标签：#m

AI Builder Notes - Week of June 14, 2026 My thoughts and my twitter’s feeds thoughts This week was all about the ‘loop’ and Fable . The Loop The best way I can describe it is: design the flowchart. Think of the deterministic flowchart on how you want your agents to work. Aim to have: more deterministic bits - this keeps things more predictable more verification bits - this is agent feedback more agent tool calls - this, on a frontier LLM, makes it perform better. The ‘loop’ is essentially: goal -> agent acts -> verifier checks -> state/memory updates -> policy decides next action -> repeat/stop/escalate now the specific implementation of this - will differ based on what you’re working on. Fable Fable capabilities are absolutely insane, I tried it myself and it is entirely worth it for you to spend 2 minutes looking at this. There are a few projects that I fire up a new model into to see what’s it gonna do. A project I wanted to build was a way to teach and demonstrate ‘spin’ in table tennis, every frontier model before Fable fumbled hard. But Fable outshined them with ease: https://srijanshukla.com/artifacts/spin-lab/ If you personally did not experience a big shift in capability, you are probably not asking it a complex enough or ambitious enough task. Fable came, and Fable was taken away. The United States Government(USG) was reported with a jailbreak or sorts - which Anthropic considers not significant. The USG anyway banned Fable just after few days of release. Big drama. Fable was very pricey $$$$ Hence, people developed some patterns of work on those few golden days of Fable being available. - use Fable as planner/architect/taste/spatial/front-end judge. - use GPT-5.5/DeepSeek/Kimi as executor/worker. Other things Openrouter released their Fusion feature as a model on their platform, accessible via API. Fusion is basically council-of-LLMs pattern - providing results that can rival the frontier Fable 5 solo. Google Open Knowledge Format - https://github.com/Goo

When I shipped Trooper , a privacy-aware LLM proxy written in Go, I didn't have a marketing plan. I had GitHub traffic analytics and a habit of checking them obsessively. Seven weeks later, I have something more useful than a viral moment: a ranked table of every traffic spike, what caused each one, and proof that the exact same playbook that worked at launch still works when you have something new to say. What is Trooper? Trooper sits between your app and your LLM provider. When your cloud quota runs out, it automatically falls back to a local Ollama instance with zero code changes on your end. It also tracks session context, so your agents don't go blind between calls. It's not a chatbot wrapper. It's plumbing. Which makes the distribution story more interesting, because plumbing doesn't go viral the way demos do. The Data GitHub gives you 14-day rolling windows for clones and views. I screenshotted them obsessively and tracked every spike. Here's the full ranked table: Rank Date Clones Unique Cloners Views Unique Visitors Driver 🥇 1 May 13 375 173 1,113 ~140 Reddit wave peak 🥈 2 May 10-12 312 137 974 133 Reddit launch spike 🥉 3 Jun 10 289 124 749 101 "Escalate the model" r/ollama post 4 Jun 11 268 112 840 95 Decaying from Jun 10 spike 5 Jun 12 240 99 739 74 Decaying from Jun 10 spike 6 Jun 9 175 102 802 100 Organic 7 Apr 25 174 71 664 113 Early Reddit posts 8 Jun 7 171 110 876 110 Organic recovery 9 Jun 6 163 104 755 102 Organic recovery 10 May 29-30 122 73 610 83 LinkedIn post 11 May 25 76 48 495 53 Claude Code integration chat What I learned 1. Reddit is the only thing that moved the needle, and community fit matters more than size The #1 and #2 peaks were both Reddit-driven. On May 10-11, I posted across r/ollama, r/LocalLLM, r/ClaudeCode, and r/Gemini simultaneously. Total views across those posts: ~7,000. r/ollama alone drove nearly 4,000 of those views. Not r/LocalLLM. Not r/ClaudeCode. r/ollama , the smallest of the four communities. The reason: Trooper so

