标签：#m

Okay, story time. If you've worked on a full stack app where the backend is Java/Spring Boot and the frontend is React, you know the drill. Someone changes something on one side of a contract and nobody tells the other side. Weeks later you're playing detective across five files trying to figure out who calls what. And it's not just REST endpoints. It's the scheduled job that quietly writes to the same table your API touches. It's the service that calls another service, which calls another service. It's the Kafka event your controller publishes that some completely unrelated listener is consuming three modules away. All of that is "the contract" too, it's just invisible unless you go looking for it. Now add AI coding agents into that picture. They're great at writing code in the file they're looking at. They're not great at knowing that the component they're editing calls an endpoint, which hits a controller, which calls a service, which calls a repository, which is also written to by a scheduled job at 2am, which also fires an event three other services are listening for. Agents see one file at a time. So they'll happily rename a field or change a return shape on one side and leave everything downstream of it completely unaware anything changed. I got burned by this enough times that I decided to build the map myself. That's how Contour happened, and then, once I realized AI agents needed to query that map directly instead of just reading it off my screen, Contour MCP happened right after. Let's get into it. The actual problem Working across a UI, a REST API, a service layer, a repository layer, a database, plus schedulers and events sitting on top of all of it, two things go wrong constantly. Agents (and honestly, humans too) edit one side of a flow without knowing the other side exists. People burn real time reconstructing a call chain by hand, jumping through five or six files just to make a change that should be simple. Both come from the same root cause. Nobod

submitted by /u/asamarts [link] [留言]

You've done it. You're finally done building the website or application you've been working on for quite a while. Proud and elated, you go to share this on your socials or to your buddies — uh oh, what's this now? The preview in WhatsApp shows no headline, your avatar is cropped and dimensions seem wrong. I've been there too. The site looked fine in the browser. The problem was everything outside the browser: link previews, search snippets, and tab icons all use a separate metadata layer most of us skip until something breaks. So, how do you fix this? Use this as a pre-launch checklist — or run it on a site that's already live but sharing badly. What I ran into on my own portfolio When I ran this audit on shwethaadiraj.com , the site rendered fine — but sharing it told a different story. I had pointed both the favicon and Open Graph image at my profile avatar. At tab size the illustration was unreadable; in link previews it got cropped awkwardly. An OG validator then flagged two things I hadn't considered: the image was 512×512 (most platforms expect 1200×630 ), and there was no headline or CTA on the image itself — so Slack and LinkedIn showed a plain square with none of the context from my meta title. I replaced the favicon with a simplified monogram, regenerated the OG image at the correct aspect ratio with my name, tagline, and site URL on it, and re-ran the debuggers. Even then, previews didn't update until I hit Scrape Again — platforms cache OG data aggressively, so fixes on your end won't show up until you bust that cache. None of this required rethinking the app. It was a metadata pass — the kind of work that's easy to defer and annoying to discover at the share button. Before we get into the specifics, here's a primer on what metadata can actually impact: What is metadata for? Metadata, simply put, is data about data. Search engines, crawlers and social sites all parse different metadata from your app. Search & Discovery: The title and description in your

Deadline reported Thursday that the upcoming The Legend of Zelda movie will feature Australian actor Uli Latukefu as the villain Ganondorf, and the publication notes that "We hear Latukefu inked a multi-picture deal." Nintendo or Sony haven't formally confirmed that there's more than one movie in the works, though it's been rumored that Nintendo and […]

