标签：#m

I'm building LOOM — a small open-source language that is a machine-checked trust layer for AI-written code. I don't write it by hand anymore: an organism I built grows it, day and night, on my own machine. This is Day 6, and the whole day went to one thing — WebAssembly . Why this was a real test LOOM already runs three ways: an interpreter, and backends that compile checked code to Python and JavaScript. The thesis is "trust survives translation" — effects and provenance, proven once, hold the same on every target. WebAssembly is the strongest test of that: a low-level stack machine with linear memory, nothing like Python or JS. And there was a constraint. This machine's clang has no wasm target, and I install nothing paid or heavy. So I don't compile to wasm through a toolchain — I emit the wasm bytes myself (LEB128, the type / function / memory / global / export / code sections, the i32 stack machine) and run them through node's built-in WebAssembly . Zero dependencies. From fib to a value runtime, in a day Every step was prototyped and proven (wasm output == interpreter output) before it touched the kernel: The integer core — arithmetic, comparison, if , first-order calls and recursion. fib(10) becomes 61 bytes of real WebAssembly and returns 55, identically on the interpreter, Python, Node and wasm. A value runtime — let and integer lists in a real linear-memory heap (a bump pointer + a $cons cell allocator; head / tail are i32.load , empty is i32.eqz ). A list sums and folds by recursion, inside wasm. Sum types — (variant Tag e) becomes a tagged cell [tag-id | payload] ; match loads the tag, compares, binds the payload, branches. You can watch it: the live playground has a Compile → WAT button and WASM · fib / list-sum / match examples. Type a program, see it become real assembly, in your browser. Honest scope: ints, let , integer lists and sum types compile to wasm today. Records, closures and effects are the next frontiers (closures are the hard one — a func

Ask someone to name the most manufactured object in human history and you will hear guesses like the nail, the brick, or maybe the smartphone. The real answer is something almost nobody can name out loud: the MOSFET. This tiny transistor, invented at Bell Labs in 1959, is the on/off switch inside every microprocessor, memory chip, and connected sensor. An estimated 13 sextillion of them have been built since 1960, making the MOSFET not just the foundation of modern electronics but the most-produced artifact our species has ever made. What a MOSFET actually is MOSFET stands for metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor. Strip away the jargon and it is an electrically controlled switch with no moving parts. A small voltage on one terminal, the gate, controls whether current can flow between the other two. Billions of these switches flipping on and off billions of times per second is, quite literally, what computation is. The genius of the design is that it scales: shrink the transistor and you can pack more of them onto a chip while using less power per switch, the trend that drove decades of Moore's law. The breakthrough came from two engineers at Bell Labs, Mohamed Atalla and Dawon Kahng, who fabricated the first working MOSFET in 1959. Their key insight was using a thin layer of silicon dioxide, ordinary glass, to insulate the gate from the silicon underneath. That oxide layer turned out to be the unlock that made silicon the dominant material in electronics, edging out the germanium used in the very first transistors of the late 1940s. Why it beat every earlier transistor The point-contact transistor demonstrated in 1947 and the integrated circuit of 1958 were both monumental, but neither was easy to mass-produce by the standards we take for granted today. The MOSFET was different. It was simpler to fabricate at scale, drew far less power in its complementary (CMOS) configuration, and lent itself to the photolithographic processes that let manufacturers pr

As Anthropic tightens restrictions on access to Claude in China, users keep finding new workarounds, from proxy services to fake identities sourced on Telegram.

Samsung makes some of the very best OLED gaming monitors, and they’ve never been this affordable.

Ninja Creami Swirl, Crispi, Slushi, and Cafe Luxe Pro are all on Prime Day deals that will soon go away.

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

Prime Day isn’t just about cheap TVs. It’s also about cheap stuff to watch on your cheap TV.

FCC refuses to provide messages, has "wasted a year" of court's time, filing says.

The asteroid will be visible for several nights from different parts of the world. We’ll tell you when and where to look, and what equipment you’ll need to spot it.