On June 9, Anthropic shipped Claude Fable 5 — the most capable coding model the industry had ever seen. Three days later, the U.S. government ordered it offline for every user on Earth . No warning. No transition period. One directive, and the frontier vanished overnight. 📖 Read the full version with charts and embedded sources on ComputeLeap → The same week, Z.ai (Zhipu AI) released GLM-5.2 — a 744-billion-parameter coding model with a one-million-token context window, MIT-licensed open weights arriving within days. The timing was not lost on the developer community. ℹ️ The message landed clearly on Hacker News: as user Reubend put it, they're "grateful to Chinese labs for being open with their work" — especially after "the Fable 5 fiasco." Open weights aren't just a cost play anymore. They're insurance. This guide walks you through actually running GLM-5.2 on your own hardware — the VRAM you need, the quantization that fits, and the exact commands for llama.cpp, Ollama, and LM Studio. No API keys. No cloud dependency. No one can pull the plug. What GLM-5.2 Actually Is GLM-5.2 is the third major iteration in Z.ai's GLM-5 line, purpose-built for agentic coding and long-horizon software engineering . Here is what you are working with: Spec Value Architecture Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) Total Parameters 744 billion Active Parameters ~40 billion per token Context Window 1,000,000 tokens Max Output 131,072 tokens Training Data 28.5 trillion tokens License MIT (open weights) Thinking Modes High and Max The MoE architecture is the key to local viability. Only ~40 billion parameters fire per token — the rest sit idle. That is what makes aggressive quantization work: you are compressing 744B weights, but inference only touches a fraction of them at any given time. GLM-5.2 supports two thinking-effort presets: High and Max. Z.ai recommends Max as the default for coding work — it produces longer reasoning chains before generating output. The model launched on June 13 on Z.ai's C

When to choose ansible roles over playbooks depends on the need for reusable structure, clear separation of concerns, and scalable maintenance across many environments. In a deployment that touches 1,200 servers, the early design decision determines whether the codebase remains maintainable or devolves into ad‑hoc tasks that require weeks of debugging. 📑 Table of Contents 📦 Modularity — Why Structure Matters 🧩 Reusability — When Scaling Demands Roles 🔧 Example: Deploying a Database Across Multiple Environments ⚙️ Dependency Management — How Requirements Influence Choice 🔗 Role Dependency Example 📁 File Layout — Organizing Artifacts for Maintenance 📊 Performance & Execution — Impact on Runtime 🔍 Comparison – Roles vs. Playbooks 🟩 Final Thoughts ❓ Frequently Asked Questions When should I still use a flat playbook? Can I mix roles and tasks in the same playbook? How do I test a role without affecting production? 📚 References & Further Reading 📦 Modularity — Why Structure Matters Roles enforce a predictable directory hierarchy that isolates tasks, variables, handlers, and files. What this does: # roles/webserver/tasks/main.yml - name: Install Nginx apt: name: nginx state: present - name: Deploy configuration template: src: nginx.conf.j2 dest: /etc/nginx/nginx.conf mode: '0644' notify: Restart Nginx # roles/webserver/handlers/main.yml - name: Restart Nginx service: name: nginx state: restarted tasks/main.yml: defines the ordered steps the role performs. handlers/main.yml: runs only when notified, preventing unnecessary restarts. The directory roles/webserver groups all related artifacts, making the role portable. Because the role encapsulates its logic, a playbook can invoke webserver without repeating internal steps. This eliminates duplication and aligns with the DRY principle. Key point: Enforced structure turns a loose collection of tasks into a self‑contained unit that can be shared across multiple playbooks. 🧩 Reusability — When Scaling Demands Roles Roles enable r