Si automatizas un exchange con ccxt , tarde o temprano lo verás en los logs: rachas cortas de 403 Forbidden que pegan a fetch_balance , a los OHLCV o al saldo de earn, y que desaparecen solas a los pocos minutos. No es que tu API key esté mal. Es el WAF (Cloudflare) que muchos exchanges ponen delante de su REST, challengueando a algo que "parece un bot". Y tu bot es un bot — pero uno legítimo , operando tu propia cuenta contra la API oficial. El problema no es de permisos, es de reputación de cliente HTTP. Esto va de reducir los falsos positivos del WAF, no de evadir ningún control de acceso. Dos capas que lo mitigan Saqué este patrón de un bot propio sobre OKX, tras varias rachas de 403, y lo publiqué como librería: ccxt-resilience (Apache-2.0). 1. Que el WAF challengue menos: harden Un cliente ccxt por defecto se anuncia como lo que es. Ajustar un User-Agent de navegador, la cabecera Accept-Language y un timeout holgado hace que Cloudflare lo desafíe con menos frecuencia: import ccxt from ccxt_resilience import harden exchange = harden ( ccxt . okx ({ " apiKey " : ..., " secret " : ..., " password " : ..., })) harden toca un cliente ya construido , devuelve el mismo objeto (encadenable) y nunca rompe su construcción: si algo falla al fijar los atributos, los deja como estaban. 2. Reintentar solo lo que se debe: with_retry La tentación es envolver todo en un try/except que reintente. Es una trampa: reintentar un error de credenciales o de fondos solo gasta tiempo, termina igual de mal, y esconde bugs de lógica detrás de esperas. La clave es reintentar únicamente lo transitorio —403/Cloudflare, 429, timeouts— con backoff exponencial y jitter, y re-lanzar los errores reales en el acto: from ccxt_resilience import with_retry balance = with_retry ( exchange . fetch_balance ) ohlcv = with_retry ( exchange . fetch_ohlcv , " BTC/USDT " , timeframe = " 1m " , attempts = 4 , base = 1.0 , max_s = 8.0 ) Un error de autenticación se re-lanza inmediatamente, sin reintentar. Y s

If you've started learning DBMS for software engineering interviews, you've probably come across terms like Functional Dependency , Attribute Closure , Candidate Key , Normalization , and Canonical Cover . For many beginners, Canonical Cover feels like another algorithm to memorize. It isn't. Before you ever learn how to compute a Canonical Cover, you should understand why it exists . This article focuses only on the Introduction and Foundations . We intentionally won't discuss the algorithm yet. What Is the Interviewer's Intent? When interviewers ask about Canonical Cover , they are usually not testing your memorization . Instead, they want to know whether you understand: How databases represent business rules Why redundant rules create problems Whether you can simplify complex dependency sets Whether you understand the foundations of normalization In interviews, Canonical Cover often appears before questions on: Normal Forms Dependency Preservation Lossless Decomposition BCNF Schema Design Interviewers are checking your understanding of database design , not your ability to recite definitions. Why Do Interviewers Ask Canonical Cover? Imagine a database contains hundreds of dependency rules. Many of those rules may: Repeat the same information Contain unnecessary attributes Be derivable from other rules A good software engineer should recognize unnecessary complexity. Canonical Cover is essentially about answering one question: "Can we represent exactly the same constraints using fewer and simpler rules?" That's why interviewers ask it. They want to see whether you appreciate: simplicity correctness maintainability efficient schema design Where Does Canonical Cover Fit Inside DBMS? Think of DBMS topics as a learning roadmap. DBMS | -------------------------------- | | Database Design Transactions | | Functional Dependencies | Attribute Closure | Candidate Keys | Canonical Cover | Normalization | 2NF → 3NF → BCNF Canonical Cover belongs to the database design portio

Everyone's talking about agentic AI shipping production code. Nobody's talking about what happens when you actually sit down and grade thousands of lines of it against a rubric, line by line, for months. I have. And the failure pattern that shows up over and over isn't the one Twitter/X is arguing about. The job title that didn't exist two years ago "AI evaluator." "AI trainer." "Expert contributor to frontier model training data." None of these existed as job titles when I started my career. Now they're where a chunk of the most interesting engineering signal in the industry is actually happening — quietly, behind NDAs, far from the demo videos. Here's what the job actually is: agentic coding outputs land on your desk, and you grade them against a structured rubric — correctness, instruction adherence, quality, edge-case handling. You design adversarial prompts to find where the model's reasoning breaks. You decide which checks can be programmatic and deterministic, and which genuinely need a human who's shipped production systems to make the call. This is RL environment design and LLMOps in its rawest form, and it's a completely different skill from "prompt engineer" or "ML researcher." It's closer to being a QA lead for a junior engineer who never sleeps, never gets embarrassed, and will confidently ship the wrong answer with perfect syntax. The pattern: agents are great at code, bad at consequences Here's the uncomfortable part. The failure mode people are loudest about — hallucinated APIs, made-up library functions — is the easy failure mode. It's loud, it's obvious, and any decent test suite catches it in seconds. The failure mode that actually matters, the one that slips past a surface read and even past a naive test suite, looks like this: The code is syntactically perfect and semantically wrong about failure. It handles the happy path beautifully and quietly assumes the retry, the timeout, the partial write, the duplicate message never happens. It optimises