Everyone is selling AI to small businesses right now. Most of it is hype. But some of it is genuinely useful — and knowing the difference can save you thousands in wasted tooling. I run a small agency in Stuttgart that builds websites and automations for local service businesses: coaches, doctors, beauty studios, consultants. Here's what actually moves the needle for them in 2025. What "AI Automation" Actually Means for Small Businesses Forget the generic pitch. For a local service business, AI automation is useful in exactly three places: Client communication at scale — responding to inquiries 24/7 without hiring a receptionist Reducing admin time — intake forms, follow-ups, reminders, invoicing triggers Content creation — but only as a speed boost, not a replacement for your voice Anything beyond that is usually overkill for a business under 10 employees. The One Automation Every Service Business Should Have Automated follow-up after initial contact. Here's the typical flow without automation: Client fills out contact form You see it 4 hours later You write a reply If you're busy, it takes a day Client has already booked elsewhere With automation: Client fills out form Immediate confirmation email ("Got your message, here's how to book a slot") Link to booking calendar You're notified. If they don't book in 48h, a follow-up email goes out automatically This alone converts 20-40% more inquiries into booked clients. No AI model needed — just a simple workflow in n8n, Make, or Zapier. Where LLMs Actually Help Language models (ChatGPT, Claude, etc.) are genuinely useful for small businesses in these areas: Intake Forms → Personalized Responses A coaching client fills out a detailed intake form. Normally, you'd spend 20 minutes reading it and writing a personalized welcome email. With a simple LLM integration: Intake form submitted Webhook fires to n8n LLM reads the form, generates a personalized summary + welcome You review it in 30 seconds and hit send Same personal

Anthropic's engineers ship eight times more code than they did a few years ago. And they had to start scheduling lunches so people would talk to each other. Fiona Fung, who leads the Claude Code team, said it on Lenny's Podcast last week. Working with agents all day had started to feel isolating. The team was fast, but they'd stopped running into each other. So they added pairwise programming lunches and hackathons — rituals to put back the thing that used to happen on its own. Eight times the output. Scheduled conversation. That ratio is worth sitting with. Whatever goes missing here doesn't show up in the metrics. It doesn't throw an error. It just quietly stops being available. Here's the part that bugs me most. Ask an AI whether your approach is sound and it mostly tells you it is. Not because it's lying — because it's answering the prompt. No stake in the outcome, no history with the system, no memory of the last three times this exact idea was tried and quietly failed. A colleague pushing back is a different thing. They've got context you never typed into the window, because they were there when it was earned. They're going to maintain this too. They might be wrong — but wrong in a direction you hadn't thought of. An agent can't disagree with you like that. It agrees faster. Same with scope. The agent builds what you ask for, all of it, thoroughly. It won't mention that the third feature is the one nobody will use, or that "good enough" happened two iterations ago, or that something next door already solves most of this. Knowing when to stop comes from someone who's watched a codebase rot under a hundred individually-reasonable decisions. And it only knows what you put in front of it. The person who worked on payments remembers the edge case you're about to recreate. The junior who joined three months ago still sees the thing everyone stopped noticing. That gap — between what's in the window and what isn't — is where the expensive mistakes live. Then the part

Hello, I'm Shrijith Venkatramana. I'm building git-lrc, an AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. Star Us to help devs discover the project. Do give it a try and share your feedback for improving the product. An AI model writes a paragraph. It sounds fluent. It looks convincing. But how do you know whether it's actually good? This deceptively simple question has occupied researchers for more than two decades. Long before ChatGPT, machine translation researchers faced exactly the same problem. Human evaluation was expensive, inconsistent, and painfully slow. If every new model required thousands of humans to compare translations, research would crawl. That necessity gave rise to BLEU , one of the most influential evaluation metrics in AI history. Years later, as language models became better at paraphrasing and reasoning, BLEU started to show its age. Researchers responded with learned metrics like BLEURT and COMET , which use neural networks to judge language much more like humans do. Interestingly, this mirrors software engineering itself. We first wrote simple unit tests, then integration tests, and today we increasingly rely on sophisticated observability systems. Evaluation metrics for LLMs have undergone a similar evolution. Let's see why. Before BLEU: The Evaluation Bottleneck Imagine you're building Google Translate in 2001. Every time your team improves the model, someone has to read thousands of translated sentences and score them. Suppose a single sentence pair takes only 20 seconds to judge. Evaluating 50,000 sentences would require nearly 280 human-hours . Now imagine dozens of experiments every week. Evaluation—not training—quickly becomes the bottleneck. Researchers at IBM, led by Kishore Papineni , introduced BLEU (Bilingual Evaluation Understudy) in 2002 to automate this process. Their idea was surprisingly simple: If a machine translation resembles what professional translators write, it's probably good. This became one of the most cited papers

