标签：#m

I corrected my AI system mid-task. A terse one-liner: "wrong." Instead of asking which part was wrong, it manufactured an explanation. It cited a rule number that didn't exist, described a limitation I'd never written, and apologized for a mistake it couldn't actually identify. The correction was real. The apology was fabricated. It was trying to agree with me so hard that it invented evidence to support the agreement. That's sycophancy in AI. And if you're running AI in anything that resembles production, it's already happening to you. What Is Sycophancy in AI? Sycophancy in AI is a systematic behavioral distortion where models produce outputs that match what the user wants to hear rather than what's accurate. It goes well beyond your chatbot saying "Great question!" before every response. The mechanism is straightforward. Modern language models are trained using Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). Human evaluators rate model responses. Responses with higher ratings get reinforced. The problem: evaluators are human. They rate responses higher when those responses validate their existing beliefs, sound confident, and don't push back. Anthropic's research on sycophancy confirmed this across five state-of-the-art AI assistants, finding that both humans and preference models sometimes prefer convincingly written sycophantic responses over correct ones. The model learns a simple lesson. Agreeing is rewarded. Disagreeing is punished. Over thousands of training iterations, the model develops a tendency to mirror the user's position, soften objections, and present information in whatever framing the user seems to prefer. This is a structural incentive baked into the training process itself, not a bug in any individual model. Why It's More Than Annoying In a chatbot demo, sycophancy is a quirk. In production, it's a compounding failure mode. Here are four patterns I've observed running an AI operations system in daily production. They don't always happen in s

When something breaks in Linux, experienced engineers don’t guess. They check the logs. 👉 Logs are the “black box recorder” of a Linux system. They tell you: what happened when it happened why it failed If you can read logs properly, you can debug almost anything. What Are Logs? Logs are records of system and application activity. Linux constantly records: System events Errors User activity Application behavior Linux constantly records: Where are Logs Stored? Most Linux logs are stored inside: /var/log Check logs directory: cd /var/log ls This is the first place DevOps engineers check during system issues. Important Log Files Log File Purpose Command to View /var/log/syslog General system messages tail /var/log/syslog /var/log/auth.log Login attempts & authentication tail /var/log/auth.log /var/log/kern.log Kernel & hardware messages dmesg or tail /var/log/kern.log /var/log/nginx/error.log Web server errors (Nginx) tail /var/log/nginx/error.log /var/log/dmesg Boot and hardware logs dmesg /var/log/apache2/ -> Apache logs These logs help you identify system, security, and application-level issues. View Logs Using cat cat /var/log/syslog Good for small files. Using less less /var/log/syslog Useful keys:: Space → Next page b → Previous page q → Quit 👉 Best for large log files. Using tail tail /var/log/syslog Show last 10 lines. Real-Time Monitoring (tail -f) tail -f /var/log/syslog 👉 -f = follow live updates This is one of the most-used debugging commands in production servers. Stop with: Ctrl + C Searching Logs with grep grep error /var/log/syslog Case-insensitive: grep -i failed /var/log/auth.log Show latest matching errors: grep error /var/log/syslog | tail -n 50 👉 Essential for filtering huge logs quickly. Boot & Hardware Logs (dmesg) dmesg Shows: Boot messages Hardware detection Kernel events Useful for startup and hardware troubleshooting. Modern Log System: journalctl Modern Linux systems use systemd logs . journalctl Recent errors: journalctl -xe Specific servic

Choosing a test management tool is rarely just a QA decision. Developers feel the consequences every day: how hard it is to publish automated results, how much context a failed test carries, whether CI artifacts are traceable, and whether test case IDs become useful metadata or bureaucratic friction. This article compares five widely used testing management tools from a developer's point of view: TestRail Xray Zephyr Scale Azure Test Plans qTest The companion repository is public and runnable: https://github.com/andre-carbajal/testing-management-tools-comparison It includes a TypeScript + Playwright project that runs real tests, emits JUnit/JSON/HTML reports, converts Playwright output into a neutral TestRun schema, and generates local dry-run payloads for each tool. No vendor credentials are required. Why test management tools still matter in CI/CD Modern teams already have automated tests, pull requests, CI dashboards, and observability. So why add a test management layer? Because CI answers what happened in this build , while test management answers broader questions: Which requirements or Jira issues are covered by automated tests? Which manual and automated checks belong to a release gate? Which failures are new, repeated, waived, or blocked? Which test cases are business-critical enough to audit? Which teams own gaps in coverage? The developer pain starts when the tool requires fragile scripts, manual exports, or hard-coded IDs scattered through test code. A good integration keeps automation-first workflows intact: tests run in CI, reports are archived, and the management tool receives only the metadata it needs. Comparison table Tool Best fit Developer integration model Strengths Tradeoffs TestRail Teams that want a standalone QA test repository REST API result publishing, usually from CI Clear test case/run model, mature reporting, easy to understand Requires mapping automation IDs to TestRail case IDs; separate from issue trackers unless integrated Xray Jir