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is free and source-available on Github. Star git-lrc to help devs discover the project. Do give it a try and share your feedback. A few years ago the AI conversation looked like this. "Should I pay $20?" "No, $200." "Actually this new tool is $39/month." My wallet started looking like it had gone through a startup funding winter. Then Google quietly walked into the room and started dropping free AI tools like Oprah handing out cars. "You get an AI IDE!" "You get a workflow builder!" "You get a GitHub coding agent!" ...except nobody really noticed because Google announced them across five different events, Labs pages, GitHub repos, and random blog posts. So I spent some time collecting the ones developers will actually find useful. No "AI that writes your wedding speech." No "AI that guesses your spirit animal." Just tools that can actually help you ship software. Bookmark this one. 1. Pomelli https://labs.google/pomelli If you've ever launched a side project, you already know the painful truth. Building the product is fun. Writing 37 LinkedIn posts explaining the product... not so much. Pomelli takes your website, understands what your product does, builds a brand profile, then generates social posts around it. Think of it as hiring an intern that actually reads your landing page before tweeting. Would I let it post automatically? No. Would I happily let it generate the first draft so I don't stare at a blinking cursor? Absolutely. Perfect for: Indie hackers SaaS founders Open-source maintainers pretending they enjoy marketing 2. Stitch https://stitch.withgoogle.com Remember when designing an app meant opening Figma... ...moving a button 3 pixels... ...asking for feedback... ...moving it back 3 pixels? Stitch skips a surprising amount of that. You describe the interface. Or upload a sketch. Or even paste a wireframe. It generates modern UI designs and can even produce

Ford's CEO has described the new Ford Fathom as a "Model T moment" for the company. But the EV pickup is unlikely to live up to lofty expectations, and maybe it doesn't have to.

Bumble says it’s moving beyond swiping and deeper into real-world social experiences as it courts Gen Z users.

Suno announced plans to implement a new watermarking technology and download policy to limit the spread of spammy AI tracks and increase transparency. In a lengthy blog post, CEO and co-founder Mikey Shulman laid out the company's principles and the next steps for the company as it seeks legitimacy. The company is rolling out new […]

A 26-year-old Canadian man once described as one of the most consequential cybercrime threat actors of 2024 has pleaded guilty to computer fraud and conspiracy to hack and extort more than 165 organizations that used the cloud data storage provider Snowflake. Connor Riley Moucka, of Kitchener, Ontario, also admitted to stealing call and text history records of more than 100 million AT&T customers.

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

GitHub malware advisories no longer stop at npm. Here's how we wired OpenSSF's malicious-packages data into the Advisory Database, and why we built the pipeline paranoid. The post How we took malware advisories beyond npm appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

Connor Moucka pled guilty to hacking and stealing data from more than 165 Snowflake customers, which net him and his accomplices more than $2.5 million in ransom payments.

Change will let "Trump-aligned billionaires" buy more stations, advocacy group says.

Context My multiplayer game Lights Out is based on a 2D grid. Entities can only ever be in exactly one grid tile. This makes the rule evaluation really simple and understandable. However, it doesn't really feel nice to play (which you know if you've ever played any of the PuzzleScript games). At the same time, the more content is in the game, the more complex and arbitrary the game rules become. I therefore introduced the Movement Transaction System into the code base to deal with this. This includes two sides: - The gameplay code on server side deals with transactions. This bundles all movement code (including rule evaluation) into a single system. - The visualization & prediction code on client side deals with visual interpolation for moves (introducing some juice into the gameplay feel), based on the transactions managed by the server. The Transaction A single transaction includes the movement delta, a list of entities that it has affected and some flags. A transaction then undergoes several stages: - Queued : Gameplay code has requested an entity to move - Issued : The visual interpolation for the transaction has started in the client, but the entities have not been moved from a gameplay perspective - Committed : The entities have now been moved onto their new tiles, the visual interpolation is finishing - Aborted : The transaction couldn't be committed as it would've violated gameplay rules. Visual interpolation is reversed. The Visual Interpolation Whenever a transaction is issued on server-side, the server tells the clients to start a visual interpolation based on the transaction. This information includes the desired duration of the interpolation, as well as some flags (like whether to use acceleration or do a linear interpolation). The client then updates the visual interpolation every frame, until the transaction is either aborted or the target position has been reached. Simplifying Gameplay Code This new system has made the gameplay code much simpler. I c

Changes are on the horizon. Soon, we'll be seeing more phones with batteries that the user can remove and replace.

Its WeatherNext model, which will be open-sourced, can accurately predict both a storm’s track and intensity using lower-resolution weather data. Researchers don't yet fully understand how it does this.

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