I noticed something a few months ago. I was talking less to my colleagues. Not because anything was wrong. I had a question, I described it to an AI, I got something useful back. Why loop in a human if the loop is already closed? It took a while to name what was actually happening. There's a version of the AI story where the interesting work disappears. The agent implements. The spec session produces the plan. Humans review the output. What's left? Ticket hygiene and rubber stamping. Engineering as a series of approvals. I think that's wrong. But I understand why it feels true. Here's what I think is actually happening instead. The agent produces the increment. But the agent doesn't decide what the increment should move toward. It doesn't know whether this library is the right bet for the next three years. It doesn't know which of two implementation approaches leaves options open and which quietly closes them. It doesn't know whether the architectural call made today creates a problem nobody will notice until the system is under load eighteen months from now. That work — giving the project direction, validating trade-offs, deciding what the system becomes — isn't specable. You can't write a ticket for it. And it's not going away. The craft didn't disappear. It moved. Direction is the word I keep coming back to. The agent executes well. It implements against a spec. It generates options when you ask for them. But it doesn't carry a point of view about where the system should go. It doesn't have a stake in the decision. It will implement the wrong architectural direction just as confidently as the right one, if that's what the spec says. Someone has to hold the direction. Someone has to know enough about the codebase's history, the team's constraints, and the product's trajectory to say: not that library, we've been down that road. Not that pattern, it doesn't survive the load we're heading toward. This approach now, that refactor later, in this order, for these reaso

"A fool with a tool is still a fool." — often attributed to Grady Booch I keep coming back to this quote when I watch teams adopt AI. In my last post ( https://schrottner.at/2026/06/18/The-Wrong-End-of-the-Problem.html ) I wrote about shifting the engineering process left — spec sessions, autonomous agents, humans reviewing output rather than writing it. A few people asked the obvious follow-up: if an agent implements and an AI reviews, why do I need a team at all? It's a fair question. And I think the answer is in that quote. The agent validates against your prompt. That's it. If your thinking is muddled, the output will be muddled — just faster and at greater cost. An agent doesn't tell you that you're solving the wrong problem. It solves whatever problem you gave it, thoroughly and without complaint. Most AI usage right now treats AI as a tool. Which means the quality of the output is bounded by the quality of the thinking that went into the prompt. A fool with a tool is still a fool. The tool just makes the foolishness more expensive. The team is the check on intent. Not after the agent has burned three sprints on the wrong thing — before it starts. That's what mob planning actually is, when you think about it. Not a meeting. Not process overhead. It's the place where bad ideas get caught before they get expensive. Where someone asks "wait, why are we building this" before an agent runs with it for a week. But there's something else happening in that room that I think gets underestimated. It's where the learning happens. Not just prompting. System thinking. Architectural patterns. How to decompose a problem. Why a certain approach fits this codebase and another doesn't. How a senior frames a problem before an agent ever touches it — the mental model that makes the output actually good. Right now that knowledge isn't transferring. Everyone is heads-down with their own tools, developing their own habits in isolation. Engineer A gets dramatically better output than

“We don’t believe this kind of government access process should become the long-term default,” says OpenAI. “It keeps the best tools from users, developers, enterprises, cyber defenders, and global partners who need them.”

Homes with many phone chargers pay more even when they're not using them.

Originally published at malaymehta.com The Interview Trap If you look at most system design tutorials, you get an extreme use case. Design Twitter. Design YouTube. Scale it to a billion users. Draw boxes on a whiteboard for 45 minutes. Do you think your app will be used by a billion users on day one? The answer is almost always no. But the tutorials don't teach you what to do when you have 500 users, unclear requirements, a team of four, and a quarter to ship something that works. Real system design is nothing like a whiteboard interview. You don't get clean requirements, you don't design from scratch, and nobody asks you to handle a billion requests per second on day one. Real System Design Starts with Questions, Not Diagrams The very first thing that matters in system design is something most tutorials skip entirely: unclear and chaotic requirements. In the real world, requirements don't come as a clean problem statement. They come from non-technical business teams, and you need to navigate through cross-questions to get all the clarity you need. Ask as many questions as possible. Understand your functional and non-functional requirements. Which features need to be synchronous and which can be async? What are the read and write load patterns? What is the maximum and average number of concurrent users right now? What does authentication look like? Do you need role-based access control? These questions drive your choices. You don't always need an axe where a knife will do. Being minimalist with a reasonable growth prediction and a 3, 6, 9 month plan will take you in the right direction. There will be things the situation demands immediately but would take more time than expected. Taking a predictable hit now and fixing it at the right future time without missing that balance is truly important. Weighing what will be expensive to change later, in terms of dollar cost or human effort, is how real architectural decisions get made. Pushing Back on Bad Requirements Many