I needed to convert 500 product images from one format to another. Server-based solutions quoted $15-50/month for batch processing. So I built a client-side solution using Web Workers and OffscreenCanvas. The Architecture The key insight: Canvas operations on large images block the main thread. The fix: Web Workers handle image decoding/encoding off the main thread OffscreenCanvas renders without DOM access — perfect for worker contexts Transferable objects pass image data between workers with zero-copy const worker = new Worker ( ' processor.js ' ); const canvas = new OffscreenCanvas ( 800 , 600 ); // Worker processes image, main thread stays responsive Real Performance Processing 500 images (average 2MB each) on a mid-range laptop: Server upload approach: 12 minutes (mostly upload time) Browser-local with Workers: 3 minutes 40 seconds Memory usage: Stable at ~400MB with proper cleanup The Tools I packaged this into webp2png.io for batch WebP conversion and svg2png.org for vector batch processing. For barcode generation, genbarcode.org uses similar worker-based rendering for bulk label generation. If you're processing more than 50 images, Workers + OffscreenCanvas is the way to go. Your server bill will thank you.

I have been writing a lot about AI lately, but this one is more personal than usual. Not a tutorial,...

Wix-owned vibe coding platform Base44 has started rolling out its own AI model — with hopes that it will eventually outperform frontier models.

submitted by /u/ADavison2560 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/arrrowfox [link] [留言]

AI เขียนโค้ดแทนเราได้แล้ว — แล้วเราจะเหลืออะไรให้ทำ? มีประโยคที่ได้ยินบ่อยขึ้นทุกวัน: "เดี๋ยวนี้ใครยังไม่ใช้ AI ช่วยเขียนโค้ดบ้าง?" คำตอบคือ — แทบไม่มีแล้วครับ ตั้งแต่ GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Claude, ChatGPT ไปจนถึง agent ที่เขียนโค้ดเองได้ทั้ง project — เราใช้ AI ใน level ที่ต่างกัน: Level หน้าตา ตัวอย่าง 🎵 Vibe Coding พิมพ์สิ่งที่อยากได้ กด accept อย่างเดียว "เขียนหน้า login ให้หน่อย" → กด tab tab tab 🧩 Prompt-Guided คิดก่อน ถามทีละส่วน ตรวจทุกอย่าง "สร้าง UserService ที่ใช้ bcrypt hash password" 🛠️ Skill/Lint-Guided ใช้ AI เป็น editor ชั้นสูง — lint, refactor, test "refactor function นี้ให้เป็น table-driven test" 🏗️ Agent-Based ให้ AI run ทั้ง project — spawn subagent, PR, deploy "พอร์ต microservice นี้จาก Express ไป Fastify" แล้วคำถามคือ — ถ้า AI ทำทั้งหมดนี้ได้ แล้วมนุษย์อย่างเราเหลืออะไร? Unit Test — ตัวอย่างที่เห็นชัดที่สุด ลองดู unit test ที่ AI เขียนให้: // 🤖 AI-generated test func TestCalculateDiscount ( t * testing . T ) { tests := [] struct { name string input float64 expected float64 }{ { "zero" , 0 , 0 }, { "normal" , 100 , 90 }, // 10% discount { "max" , 1000 , 800 }, // 20% discount } for _ , tt := range tests { t . Run ( tt . name , func ( t * testing . T ) { result := CalculateDiscount ( tt . input ) if result != tt . expected { t . Errorf ( "got %v, want %v" , result , tt . expected ) } }) } } ดูเผิน ๆ — สวย, table-driven, ถูกต้องตาม Go convention 1 แต่ถามหน่อย — test นี้บอกอะไรเกี่ยวกับ business? "ส่วนลด 10% สำหรับยอด 100 บาท" — ทำไมต้อง 100? เป็นกฎจากที่ไหน? "ส่วนลด 20% เมื่อยอดถึง 1000" — แล้วถ้าลูกค้าเป็น member ได้เพิ่มอีก 5% ล่ะ? input: 0, expected: 0 — test นี้ cover edge case หรือแค่ cover บรรทัด? AI test ได้ถูกต้องตาม function — แต่มัน ไม่รู้ว่า business จริง ๆ คืออะไร AI ไม่รู้ Business Context — และจะไม่มีวันรู้ นึกภาพระบบ e-commerce: ลูกค้าซื้อสินค้า → ระบบตัดสต็อก → คำนวณส่วนลด → คิดค่าส่ง → ออกใบเสร็จ AI แยก test ทีละ function ได้: ✅ TestDeductStock — "ตัดสต็อก 1 ชิ้น" ✅ TestCalculateDiscount — "ส่วนลด 10%" ✅ TestCalculateShipping —