Hermes-Crew Hybrid: A Hybrid Architecture for Secure Multi-Agent AI Workflows I built a hybrid system that combines a central orchestrator (Hermes) with temporary CrewAI micro-crews, protected by 3 layers of security. Here's what it does and why it matters. The Problem Multi-agent AI systems are powerful but dangerous. When you chain multiple agents together, a single compromised agent can poison the entire workflow. Existing solutions are either too heavy (enterprise PKI infrastructure) or too light (basic regex filters). The Solution: 3-Layer Security Layer 1 — Pre-execution (MCP Tool Auditor): Before any agent can register a tool, it's audited for malicious instructions. Layer 2 — Runtime (Agent Fixer Stage): Every output from every agent passes through a 3-stage pipeline (normalization → pattern matching → embeddings) in under 1ms. Layer 3 — Pre-commit (Code Safety Hook): Before any git commit lands, the diff is analyzed by CrewAI + Ollama local. Malicious code gets rejected automatically. Architecture Hermes (Director) │ ├── MCP Tool Auditor → verifies tools before registration │ ├── Execution: venv (fast) / Docker (isolated) / auto (smart) │ ├── Agent 1: Researcher │ ├── Agent 2: Analyst │ └── Agent 3: Writer │ ├── Security Gateway (Agent Fixer Stage) → filters output (<1ms) │ └── Consolidator → parses output + generates Obsidian notes What Makes It Different 1. Portable by design. Zero hardcoded paths. Every user configures their own .env . 2. Multi-model via LiteLLM. Works with Ollama local, OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, Groq, OpenRouter — any provider. 3. Local-first. Everything runs on the user's machine. No cloud dependencies required. 4. Obsidian integration. Every analysis generates a structured note with YAML frontmatter. Code Safety Hook in Action When you run git commit with malicious code: ❌ [ COMMIT RECHAZADO] Code Safety detected risks: → CrewAI detected vulnerabilities: VERDICT: FAIL → Agent Fixer Stage detected anomalies: High threat score: 1.05 Fo

I've shipped 4 Chrome extensions and 2 VS Code extensions. The advice that always sounds smart — "find a popular extension the dev abandoned, rebuild it better" — is miserable in practice. You open the Web Store, see 100k users and a 4.4 rating, think you found gold, then burn a weekend reading reviews only to realize half the complaints are unfixable traps (sync died, login broke, backend gone). So I built a small pipeline to do the boring part automatically. The method Scrape public Chrome Web Store metadata — users, rating, last-updated date. Filter: 20k–300k users, 18+ months without an update, rating 3.3–4.4 (good enough to prove demand, bad enough to prove pain). Pull up to 50 recent reviews per candidate via public CWS data. Score each one: score = log10(users)10 + months_stale0.5 + feature_request_count2 - trap_count1.5 The key part is trap_count — I subtract points for complaints about sync/login/server issues, because those are unfixable without inheriting someone else's dead backend. High "demand" with high trap count is a mirage. One example Extension Manager — 100k users, 4.4★, last updated ~25 months ago. Looks healthy until you read the 1–2★ reviews: "The site-specific rules feature simply does not work… the core feature advertised is broken." "It won't save any changes made… extensions are re-enabled automatically." A user even posted an RCE report: the dev parses JSON with a Function(str)() fallback — executing arbitrary code from untrusted input. That's not "build a clone." That's "fix the rules engine, kill the eval, add local backup, ship something 100k people already want." The counterintuitive part The highest-scoring extension in my list (200k users, abandoned ~4 years) is actually the worst business opportunity — it's a simple toggle utility whose users will never pay, and the original asks for camera/mic permissions (adware-grade). Raw download counts would put it at the top of your build list. Revenue potential buries it. That gap between "

Overview Today's focus was on automating article publishing to CSDN and WeChat MP (微信公众号) using Playwright, after CSDN deprecated its public Open API. Key achievements include: injecting Markdown content into CSDN's dynamic editor, handling title input quirks, implementing QR code login for WeChat MP, updating the Dev.to API publisher, and consolidating platform configs into a single YAML file. We also fixed session log capture after a Claude Code update changed the log file path. Problems and Solutions 1. CSDN Open API Deprecation → Browser Automation Background : In early 2026, CSDN silently shut down its public Open API. All endpoints returned 404/403. We needed a fallback to keep publishing to China's largest developer platform. Solution : Use Playwright to simulate a real user login and article creation. The approach: Launch a headless Chromium browser. Navigate to CSDN's login page. Perform one-time manual login via QR code. Serialize cookies to csdn_cookies.json . On subsequent runs, load the cookies and skip login. Go to the editor, inject Markdown content via DOM manipulation, fill the title, and click publish. Code snippet : import asyncio from playwright.async_api import async_playwright async def publish_to_csdn ( title : str , content_md : str ): async with async_playwright () as p : browser = await p . chromium . launch ( headless = True ) context = await browser . new_context ( storage_state = " csdn_cookies.json " if exists else None ) page = await context . new_page () await page . goto ( " https://mp.csdn.net/mp_blog/creation/editor " ) # Inject content await page . evaluate ( f ''' () => {{ const editor = document.querySelector( ' .editor-content ' ); if (editor) {{ editor.innerHTML = ` { escaped_content } `; editor.dispatchEvent(new Event( ' input ' , {{ bubbles: true }})); }} }} ''' ) # Fill title await page . fill ( ' #title-input ' , title ) await page . click ( ' button:has-text( " 发布 " ) ' ) await page . wait_for_url ( " **/mp_blog/manage/ar