How I built an open-source Slack assistant with persistent semantic memory, powered by any LLM and Mem0's managed memory layer — no vector database required. The problem with Slack bots and memory Most AI Slack bots have the memory of a goldfish. Every conversation starts from scratch. You ask it about your sprint goals, it gives a great answer, then three days later you ask a follow-up and it has no idea what you're talking about. You end up re-explaining context constantly. The commercial solution to this is Claude Tag — a Slack integration that maintains genuine conversational continuity. But it's tied to one provider and not open-source. slacktag-oss is our attempt to replicate that experience: a Slack bot with real, semantic, persistent memory that works with any LLM — including ones running entirely on your laptop. What I built A Python Slack bot with: Socket Mode for local dev (no public URL needed), HTTP-ready for prod LangChain to abstract LLM calls across any OpenAI-compatible endpoint Mem0 managed cloud for semantic memory — no Qdrant, no Pinecone, no infra to run Three memory scopes: per-channel, per-thread, per-DM Built-in !clear and !memory commands A clean, extensible architecture you can fork and build on Architecture Before diving into code, here's the full request lifecycle: ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Slack │ │ @mention in channel ──┐ │ │ DM to bot ──┼──► Slack Events API │ │ Thread reply ──┘ │ │ └───────────────────────────────────│─────────────────────────┘ │ (Socket Mode / HTTP) ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ slack-bolt (Python) │ │ bot.py ──► router.py ──► handler.py │ │ │ │ │ ┌───────────────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ ▼ ▼ │ │ Mem0 Client LangChain │ │ (managed) ChatOpenAI │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────-┘ │ ▼ ┌───────────────────────┐ │ Mem0 Managed Cloud │ │ Vector Embeddings │ │ Entity Extraction │ │ Deduplication │ └───────────────────────┘ The ke

Malware authors don't make our job easy. Every time we think we've figured out their tricks, they layer on another obfuscation technique, another anti-debugging check, another sandbox evasion. Over the past few weeks, I've been deep in the trenches with some particularly stubborn samples — the kind that detect your debugger, hide their strings behind XOR encoding, and hollow out legitimate processes to hide their payload. This article walks through my hands-on exploration of these techniques. We'll look at how malware detects analysis tools, how it obfuscates its strings, how it unpacks itself in memory, and most importantly — how we can bypass these defenses to see what the malware is actually trying to do. The tools we'll use: x64dbg/x32dbg for dynamic analysis and patching IDA Pro for static disassembly REMnux (Linux toolkit) for string deobfuscation FLOSS, XORSearch, bbcrack for automated string decoding Scylla & OllyDumpEx for dumping unpacked payloads Process Hacker for memory forensics Problem Statement Modern malware is rarely "what you see is what you get." A single executable might be: Packed — the actual malicious code is compressed/encrypted and only revealed at runtime Anti-debug aware — it checks for debuggers and changes behavior or terminates Sandbox-aware — it detects virtualized environments and refuses to execute its payload String-obfuscated — URLs, registry keys, and IOCs are encoded to evade signature detection Process-injecting — it hollows out a legitimate process (like explorer.exe ) and runs its code there Our goal: peel back these layers and extract the real payload for analysis. Exercise 1: Bypassing Debugger Detection in getdown.exe What I Found The first sample, getdown.exe , refused to show any network activity when run inside a debugger. Outside the debugger, it connected to 1.234.27.146:80 . Classic anti-debugging behavior. The Detection Mechanism Using x64dbg, I searched for intermodular calls and immediately spotted IsDebuggerPrese

Update began June 15 and will no longer allow you to share your login info.