IF YOU'VE been developing htmx apps for a while, you might have tried to cache the HTML fragments generated by your server as htmx responses. Caching htmx fragments is the equivalent of caching JSON responses in a SPA. Eg, you might have a fragment response from GET /users/:id that renders a user detail view. You might want to cache this view to avoid expensive queries in the backend if you know the user details haven't changed. But when you start caching htmx fragments, a problem pops up: the style doesn't match the rest of your app. You might be rapidly iterating on the app and making adjustments (small or big) to its CSS. You quickly start to notice that annoyingly frequently, your user fragments are not updating to the latest style. Sure, you can do a hard reload and force the fragment to have the latest style. But surely there must be an easier way? Content negotiation Enter the version headers: Accept-Version : a request header set by your frontend to instruct the backend what version of a resource it wants Version : a response header set by your backend to inform the frontend what version of the resource it is serving. Basically, the backend and frontend have to agree on the version, otherwise they automatically do a hard reload. You can think of this as a lightweight form of content negotiation. Here's a pseudo-code for a backend middleware that shows the rules: if Accept-Version header not in request then continue with request pipeline else if Accept-Version header value = the expected version then continue with request pipeline else if request method is GET then respond with 200 OK empty body and a response header HX-Redirect: request target else continue with request pipeline finally add response header Version: expected version end The meat of this middleware is the redirect if the expected and actual versions don't match. This ensures that the response htmx fragment style can't drift out of sync with the rest of the app. Now, let's look at some of the d

If you've spent any time building or working with APIs, you've probably realized that the terminal is...

Operation by two Russia-state groups has been ongoing since at least March.

Hundreds of contractors working on a project for Meta pretended to be kids—and then prompted rival chatbots like Gemini and ChatGPT to discuss high-risk subjects.

Modern Property Management Systems depend on continuous data exchange between internal modules and external services. Bookings, calendar updates, guest communication, cleaning tasks, and maintenance triggers all generate operational events that must be processed quickly and reliably. Free PMS platforms such as PMS.Rent rely on robust queueing and message‑broker layers to ensure that these events never get lost and are always processed in the correct order. At the core of this architecture is the concept of distributed message‑broker orchestration, which enables the PMS to scale horizontally, maintain predictable performance, and avoid bottlenecks during peak operational periods. Why Message Brokers Matter A PMS handles thousands of small but critical operations every day. Without a message broker, these operations would compete for system resources, causing delays, blocking workflows, and creating inconsistent states. A broker solves this by: receiving events, storing them durably, routing them to the correct processors, retrying failed operations, ensuring ordered execution when required. This creates a stable foundation for automation and real‑time synchronization. Queue Types Inside a PMS A modern PMS typically uses several queue types: Operational queues for bookings, calendar updates, and guest messages Automation queues for cleaning tasks, reminders, and workflow triggers Synchronization queues for channel managers and external APIs Fallback queues for events that require manual review Each queue isolates a specific category of tasks, preventing unrelated operations from interfering with each other. Distributed Workers Workers are lightweight processes that consume events from queues. They operate in parallel, allowing the PMS to scale dynamically. If the system detects increased load — for example, during high‑season booking spikes — it simply launches more workers. Workers typically perform tasks such as: updating property calendars, generating guest notific

