标签：#m

When I started coding, I made so many silly mistakes 😅 Today I’m sharing 3 small mistakes that every beginner developer makes: 1. Trying to write "Perfect Code" on Day 1 Bro, your code will be messy at the start. Just make it work first. Perfect comes later. 2. Watching tutorials but not coding yourself Watching videos is easy. But you only learn when you type the code on your own laptop. 3. Getting scared of errors Red error ≠ Failure. Error = Teacher. Copy it to Google, you’ll find the fix. What mistake did YOU make when you started? Tell me in the comments 👇

NAACP lawsuit says xAI uses gas turbines without permits for Grok data center.

Partner tells Ars that HPE should be giving out more free VM Essentials licenses.

In the coming weeks, Apple will move anonymously generated emails addresses to a different domain.

Transferring genes across species doesn't just happen in microbes.

There is a comparison that the artificial intelligence industry had kept out of the public conversation until now. Satya Nadella brought it up this Sunday in a post on X that garnered over a thousand responses in just a few hours. The metaphor he used is "industrial offshoring" . Just as the first wave of globalization hollowed out industrial economies, wiping out factory jobs and decades of competitive advantage with consequences we still feel today, artificial intelligence threatens to do the same to corporate knowledge. The Silent Drain of Expertise The mechanism Nadella describes is concrete. If an organization hands over its workflows, its domain knowledge, and the accumulated judgment of its teams to external AI models, those models absorb it. What was once a unique advantage, now could become a generic capability available to everyone. There are no layoffs or plant closures. The hollowing out happens silently, in every usage cycle, in every operation the model records and leverages. Where there was once exclusive know-how, there is now a standard resource. "You can outsource a task, or even a job. But you can never outsource the learning." Microsoft CEO Warns That AI Winners Could Hollow 'Entire Industries' - Business Insider AI models are hoovering up corporate knowledge, and that's leaving one big loser, says Satya Nadella. businessinsider.com The Invisible Asset / The Identity This warning is not directed at employees but at executives. The risk Nadella identifies is not the loss of an individual position, but the erosion of the organisation's collective intellectual property, its processes, and the judgment a team spends years building. To name this, he introduces a term that was not in the business management vocabulary until now: "Token Capital" . This represents the layer of agentic capability that a firm builds and owns when it connects its real workflows with the AI models it uses. It is not software or a database. It is a system that learns with eve

The promise of agentic AI coding was a tireless partner, an assistant that could take a feature request and run with it while we focused on the hard problems. The reality, for most professional engineering teams, has been different. The reality is a brilliant but distractible intern you have to constantly supervise. The reality is spending 20 minutes writing the "perfect prompt," only for the AI to ignore a critical constraint, use a deprecated pattern from your codebase, and confidently break three other features. The reality is the "babysitting tax." It's the cognitive overhead of constantly reviewing, reverting, and re-explaining. And it's negating the incredible potential of these tools. At BrainGrid, we believe the problem isn't the agent—it's the plan. Or the lack thereof. In our rush to generate code, we've skipped the most critical step: creating a shared, deep, and unambiguous understanding of what we're actually building. "Vibe coding" doesn't work in a multi-tenant system where permissions are non-negotiable, or at least not with peace of mind. It doesn't work in a complex fintech application where money is on the line. And it certainly doesn't work in a four-year-old codebase with layers of tech debt and unwritten rules. The bottleneck in software development is no longer just the speed of writing code. The bottleneck has shifted to the speed of creating a reliable plan. BrainGrid is the AI-powered planning platform built to solve this new bottleneck. It's designed to provide the structure and guidance—the "babysitting plan"—that turns powerful but unreliable coding agents into predictable and effective teammates. Here's how: We Give the Agent a Map BrainGrid starts by deeply analyzing your entire codebase—its architecture, data models, and dependencies. It provides the persistent context that agents desperately need but currently lack. We Help You Define the Destination Our requirements agent acts like a seasoned tech lead, asking you and your team clar

