttsc/graph Is On the left, the agent is lost in a maze of files, chasing dashed arrows dozens deep. On the right, it's reading a single compiler-built graph of nodes and edges, with the file:line anchors it can open and check. You're new to a TypeScript repo, so you ask the agent for a tour: what's the main runtime flow, from the public API down to the code that does the work, and what should you read first? You know how it goes. It opens a file, follows an import into another, then another, and a few dozen files later it gives you an answer. @ttsc/graph cuts that crawl short. Over MCP, it hands your agent a graph of your TypeScript codebase that the compiler itself drew: what calls what, what depends on what, and where each piece lives. The agent answers structural questions straight from the graph instead of spelunking through files, and every claim it makes points at an exact file:line the compiler resolved. Nothing invented, just a location you can open and check for yourself. It's the same question and the same agent in every case, and only @ttsc/graph stays flat across the repos no matter how big they get. The other three, codegraph, codebase-memory, and serena, swing all over the place, and a few even spend more than the baseline does

An AI feature can feel impressive and still be a bad product decision. The demo is fast. The answer sounds useful. The team is excited. Then usage grows and nobody can answer the basic questions: Is it accurate enough? Is it saving time? Which customers trust it? Why did costs spike? Should we scale it, fix it, or kill it? That is the trap an AI metrics baseline prevents. A baseline is not a dashboard full of vanity charts. It is a small set of before-and-after measurements that tells you whether an AI workflow is getting better, getting worse, or merely getting more expensive. Why AI features fail without a baseline Most software teams already track uptime, errors, and conversion. AI features need those too, but they also need new signals because model behavior is probabilistic. A normal API either returns the expected response or throws an error. An AI workflow can return: a fluent answer that is wrong a correct answer with missing evidence a useful answer that costs too much a slow answer that users abandon a safe answer that refuses too often a cheap answer that hurts trust a high-rated answer that does not improve the business workflow Without a baseline, every production discussion becomes opinion-driven: "The model seems better." "Users like it." "The new prompt reduced hallucinations." "The expensive model is worth it." Maybe. Maybe not. The baseline turns those claims into measurable comparisons. What an AI metrics baseline is An AI metrics baseline is the starting measurement for the workflow before you optimize or scale it. It answers five questions: What does the workflow cost today? How good are the outputs today? How fast and reliable is the experience today? Do users adopt and reuse it? Does it improve the real task it claims to improve? You do not need 80 metrics on day one. You need a small set of metrics that match the feature's risk and purpose. For example: Feature Useful baseline Support answer bot resolution rate, citation quality, escalation r

While researching the massive wave of digital transformation rewriting the rules for startups this year, I stumbled upon an insightful podcast by the tech firm GeekyAnts. Hosted by Prem, the episode featured Sanket Sahu, the co-founder of GeekyAnts, who recently emerged from a year and a half hiatus to discuss what he calls the " AI-native shift ." As someone navigating the unpredictable US tech market in 2026, listening to their conversation felt like a reality check. We are constantly flooded with news about AI replacing engineers or cutting budgets, but this discussion offered a grounded perspective on what is actually happening on the ground in software development. The Illusion of Speed The central theme that caught my attention was the sheer velocity of modern AI adoption. Sanket made a striking contrast: while television took decades to become a common household utility, modern AI systems like ChatGPT or Claude reached exponential revenue and widespread adoption in mere months. But here is where the critical analysis kicks in. As founders, we often mistake engineering speed for product success. The podcast highlighted a massive bottleneck that many of us are guilty of overlooking: the human limit. While AI can spin up code in hours instead of months, the time required for human review, validation, and team collaboration remains relatively static. If an organization rushes to ship code simply because it can, they risk launching products that lack deep market validation. True product development still requires user testing and meticulous iteration. The building phase might be operating at 10x speed, but the surrounding human infrastructure is only moving at 1.5x. Fluid Roles and the Rise of the "Builder" Another significant takeaway for Western businesses is the shifting definition of software roles. The traditional silos dividing front-end, back-end, and DevOps are rapidly blurring. According to the insights shared in the video, the engineering ecosystem is mo

New satellite imagery reveals how much terrain has shifted in the wake of the twin quakes.

submitted by /u/mttd [link] [留言]

**Python Selenium Architecture** Introduction: Selenium automates web browsers. The Python Selenium architecture consists of four main components that work together to control a browser. 1.Selenium Client Library (Python Language Binding) Python developers write automation scripts using the standard Selenium API. This library converts your Python code into a standardized format. It sends these commands as programmatic requests to the browser driver. 2.W3C WebDriver Protocol/JSON Wire Protocol This is the communication channel between the code and the driver. Historically, Selenium used the JSON Wire Protocol over HTTP. Modern Selenium (Version 4+) uses the standardized W3CWebDriver Protocol. Commands and responses are transferred directly without any middle translation. 3.Browser Drivers Every web browser has its own specific executable driver. Examples include ChromeDriver for Chrome and GeckoDriver for Firefox. The driver acts as a secure HTTP server that receives commands. It passes these requests directly to the browser and returns results. 4.Web Browsers This is the final layer where execution happens physically. Supported browsers include Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Edge, and Safari. The browser receives commands through its native OS-level API. It executes actions like clicking, typing, or fetching text. Significance of Python Virtual Environments: A Python Virtual Environment is an isolated directory containing its own Python installation and independent packages. It prevents dependency conflicts across different software projects. Conclusion: Why It Matters? Avoids Dependency Hell: Different projects can use different versions of the same library. Protects System Python: Prevents breaking system-wide packages required by your operating system. Ensures Reproducibility: Allows developers to easily recreate the exact environment on other machines. No Admin Privileges Needed: Allows installing packages without sudo or administrator rights. Real-Wo