AI makes it easier to build the wrong thing with confidence. That is the part I think a lot of beginner builders and freelancers miss. The obvious story is that AI makes execution faster. That is true. I can ask an AI coding tool to explain an error, compare implementation options, inspect a project, write code, refactor a screen, generate a QA checklist, or help me pick up where I left off. That is a huge change. But speed is not the whole story. When the tool gets faster, your judgment becomes more important, not less. You have to decide what the project is allowed to become. You have to decide which tradeoffs are acceptable. You have to decide whether the output actually matches the user's job. You have to decide when the AI is solving the real problem and when it is decorating the wrong one. In my freelance work, AI changed the job from searching and stitching to directing, reviewing, and verifying. That sounds cleaner than it feels. Directing means you need to know what outcome you want. Reviewing means you need to notice when the answer is plausible but wrong. Verifying means you cannot treat a green checkmark, a pretty screen, or a confident explanation as proof that the app actually works. The beginner mistake is believing AI removes the need to think clearly. The better rule is this: AI removes some friction from execution, then hands you more responsibility for scope. The Faster Tool Still Needs A Smaller Job When I started using AI heavily for software work, the old research loop changed immediately. Before modern AI tools, a lot of software work meant digging through documentation, old forum posts, Stack Overflow answers, YouTube videos, outdated examples, and half-related blog posts until something clicked. You stitched pieces together and hoped the tutorial you found still matched the version of the framework you were using. Now you can ask the tool directly. That is better. It is also dangerous if you confuse a fast answer with a good product decision

There's a Yu-Gi-Oh game on PS1 where you can fuse two cards together. The result isn't random. There are rules. But you don't know the rules yet — you just know that two inputs produce a third thing that neither input was, and that the third thing surprises you even when it shouldn't. That's the hook. Not the surprise alone. The realization underneath the surprise that the system has depth. That there's a grammar to what's possible, and you can learn it. I've been building toward that feeling ever since. Jade Cocoon does the same thing with monsters — merge two creatures, watch the result carry both parents in its design. Dragon Quest Monsters runs on fusion too. Yu-Gi-Oh Forbidden Memories taught me that combination-as-discovery is its own mechanic, separate from any theme it wears. Everything Is Crab is the roguelike version: you absorb what you fight, you become it, you discover what you're becoming one encounter at a time. No Man's Sky showed me that procedural generation has finally caught up to what those PS1 games were reaching toward — creatures that feel like they emerged from a system rather than a designer's hand. The mechanic isn't genetics. Genetics is just the implementation I keep reaching for. What I'm actually trying to build is a machine that produces controlled emergence — outcomes that surprise you within a system deep enough to eventually master. Pure RNG is a slot machine. You can't get better at it. Pure determinism is a calculator. You can solve it and put it down. The games I keep returning to live between those poles: consistent enough to reward learning, deep enough to keep producing novelty. TurboShells was an attempt at this. Turtles whose bodies expressed their genomes at render time — shell radius, leg length, color emerging from a sequence. The faster ones bred. Over generations you watched the population drift. The system had rules. The outcomes still surprised you. SlimeGarden chose basic shapes deliberately. If the creature is simp

Look at almost any piece of electronics on your desk and you will find a small light staring back at you. A router with a row of blinking status lights. A power brick with a steady green dot. A development board with a tiny red point that flickers every time it does something. We barely notice these lights anymore, but each one descends from a single laboratory breakthrough in 1962, when an engineer at General Electric coaxed a sliver of semiconductor into glowing visible red for the first time. Who invented the first visible LED The engineer was Nick Holonyak Jr., a consulting scientist at General Electric's lab in Syracuse, New York, and a former student of John Bardeen, one of the inventors of the transistor. On October 9, 1962, Holonyak demonstrated the first practical visible-spectrum light-emitting diode. It emitted red light, and it worked at room temperature, which made it genuinely useful rather than a laboratory curiosity. What made his approach different was the material. Other researchers in the early 1960s were building diodes that emitted infrared light, which is invisible to the human eye. Holonyak gambled on a different alloy, gallium arsenide phosphide, and it paid off with the first light a person could actually see coming out of a semiconductor. He was so confident in the idea that he predicted LEDs would one day replace the incandescent bulb. At the time that sounded outlandish. Today it is simply how lighting works. Why a tiny red light mattered so much The incandescent bulb that Thomas Edison commercialized makes light by heating a filament until it glows. That is wildly inefficient, because most of the energy escapes as heat rather than light, and the filament eventually burns out. An LED works on a completely different principle. When current flows across a specially engineered semiconductor junction, electrons release their energy directly as photons. There is no filament to burn out, almost no wasted heat, and the device can switch on and o

South Korea targets physical AI lead and commercial humanoid robots by 2028.

Earlier today, T-Mobile started notifying customers that it will be retiring many legacy plans and moving subscribers onto one of its current rate plans. This move includes plans that date back to the 3G era, and it's going about as well as you'd expect. Affected customers began sharing screenshots of the text on reddit and […]

While Kara Zor-El's appearance at the end of James Gunn's Superman was a very pleasant surprise, Warner Bros. Discovery's plan to fast-track a standalone Supergirl feature always felt a little dubious. It seemed odd that, after Superman, the studio wanted to flesh out its new cinematic universe with films about another Kryptonian and one of […]