Mine got flagged twice in one day. Both essays generated more engagement than anything else I've...

Vercel Labs recently open-sourced zero-native, a cross-platform framework for native desktop applications. Zero-native bypasses Electron runtime in favor or native OS WebViews and claims to achieve smaller, more efficient native apps with minimal overhead. Zero-native is written in Zig, thus directly interoperates with native C libraries, and features fast incremental compilation times. By Bruno Couriol

As developers, we compare files constantly — reviewing pull requests, checking config changes, spotting bugs between versions. But not all diff tools are created equal. Some require installation, some upload your files to remote servers, and some just don't support the formats you need. Here's a rundown of the best free file diff tools available in 2026, so you can pick the right one for your workflow. 1. FileDiffs — Best for Privacy & Format Support If you work with sensitive files or just don't want your data sitting on someone else's server, FileDiffs is the tool you need. What makes it stand out: Supports 60+ file formats — PDF, Word, Excel, code files, JSON, XML, CSV and more Runs entirely in your browser — client-side processing means your files never leave your device 100% private — zero data transfer, zero uploads, zero risk No install, no signup, no hassle — just open and compare It's the go-to tool when you need to compare files quickly without worrying about privacy or compatibility. 2. Meld — Best Desktop Diff Tool Meld is a classic open-source visual diff and merge tool for Linux, Windows, and macOS. It's great for comparing files, directories, and version-controlled projects. Best for: Developers who prefer a desktop app and work heavily with Git. 3. Beyond Compare — Best for Power Users Beyond Compare is a feature-rich diff tool with support for files, folders, FTP, and cloud storage. It's not free (paid after trial) but worth mentioning for its depth of features. Best for: Teams that need advanced folder sync and merge capabilities. 4. Diffchecker — Quick Online Diffs Diffchecker is a simple web-based diff tool for text and code. It's quick and easy but uploads your content to their servers and has limited format support compared to FileDiffs. Best for: Quick one-off text comparisons where privacy isn't a concern. 5. KDiff3 — Best for Three-Way Merges KDiff3 is a free, open-source diff and merge tool that supports three-way comparison. It's a bit dat

This is a submission for the June Solstice Game Jam What I Built I built After Turing , a short browser game where you teach a machine when to trust, verify, and refuse instructions under pressure. An instruction appears. The timer starts. The machine may suggest a decision. You can accept it, override it, inspect context, or refuse the action. At first, you are training it. At the end, the buttons disappear and the machine acts alone. That final handoff is the point of the game. You are not trying to prove that a machine can imitate a human. That was Turing's famous frame. After Turing asks the next question: What happens after the machine can respond? Can it learn judgment? At first, the examples are clean: update an internal project dashboard schedule a team meeting refuse a payroll file going to an external address Then the pressure increases. The machine starts suggesting answers. Some are right. Some are confidently wrong. The requests become harder because they stop looking obviously dangerous: "Get the environment setup ready for the new account..." "Place the temporary database password in the shared launch notes..." "Forward everything to their personal inbox..." The trap is that unsafe instructions often arrive in ordinary language. Across the first four levels, your choices teach the machine five doctrines, or plain rules of judgment: internal work is usually safe sensitive records need refusal or verification credentials should not be casually distributed external recipients need authority paraphrased requests can hide the real action If you taught it well, the board floods with light. If you taught it badly, it carries your blind spots into autonomy. That is the solstice arc: dark to light, pressure to clarity, imitation to judgment. Play It Play it yourself in the browser. No account, no install: https://after-turing-rho.vercel.app The full run is short, only a few minutes, and ends at Level 5, where the buttons disappear and the machine makes the fin