In today's world, security is no longer optional - it's expected. Whether it's a fintech app, a fitness tracker, or an internal company tool, users want fast and secure access without the hassle of remembering passwords. That's exactly where biometric authentication comes in. In this guide, we'll walk through how we implement biometric authentication in a Flutter app , the practical approach we follow in production, and the common mistakes developers often make (and how to avoid them). Why Biometric Authentication? Before jumping into implementation, let's quickly understand why it matters: Faster login experience (no typing passwords) More secure than traditional authentication Native support across Android & iOS Better user trust and retention What We Use in Flutter To implement biometric authentication, we rely on: local_auth package (official Flutter plugin) Native biometric APIs under the hood (Face ID, Touch ID, Fingerprint) Step 1: Add Dependency dependencies : local_auth : ^3.0.1 Then run: flutter pub get Step 2: Platform Setup ✅ Android Setup Inside android/app/src/main/AndroidManifest.xml : <uses-permission android:name= "android.permission.USE_BIOMETRIC" /> Also ensure: <uses-feature android:name= "android.hardware.fingerprint" android:required= "false" /> ✅ iOS Setup Inside ios/Runner/Info.plist : <key> NSFaceIDUsageDescription </key> <string> We use Face ID to authenticate you securely </string> ⚠️ Without this, Face ID will NOT work and your app may crash. Step 3: Implement Biometric Logic Here's how we structure it in production: import 'package:flutter/foundation.dart' ; import 'package:local_auth/local_auth.dart' ; class BiometricService { final LocalAuthentication _auth = LocalAuthentication (); /// Check if device supports biometrics Future < bool > isBiometricAvailable () async { try { final bool canCheckBiometrics = await _auth . canCheckBiometrics ; final bool isDeviceSupported = await _auth . isDeviceSupported (); return canCheckBiometrics &&

The Problem LLM evaluation tools like Patronus AI excel at hallucination detection, toxicity checks, and semantic relevance. But they don't catch the structural failures: A JSON response missing required fields A function call with malformed parameters Output that violates schema constraints Latency budget overruns silently degrading UX Cost explosions from runaway token usage These aren't hallucinations. They're verification failures. The Solution correctover-patronus is an adapter that runs Correctover's 87 deterministic verification rules as native Patronus evaluators. Every verdict comes with a recomputable proof hash — meaning you can verify the verifier. pip install correctover-patronus The 6 Dimensions Dimension What It Checks Example Structure Output format validity JSON parses correctly Schema Field presence & types Required fields exist Identity Semantic relevance to input Response addresses the question Integrity Forbidden pattern absence No Tracebacks or error messages Latency Response time budget Under 30s threshold Cost Token usage budget Under 10k token limit Usage Full 6-Dimension Verification from correctover_patronus import CorrectoverEvaluator , CorrectoverConfig config = CorrectoverConfig ( min_confidence = 0.7 , latency_rules = { " max_ms " : 5000 }, cost_rules = { " max_tokens " : 4000 } ) evaluator = CorrectoverEvaluator ( config = config ) result = evaluator . evaluate ( task_input = " Summarize this article... " , task_output = " The article discusses... " , task_context = { " source " : " article " , " word_count " : 1500 } ) print ( f " Overall: { result . score : . 2 f } ( { ' PASS ' if result . pass_ else ' FAIL ' } ) " ) print ( f " Proof hash: { result . metadata [ ' proof_hash ' ] } " ) for dim , info in result . metadata [ ' dimensions ' ]. items (): print ( f " { dim } : { info [ ' status ' ] } (score= { info [ ' score ' ] : . 2 f } ) " ) Individual Dimensions from correctover_patronus import correctover_structure , correctover_inte

An agent opened a pull request on our service last week. Six hundred lines. It rewrote how we handle webhook retries and deduplication, an area that is fiddly and easy to get subtly wrong. The diff was clean. The tests were green. The commit messages were better than mine usually are. And I felt the specific dread that I think a lot of engineers are starting to feel in 2026. I was the reviewer. I had not written any of this. I had no idea why it was shaped the way it was. To review it properly, the way I would want my own code reviewed, I was looking at the better part of an hour of carefully reconstructing intent from the code itself. I did not have that hour. So I did what almost everyone does in that situation, which is skim it, decide it looked reasonable, and approve. That moment is the actual problem with AI-written code, and it is not the one people argue about. The bottleneck moved, and most teams have not adjusted The tired debate is whether agents write good code. In 2026 that argument is mostly over. They do. They plan, they read the codebase, they run the tests, they back out of dead ends, they open pull requests that clear most review bars. If you are still litigating whether the code is any good, you have not used a current agent in a while. But here is what follows from that, and it is the part teams have not absorbed: if writing the code is no longer the slow step, then reviewing it is. And review does not scale the way generation does. An agent can produce five well-tested pull requests before lunch. Your senior engineers cannot deeply review five pull requests before lunch, not on top of their own work. The volume went up and the review capacity did not, and something has to give. What gives is the depth of review. It degrades, quietly, into a skim. People approve fluent diffs they have not truly read, because reading them properly costs more time than anyone has. The green check still appears. It just means less than it used to. That is a governan