标签：#m

Maggot therapy lacks robust data, but it has fans and a fail-safe "bacon therapy."

Guys! What’s the best way to gather early adopters to evaluate new dev tool that literally just killed REST, gRPC, Thrift, SignalR, DAPR and GraalVM in one shot? The concept is to shift away from writing code to expose any business logic in any specific integration strategy like create REST controllers or provide proto interfaces or expose via subscription to queue events as well as avoid implementing the integration-specific client code to call that rest or gRPC endpoint. Instead of that the question comes when I call “zip” module from Nuget in .net I just use its public methods and handle exceptions. Why if I want to use it remotely I should expose the same method via REST, map it to routes, strange parameters, http codes and next call that on other end? Wy I cannot just say it will be on this remote node so whenever I ca that method to “unzip” my intention just travel over network and execute there? The potential solution is to bridge runtimes on native level. Think of it like intercepting developer intention at abstract syntax tree so when you perform operation in code before it gets executed and just send it to the remote runtime fulfill job there and return result. Wouldn’t be beautiful if you could just call methods of any module regardless if it’s same tech or different and regardless of its in memory or remotely? Just by calling methods? I know I know there are isolation interfaces etc… but if you apply those concepts design facade properly, decide what should be public, and allow to attach to those calls any headers (to still support JWT, NTLM, api Keys etc) and will add support that if method is static it goes stateless if it’s instance it goes stateful with sticky session and give the DevOps ability to change channel between WebSocket, http/2, tcp/ip or any message bus without touching code as it will be just pure method code. It could really work. Think of it. How clean your codebase would be, how much more design would fit your original uml, how much l

O Event Loop é o mecanismo responsável por decidir quando callbacks e continuidades de operações assíncronas devem ser executados. Ele não executa operações de I/O diretamente, mas organiza a ordem em que elas retornam para o JavaScript. Essa arquitetura permite que o Node.js mantenha uma única thread de execução para JavaScript, enquanto delega operações de rede, disco e sistema operacional para componentes especializados do runtime e do próprio sistema operacional. Início Quando iniciamos um processo Node.js, o runtime carrega o arquivo de entrada da aplicação e executa todo o código síncrono disponível na Call Stack. Somente após essa etapa o Event Loop passa a assumir o controle do fluxo da aplicação, verificando continuamente quais callbacks estão prontos para execução. │ timers │ └─────────────┬─────────────┘ │ v ┌───────────────────────────┐ ┌─>│ pending callbacks │ │ └─────────────┬─────────────┘ │ ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐ │ │ idle, prepare │ │ └─────────────┬─────────────┘ ┌───────────────┐ │ ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐ │ incoming: │ │ │ poll │<─────┤ connections, │ │ └─────────────┬─────────────┘ │ data, etc. │ │ ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐ └───────────────┘ │ │ check │ │ └─────────────┬─────────────┘ │ ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐ │ │ close callbacks │ │ └─────────────┬─────────────┘ │ ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐ └──┤ timers │ └───────────────────────────┘ Trecho retirado da documentação principal. Sobre o Event Loop Durante muito tempo tratei o Event Loop como um dos conceitos mais complexos do Node.js. Depois de estudar a documentação oficial com mais calma, percebi que a dificuldade não está no Event Loop em si, mas na quantidade de conceitos diferentes que normalmente são apresentados ao mesmo tempo: libuv, Call Stack, Promises, Microtasks, Sistema Operacional e I/O. Quando isolamos o papel do Event Loop, ele se torna surpreendentemente simples. Definindo os passos e apresentando o iceberg 🧊 O Event Loop não executa trabalho. Ele agenda tr

Apple is planning to raise prices in response to the ongoing memory shortage. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Apple CEO Tim Cook says "price increases are unavoidable:" We're doing our best to mitigate the huge increases that are being passed to us, and we've been trying to shield our customers from the […]