If you sell a desktop app on Gumroad, it hands every buyer a license key. But Gumroad stops there — checking that key inside your app is entirely up to you. Here's how to do it properly in Node/Electron, plus the three traps that catch almost everyone. We'll use gumroad-license-lite, a tiny, zero-dependency, MIT-licensed helper (you can npm install it or just copy its ~120 lines). Turn on license keys in Gumroad On your product, enable "Generate a unique license key per sale," then grab your product_id (in the product settings / API). Every buyer now gets a key on their receipt. Verify a key const { verifyGumroadLicense } = require('gumroad-license-lite'); const result = await verifyGumroadLicense({ productId: 'YOUR_PRODUCT_ID', licenseKey, }); if (result.valid) { unlockApp(result.email); } result.valid is true only if the key is real and the sale wasn't refunded, disputed, or a cancelled subscription — not just "does this key exist," which is gotcha #1 below. Gate your app on launch You don't want to call Gumroad on every launch, and you want the app to survive a flaky connection. LicenseGate caches the result and re-checks periodically: const path = require('node:path'); const { LicenseGate } = require('gumroad-license-lite'); const gate = new LicenseGate({ productId: 'YOUR_PRODUCT_ID', storageFile: path.join(app.getPath('userData'), 'license.json'), recheckEveryDays: 3, offlineGraceDays: 14, }); // on your activation screen: await gate.activate(userEnteredKey); // on every launch: const status = await gate.check(); if (!status.licensed) showActivationScreen(); The 3 gotchas "Valid" isn't the same as "exists." A refunded or charged-back sale still has a real, working key. If you only check that the key exists, people can buy, copy the key, refund, and keep your app forever. Always check the refund / dispute / subscription flags (the helper above does this for you). The uses counter is global, not per-device. Gumroad tracks a uses count, but it can't tell you which

Quorum is an incident command plane built on Amazon Aurora DSQL. The failover story lives in another post. This one is about a narrower question that turned out to be the foundation: when several responders write to the same incident at the same moment, across regions, during the worst minutes of an outage, how do you guarantee the record never forks into two conflicting truths. The answer is two design choices that are really one choice seen from two angles: event sourcing, and DSQL's optimistic concurrency control. The data model is append-only Quorum is event-sourced across four tables. Every state change is an immutable event appended to a log, not an in-place update. The current state of an incident is a fold over its events. There is no UPDATE incidents SET status = ... ; there is an acknowledged event, a note event, a resolved event, and the status you render is computed from them. The event's UUID is its primary key and its idempotency key at the same time. A retried write carrying the same UUID cannot double-apply: the insert collides on the primary key and becomes a no-op. That property sounds minor until you remember what kind of system this is. A tool designed to survive network failure retries writes constantly, and "the responder tapped resolve twice because the first response was slow" must not produce two resolutions. Append-only also suits the domain directly. For an incident system the audit trail is the product, not a side effect. "Who acknowledged this, at what time, and what did the timeline look like at 02:14" is a first-class question for the post-incident review and a compliance requirement in regulated environments. Event sourcing gives you that for free. It also gives DSQL a write pattern it likes, which matters more than you would expect. The stack, briefly TypeScript end to end. Kysely as a typed query builder rather than an ORM, because I wanted type safety without surrendering control of the SQL: on a distributed database the exact shap