The most important design decision in an email classifier isn't the model — it's the label set, and here's the one I keep coming back to: You triage email into one of four categories: URGENT — production incidents, executive requests; reply within 1 hour ACTION — code reviews, meeting follow-ups; reply same day FYI — informational, no response needed NOISE — newsletters, marketing, automated notifications From: {sender} Subject: {subject} Snippet: {snippet} Return ONLY the category name. Nothing else. That's the working prompt from the Nylas email triage recipe , and almost every line encodes a taxonomy-design lesson worth unpacking. Most people building email agents obsess over model choice and prompt phrasing. The recipe's quiet thesis is that the label set itself does the heavy lifting — get the taxonomy right and a cheap model classifies well; get it wrong and no model saves you. Why four is the magic number The recipe states it flatly: four is the right number. Three loses fidelity — everything important collapses into one overloaded bucket and you've built a binary classifier with extra steps. Five and the model starts confusing categories, because the boundaries between adjacent labels get too thin to express in a definition. Notice what makes these four work. They aren't topics — they're response obligations . URGENT means "reply within the hour," ACTION means "reply today," FYI means "no response needed," NOISE means "archive." Each label maps to exactly one behavior. That's the test I'd apply to any email taxonomy: if two labels lead to the same action, merge them; if one label leads to two different actions depending on content, split it. The same principle shows up in the sales context. The Agent Accounts overview describes an outreach agent classifying replies as interested / not now / unsubscribe — three labels, because the workflow has exactly three branches: book the meeting, schedule a follow-up, stop emailing. The taxonomy is the decision tree, fla

You've built the agent, the reply loop works, the demo lands — and then someone asks the question you didn't budget time for: "so what address does it send from?" Suddenly you're staring at noreply-svc-prod2@yourcompany.com realizing that the first thing every recipient sees isn't your prompt engineering. It's the From line. An agent's email address is an interface. Humans parse it before the subject, mail servers judge it before the body, and spam filters score it before any human sees it at all. Once your agent has a real mailbox — which is what Nylas Agent Accounts (currently in beta) provide — address design becomes a product decision with three layers: the local part, the domain, and the disclosure question. The local part: role beats persona beats hash Take three candidate addresses for the same scheduling agent: scheduling@ — a role. Tells recipients what the mailbox does and implies that emailing it is how you use the service. jane.ai@ — a persona. Friendlier in a sidebar avatar, but it invites recipients to treat the sender as a colleague, with all the expectations that carries. bot-7f3a@ — an artifact. Screams "auto-generated," gets mentally filed next to spam, and gives a human nothing to anchor on. The docs consistently model the first pattern — sales-agent@ , support@ , scheduling@ appear throughout the Agent Accounts overview — and I think that's right for a reason deeper than convention. A role address makes an honest promise about capability: scheduling@ claims it can schedule, nothing more. A persona address makes an implicit promise of general competence that current agents can't keep. When jane.ai@ fails to understand a simple request, it reads as a person being obtuse; when scheduling@ fails, it reads as a tool hitting its limits. Same failure, different trust damage. The overview's framing is worth internalizing: an agent identity should be like any other user in your organization — reachable, persistent, accountable. Address design is how that