LLM Fallback in Production, Agentic eCommerce, and GitHub Copilot for Parallel Agents Today's Highlights This week highlights practical applications and architectural considerations for AI frameworks, focusing on robust LLM deployments and agent orchestration. We cover building resilient multi-provider LLM systems, leveraging agents for dynamic e-commerce, and GitHub's new desktop app for managing parallel AI agent workflows. How I built a 3-provider LLM fallback system in production (and what actually broke) (Dev.to Top) Source: https://dev.to/ayush_notsogreat_b673d5/how-i-built-a-3-provider-llm-fallback-system-in-production-and-what-actually-broke-46jk This article details the implementation of a robust LLM fallback system designed for production environments, addressing the common challenge of provider reliability and API rate limits. The author shares practical insights gained from building Socra, an application reliant on multiple LLM providers. The core of the system involves orchestrating requests across three different LLM APIs, ensuring that if one fails or encounters issues, the system seamlessly switches to an alternative without disrupting the user experience. The piece delves into the specific architectural decisions made to achieve this, including strategies for managing API keys, handling varying response formats, and implementing intelligent retry mechanisms. It also transparently discusses unexpected failures and critical lessons learned during the system's deployment, offering invaluable advice on anticipating real-world production issues beyond theoretical design. This practical guide provides a blueprint for developers seeking to build more resilient and fault-tolerant LLM-powered applications, crucial for maintaining high availability and consistent performance in AI workflows. Comment: Implementing multi-provider LLM fallbacks is essential for production-grade reliability; this article provides practical architecture and lessons from real-world

I recently calibrated a recovery-rate model that had only two weak features. Its point accuracy was almost nothing — R² basically zero. I expected its uncertainty estimates to be junk too. They weren't: the 90% conformal prediction intervals covered ~89% of held-out outcomes. Valid, just wide . That surprised me enough to nail it down, because it contradicts a belief a lot of us carry around: "my model isn't accurate, so I can't trust its uncertainty." For split conformal prediction, that's backwards. Here's the precise statement, a runnable demo, and the one caveat that actually bites. Coverage is a property of the procedure, not the model Split conformal prediction gives a distribution-free, finite-sample marginal coverage guarantee : P( Y ∈ Ĉ(X) ) ≥ 1 − α and it holds for any point model, as long as the calibration and test data are exchangeable. The model is a black box. You fit it however you like, then on a held-out calibration set you take the (1−α) quantile of the absolute residuals, and that quantile becomes the half-width of your intervals. Nowhere does that construction require the model to be good. A bad model just has large residuals, so the calibration quantile is large, so the intervals are wide — wide enough to still cover at the stated rate. Accuracy doesn't buy you validity ; it buys you efficiency (narrower intervals at the same coverage). The demo (numbers are reproducible, seed fixed) Same dataset and target, three models from strong to useless, target coverage 90%: model R² marginal coverage mean interval width gradient boosting 0.741 0.895 5.39 weak linear (1 noisy feature) 0.061 0.905 10.39 predict-the-mean −0.000 0.907 10.83 All three land at ~90% coverage. The only thing that changes is width: the good model's intervals are half as wide . That's the whole story in one table — validity is constant, efficiency tracks accuracy. import numpy as np from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingReg

submitted by /u/mqian41 [link] [留言]

Every non-trivial business operation touches more than one system. An e-commerce order reserves inventory, charges a payment method, and schedules a shipment — three services, three databases. A bank transfer debits one account and credits another across two ledgers that may not even be in the same data center. A cloud VM provisioning workflow reserves a network port, allocates storage, starts the hypervisor, registers billing, and sends a notification — five services, five independent state stores. The question is: what happens when step four fails after steps one through three have already succeeded? In a monolith backed by a single database, the answer is simple: roll back the transaction. The database engine guarantees atomicity; either everything commits or nothing does. But when your workflow spans multiple services, each owning its own storage, there is no transaction boundary that wraps them all. There is no rollback button. Step one through three have already made durable changes to systems that do not know about each other, and step four's failure has left the system in an inconsistent state. This is not a pathological edge case. It is the default condition in any distributed architecture. And it gets worse: the failure might not be a hard error. The network might time out. The billing service might return a 503. You do not know whether step four applied its effect or not — you only know you did not receive a success response. Now what? This is the problem sagas were designed for. Client Inventory Svc Payment Svc Shipping Svc │ │ │ │ 1 │──reserve(item)──►│ │ │ │◄──── 200 OK ─────│ │ │ │ [reserved ✓] │ │ │ │ │ │ 2 │──────────── charge(card, $99) ────►│ │ │◄───────────────── 200 OK ──────────│ │ │ │ [charged ✓] │ │ │ │ │ 3 │─────────────────────── schedule(order) ─────────────►│ │◄─────────────────────────── 503 ──────────────────── │ │ │ │ [no record ✗] │ │ │ │ ╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗ ║ ⚠ Inconsistent state ║ ║ Inventory: it