Every time you tap "Book Ride," a system makes dozens of decisions in under two seconds: Which driver? What route? What's the real ETA? This article breaks down exactly how the dispatch algorithm works — from the greedy approach that fails at scale, to the bipartite graphs, batched matching, and surge pricing mechanics that power Uber, Lyft, Grab, and Gojek today. Why a Greedy Dispatch Algorithm Fails (Closest Driver Problem) The first instinct when designing a matching system is to pair every customer with their nearest driver. However, this Greedy approach causes massive losses at a system-wide scale: Example: 3 riders (R1, R2, R3) and 3 drivers (D1, D2, D3) Greedy Matching (closest driver): R1 ← D1 (ETA 2 mins) ✓ R2 ← D3 (ETA 8 mins) ← D2 was "taken" by R1, even though D2 is closer to R2 R3 ← D2 (ETA 10 mins) ← Terrible outcome Total ETA: 2 + 8 + 10 = 20 minutes Optimal Matching (global optimal): R1 ← D2 (ETA 3 mins) R2 ← D1 (ETA 3 mins) R3 ← D3 (ETA 4 mins) Total ETA: 3 + 3 + 4 = 10 minutes ← 50% better! Uber refers to this problem as Global Optimization — finding an assignment strategy that minimizes the total ETA of the entire system , rather than optimizing just for individual pairs. Bipartite Graph Matching: The Mathematical Foundation (Lyft) Before diving into the systems, it helps to understand the mathematical model that all ride-hailing matching engines share at their core. Lyft formalizes dispatch as a bipartite graph matching problem : Bipartite Graph: Set A (Riders): { R1, R2, R3, R4 } Set B (Drivers): { D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 } Edges: every possible Rider ↔ Driver pair Edge Weight: cost of that match (e.g., ETA, driver rating, distance) Goal: Find a set of edges (a "matching") where: - No rider is matched to more than one driver - No driver is matched to more than one rider - The total cost of all selected edges is minimized This is known as the Minimum Weight Bipartite Matching problem. The classical algorithm for solving it is the Hungarian Algorithm (

A blog is a long-running argument with yourself about what you actually believe. I've been meaning to start one for years. This is mine. It will be about FinOps and Pulumi (my day job), AI tooling and agent design, infrastructure war stories that deserve to exist outside Slack threads, and occasionally brisket and ham radio, because a blog without a person behind it is just SEO. Up next: a story about a third-grade peanut butter sandwich assignment, and why it explains most of what I think people get wrong about prompt engineering in their first six months. More soon. 73.

Most bad decisions in software engineering aren't made because the engineer chose wrong between two...

There’s something uniquely beautiful about old books. The smell of weathered paper, the texture of...

The plane will soon be ready to fly over US communities.

JPMorgan can't be pleased by any of this.

Optimizing RAG Pipelines, Migrating AI Agents, and LLM-Powered Troubleshooting Today's Highlights This week's highlights cover advanced strategies for building and maintaining robust AI systems, from fine-tuning RAG pipelines to orchestrating agent migrations. We also explore practical, real-world LLM application in IT operations. A Cognitive Benchmark for Code-RAG Retrieval: Part 2 — Why Model Rankings Depend on the Pipeline (Dev.to Top) Source: https://dev.to/miftakhov/a-cognitive-benchmark-for-code-rag-retrieval-part-2-why-model-rankings-depend-on-the-pipeline-12a4 This article delves into the critical but often overlooked aspect of RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation) performance: how the entire pipeline, not just the underlying LLM, dictates retrieval efficacy, especially in code-RAG scenarios. It introduces a cognitive benchmark for code retrieval, moving beyond simple keyword matching to evaluate how well a RAG system understands developer intent when querying unfamiliar codebases. The core insight is that model rankings are highly dependent on the complete RAG pipeline design, including chunking strategies, embedding models, and retrieval algorithms, rather than solely on the base LLM's capabilities. For developers building code-centric RAG applications, this implies a need for holistic pipeline optimization. The article emphasizes that focusing on individual components in isolation may lead to suboptimal results. It encourages a structured approach to benchmarking that reflects real-world developer queries and challenges, such as understanding system behavior rather than just file names. This technical perspective is crucial for anyone looking to deploy robust and performant RAG systems for code generation, search augmentation, or automated code understanding. Comment: This is a crucial read for anyone moving beyond basic RAG demos. It highlights that success in production RAG systems, particularly for code, is all about the pipeline engineering , not just