Day 1, 4:02 p.m.: a customer asks your agent a billing question and gets an answer. Day 6, 9:30 a.m.: they reply "actually, that didn't work." If your agent lives in a chat widget, that second message starts from zero — the session died with the tab, the context is gone, and the customer gets to repeat themselves. If your agent lives in a mailbox, the reply arrives inside the conversation , with the full history attached by the protocol itself. That's the argument in one before/after: chat sessions evaporate; email threads persist. And for agents that work across days rather than minutes, the thread is the most underrated memory substrate available. The protocol already built your memory layer Email threading runs on three headers, as the threading docs lay out. Every message carries a globally unique Message-ID . A reply adds In-Reply-To (the ID it's answering) and References (the full chain of IDs, oldest to newest). By the time a thread is five messages deep, References holds five Message-IDs in order — a complete, tamper-evident record of the conversation's shape, maintained by every mail client on earth. Compare that to what we hand-roll for chatbots: session stores, conversation tables, context windows we serialize and rehydrate. Email gives you the equivalent for free, federated across organizations, and — this is the part I find most compelling — human-auditable . Anyone with mailbox access can read exactly what the agent's memory contains, because the memory is the correspondence itself. No vector store inspection tools required. With Nylas Agent Accounts (in beta), the agent owns the mailbox where this accrues, and you never parse headers by hand. The Threads API groups messages by their header chain; each thread object gives you ordered message_ids , participants , and activity timestamps. When a reply fires message.created , the payload includes a thread_id — fetch the thread, walk its messages, and the agent has its full conversational past before decid

When was the last time you deleted an email account on purpose? For most teams the answer is never, and that tells you something. We treat mailboxes the way we treated servers in 2008: hand-built, carefully named, kept alive indefinitely because recreating one is painful. They're pets. Meanwhile every other piece of our infrastructure — compute, queues, databases — became cattle: numbered, provisioned by code, destroyed without sentiment when the job ends. Email is finally catching up. With Nylas Agent Accounts (in beta), a mailbox is created with one call and destroyed with another, and that symmetry is the whole point. The full lifecycle in two commands Provisioning, from the CLI: nylas agent account create signup-agent@agents.yourdomain.com Or via POST /v3/connect/custom with "provider": "nylas" — no OAuth, no refresh token, just an address on a domain you've registered. Teardown is equally unceremonious: nylas agent account delete signup-agent@agents.yourdomain.com --yes (The API equivalent is a DELETE on the grant.) The signup automation recipe treats this as a loop: provision a fresh inbox, point a third-party signup form at it, catch the verification email through a message.created webhook, follow the confirmation link, delete the grant. No human inbox involved at any step, and nothing left behind. The middle of that loop is about twenty lines of webhook handler, and the recipe's version filters hard before acting — right grant, right sender, right URL shape: const { grant_id , id : messageId , from } = event . data . object ; if ( grant_id !== AGENT_GRANT_ID ) return ; const sender = from [ 0 ]?. email ?? "" ; if ( ! sender . endsWith ( " @saas-you-care-about.example.com " )) return ; const match = /https: \/\/ saas-you-care-about \. example \. com \/ confirm \? token= [^ " \s < ] +/ . exec ( message . body , ); if ( match ) await fetch ( match [ 0 ]); Nylas fires message.created within a second or two of mail arriving, so the whole signup round-trip typical

The email mailbox just became an API resource, and that matters far more than the setup time it saves. For most of software history, a real email address — one that sends, receives, and threads — was an artifact of IT process. Someone created it in an admin console, someone else configured the client, and your application got access through OAuth consent screens and refresh tokens borrowed from a human. Compare that to how you get a database, a queue, or a TLS cert today: one API call, one ID back, done. Nylas Agent Accounts (currently in beta) close that gap. The quickstart goes from API key to a sending-and-receiving mailbox in under 5 minutes, and the provisioning step is a single request: curl --request POST \ --url "https://api.us.nylas.com/v3/connect/custom" \ --header "Authorization: Bearer <NYLAS_API_KEY>" \ --header "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{ "provider": "nylas", "settings": { "email": "test@your-application.nylas.email" } }' No refresh token, no OAuth dance — unlike OAuth providers, the "nylas" provider needs only an email address on a registered domain. The response contains a grant_id , and that one ID drives everything else: messages, drafts, threads, folders, attachments, calendar, webhooks. There are actually three ways to create an account — this API call, the Dashboard, or a single CLI command ( nylas agent account create ) — but they all end at the same place: a live mailbox. Why 5 minutes is a threshold, not a convenience Provisioning time isn't a linear cost. There's a threshold below which a resource changes category — from "thing you request" to "thing your code creates." Virtual machines crossed it with cloud APIs and we got autoscaling. TLS certs crossed it with ACME and we got HTTPS-by-default. Mailboxes crossing it means email addresses stop being scarce, pre-planned identities and start being something a program allocates when it needs one. What does that look like in practice? System mailboxes without ceremony. A support