The Quest Begins (The “Why”) Picture this: I’m knee‑deep in a legacy codebase that feels like the Death Star’s trash compactor—every time I try to add a feature, the walls close in and I’m squashed by tight coupling. I’d just spent three hours tracking down a bug that only showed up when the payment gateway was mocked in a test. The culprit? A new PaymentGateway() buried deep inside an OrderService class. It was like trying to defeat Darth Vader with a butter knife—no matter how hard I swung, the Dark Force (aka hidden dependencies) kept pulling me back. I realized I was instantiating collaborators inside the very classes that should be oblivious to their implementation details . The result? Tests that needed a real database, a real Stripe account, and a sacrificial goat to run. Any change to a third‑party API meant hunting down every new scattered across the project. Onboarding a new teammate felt like handing them a map written in ancient Sumerian. Honestly, I was ready to quit coding and become a professional napper. Then, during a late‑night coffee‑fueled refactor session, I stumbled upon a tiny line of documentation that whispered: “Depend on abstractions, not concretions.” It sounded like Yoda giving me a pep talk. The Revelation (The Insight) The magic spell I uncovered is Dependency Injection (DI) —specifically, constructor injection . Instead of a class creating its own collaborators, we hand them in from the outside. Think of it as giving a Jedi their lightsaber rather than making them forge one in the middle of a battle. Why does this feel like discovering the Force? Testability explodes – you can swap in fakes, mocks, or stubs without touching production code. Flexibility skyrockets – swapping a payment provider becomes a one‑line config change, not a scavenger hunt. Clarity reigns – the constructor becomes an honest inventory of what a class needs to do its job. The moment I applied it, the codebase felt lighter, like Luke finally trusting the Force ins

The ultralight may become a permanent fixture in Apple's smartphone lineup.

GraphQL: A Complete Guide for Developers in 2026 NEWS: MY GAME JUST LAUNCHED Flip Duel Card Battle - Apps on Google Play Outsmart rivals in 1v1 card duels. Joker, bluff, ranked PvP. 5 rounds. play.google.com If you have built more than a couple of APIs, you have probably felt the friction of REST at scale. You ship an endpoint, the frontend team asks for one more field, you version the route, the mobile team needs a different shape of the same data, and six months later you are maintaining /v3/users/:id/full next to /v2/users/:id/summary and nobody remembers which one the Android app actually calls. GraphQL was built to kill that exact pain. It is a query language and runtime that lets clients ask for precisely the data they need — no more, no less — from a single endpoint, against a strongly typed schema that doubles as living documentation. This guide walks through GraphQL from first principles to production concerns. It is aimed at working developers, so expect schema definitions, resolvers, real queries, the N+1 problem, federation, security, and the parts of the ecosystem that actually matter in 2026. By the end you should be able to decide whether GraphQL belongs in your stack and how to build it without shooting yourself in the foot. What GraphQL Actually Is GraphQL is a specification, not a library or a framework. It was created at Facebook in 2012 to power their mobile apps, open-sourced in 2015, and is now governed by the GraphQL Foundation under the Linux Foundation. The spec defines a query language, a type system, and an execution model — but it deliberately says nothing about which database you use, which programming language you implement it in, or how you transport requests over the wire. That last point trips people up, so let it sink in: GraphQL is transport-agnostic and storage-agnostic. Most implementations run over HTTP with JSON, but that is a convention, not a requirement. Your resolvers can pull data from PostgreSQL, a REST microservice, a gR

Elsewhere, beyond-classical quantum hardware, plus classical computing fires back.

The former Sequoia Capital leader is filling an "existing vacancy" on SpaceX's board, days after the company went public in the largest IPO ever.

Snap's long-awaited smart glasses debut hasn't exactly done wonders for the company's stock.

Epic Games is making generative AI a big part of upcoming versions of Unreal Engine.

submitted by /u/JuanAG [link] [留言]

A new FTC lawsuit reveals how sophisticated subscription app operators can allegedly use shell companies and payment infrastructure to stay active on app stores despite mounting consumer complaints.

How GitHub Copilot is making more of each session go toward useful work, so your credits go further. The post Getting more from each token: How Copilot improves context handling and model routing appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

Epic Games has been touting the potential of an interoperable metaverse for years, though that vision hasn't yet become a reality. But with Unreal Engine 6, the next major version of its game development engine, Epic plans to take a big step toward that theoretical future: it will let developers make games that can use […]

French President Macron and Indian PM Modi raised alarms at the G7 summit that the U.S. could cut off access to American AI overnight — a fear the Anthropic blackout just made real.