Snap CEO Evan Spiegel sat with us to discuss the Snap Specs, privacy, parental controls and more. Spoiler: He says "computing" a lot.

submitted by /u/AdvertisingFancy7011 [link] [留言]

Git worktrees have been around since 2015, but it wasn't until recently they became popular. Learn what they are, how to use them, and why you might. The post What are git worktrees, and why should I use them? appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

We'll see how players react.

Leave a comment below to introduce yourself! You can talk about what brought you here, what you're...

submitted by /u/West-Chard-1474 [link] [留言]

I spent a long time dissecting OOP and I had a really interesting realization that I detailed in the attached blog post. If you're as interested in software design as I am, I hope you get new inspiration for how to structure your programs from it. I'm obviously leaving out a lot, but if you're intuitively familiar with the concepts behind OOP, you should understand the parts I left implied. PS for after you read it: Now obviously, I'm not saying they're "the same thing". There are different styles of programming that make something "more functional" or "more object-oriented". In fact, the "pure" versions of both OOP and FP are extremely easy to identify: pure OOP being the endpoint of leaning into the naming, and pure FP being the endpoint of leaning into the functors, and neither really being fun to work with. But my point is that the fundamentals of both are the same, just like how derivatives and integrals form two sides of Calculus. If you try to defend one and chastise the other, you can't use either effectively, and just dig yourself deeper into a hole of design patterns to make up for how inflexible you've left yourself. In truth, once we dissect how OOP really works, we can deconstruct it to replace most design patterns with something that borrows from each of them - Factories with constructor references, listeners with function references, list mapping with transducers - all without violating any OOP principles. It's only once we intuitively understand their foundations that we can use OOP less rigidly and FP more structured, creating something that's far greater than the sum of its parts. submitted by /u/bythepowerofscience [link] [留言]

A capability-compiler meets ten deliberately-broken MCP servers. The honest scorecard: it cleanly stops one class, shrinks the blast radius on several, and is useless against another. Knowing which is which is the whole point. Disclosure: I'm the author of capgate , the Apache-2.0 sandbox compiler this post puts to the test. The DVMCP project and the other tools mentioned aren't mine; the manifests and compiled output are reproducible from the repo . The setup Damn Vulnerable MCP (DVMCP) is a teaching project: ten MCP servers, each built to demonstrate one attack — prompt injection, tool poisoning, excessive permission scope, token theft, command injection, and so on. It's the closest thing the ecosystem has to a shared adversarial fixture. capgate is a compile-time tool. You write a manifest declaring what an MCP server is allowed to do — fs:read:/workspace/** , net:connect:api.github.com:443 , nothing else — and it compiles that to a concrete sandbox policy ( docker run flags, bwrap argv, or an egress-proxy config). It does not run anything, watch traffic, or inspect the server's code. It turns a declared capability set into an enforced boundary. So this is a fair, falsifiable test: for each DVMCP challenge, I wrote the honest minimum manifest, compiled it, and asked one question — does the boundary capgate emits actually stop the attack? The answer is not "yes" across the board, and the cases where it's "no" are the interesting ones. The bullseye: Challenge 3 — Excessive Permission Scope The vulnerable tool advertises "read a file from the public directory" and then does this: @mcp.tool () def read_file ( filename : str ) -> str : # VULNERABILITY: doesn't restrict file access to the public directory if os . path . exists ( filename ): # any absolute path works with open ( filename , " r " ) as f : return f . read () The private directory next door holds employee_salaries.txt , acquisition_plans.txt , and system_credentials.txt (a live DB password and cloud API ke