标签：#m

Pada series sebelumnya, kita sudah melakukan instalasi nix di VirtualBox dan setup SSH agar dapat diakses diluar VirtualBox. Sebelum kita lanjut untuk melakukan konfigurasi system lagi, kita butuh mengetahui bagaimana syntax dalam menulis program Nix dan di artikel ini kita akan mempelajari dasar syntax-nya. Nix Language Nix adalah purely functional language yang lazy-evaluated , digunakan untuk mengkonfigurasi Nix package manager dan NixOS. Karakteristik utama: Purely functional : sebuah function hanya bisa mengembalikan nilai berdasarkan inputnya, tidak bisa mengubah variabel di luar scope-nya (no side effects), dan tidak ada variabel yang bisa diubah setelah didefinisikan (no mutation). Kalau kamu familiar dengan const di beberapa bahasa pemrograman, semua variabel di Nix berperilaku seperti itu. Lazy evaluation : Nix tidak menghitung nilai suatu ekspresi sampai nilai itu benar-benar dibutuhkan. Ini artinya kamu bisa mendefinisikan ribuan package di nixpkgs tanpa semuanya dievaluasi sekaligus. Hanya yang kamu gunakan saja yang akan diproses. Semua adalah expression : tidak ada statement di Nix, setiap baris kode selalu menghasilkan sebuah nilai. if/else bukan statement seperti di bahasa pemrograman pada umumnya, melainkan expression yang harus mengembalikan nilai dari kedua cabangnya. Tidak ada loops : karena variabel tidak bisa diubah, loop seperti for atau while tidak ada artinya di Nix. Sebagai gantinya, kamu menggunakan fungsi seperti map dan filter , atau rekursi untuk mengolah kumpulan data. 1. Basic Data Type Konsep JavaScript Nix String "hello" "hello" Number 42 , 3.14 42 , 3.14 Boolean true , false true , false Null null null List [1, 2, 3] [ 1 2 3 ] Object { a: 1 } { a = 1; } ⚠️ Perbedaan Penting List di Nix menggunakan spasi sebagai pemisah, bukan koma Attribute set menggunakan = bukan : , dan setiap entry diakhiri dengan ; Nix let name = "Alice" ; age = 30 ; scores = [ 10 20 30 ]; person = { name = "Bob" ; age = 25 ; }; in person Javascript const name

When code becomes cheaper, what still makes an engineer valuable? Recently, while writing my cover letter for remote roles and Upwork projects, I asked myself a very direct question: Why should a remote team or client choose me, especially in the AI era? I do not think the answer should be: “Because I am the strongest engineer technically.” That is not how I want to position myself. What I want to become is this: A backend engineer who can turn unclear business problems into reliable, maintainable systems. AI is making implementation faster. It can generate code, explain technologies, and provide alternatives. At the same time, remote work and platforms like Upwork make competition more global. We are not only competing with engineers nearby, but also with engineers from everywhere. If the only question is “Who knows more frameworks, patterns, or tools?”, many ordinary engineers may feel hopeless. But I believe there is another path. In real systems, code is only part of the work. Someone still needs to understand the business workflow. Someone still needs to define what “correct” means. Someone still needs to identify risks, edge cases, performance concerns, and reliability boundaries. My usual way of working starts from these questions: What is the real requirement? What does correctness mean in this workflow? What data must stay consistent? What edge cases could break the process? What performance or reliability signals should be protected? Where should the module boundary be? Who should orchestrate the main flow, and who should act as collaborators? This “orchestrator + collaborators” thinking helps me keep the main business process clear. The orchestrator owns the workflow. The collaborators handle specific responsibilities such as validation, translation, persistence, messaging, or external integration. I also use AI in this process, but not only to generate code. I use it to challenge my assumptions, explore alternatives, find missing cases, improve naming, r

A few days ago I finished benchmarking something I've been building - a cache-aware, stable, histogram-based sorting algorithm I'm calling BusSort . The results surprised even me. At 100 million elements, it runs ~2x faster than Java's Dual-Pivot Quicksort on random data - while being stable . Dual-Pivot QS is not. The Problem With Quicksort at Scale Quicksort-based algorithms partition elements with random writes across the entire array. At large scales this causes cache thrashing - elements are being written to memory locations all over the place, constantly missing L1 and L2 cache. The larger the array, the worse it gets. The Core Idea Instead of scattering elements globally, BusSort processes data in L1 cache-sized chunks - 4096 integers (~16KB). For each chunk, it does 4 passes: PASS 1 - Scan left-to-right, compute bucket for each element, build a local histogram PASS 2 - Compute local prefix sums (bucket positions within the chunk) PASS 3 - Scatter into a local grouped buffer - because this buffer is L1-sized, all random writes stay in cache ✅ PASS 4 - Copy each bucket's portion to its correct global position With 128-way splitting , recursion depth stays at just ~4 levels even for 100M elements. Base case: Insertion Sort for ≤ 1024 elements. On the benchmark machine (i5-1135G7, 48KB L1 data cache): 4096 × 3 × 4 bytes = 49,152 bytes ≈ 48KB The three working arrays fit exactly in L1. Not a coincidence. Benchmark Results Tested against Arrays.sort(int[]) - Java's Dual-Pivot Quicksort . n = 100,000,000 | Java 17 | i5-1135G7 @ 2.40GHz Input Type BusSort Dual-Pivot QS Ratio Random 3991ms 8604ms ~2x Sorted 57ms 104ms ~2x Reverse 280ms 166ms 0.6x Nearly Sorted 2452ms 2789ms ~1.1x Duplicates 712ms 2242ms ~2.4x Few Duplicates 1295ms 3185ms ~2.3x All Same 51ms 32ms 0.6x Clustered 1419ms 2242ms ~1.6x Consistently faster on most input types. Stable. Zero comparison overhead. The two losses (Reverse, All Same) are where Dual-Pivot QS has structural advantages - run detecti

I used to hear the pitch for context compression and think: sure, makes sense. Smaller prompts. Lower latency. Lower cost. Same output quality. Then I watched an agent blow a perfectly good debugging session because one field name disappeared from compressed memory. That changed my opinion fast. Three hours into a Claude Code run, the agent made the wrong API call with full confidence. The plan looked coherent. The reasoning looked clean. The summary of prior steps sounded smart. It was also missing the one detail that mattered: a field name from an earlier error log. The agent had already seen the bug. It had already “understood” the bug. But the compressed version of history dropped the exact detail it needed to avoid repeating it. That’s the real failure mode. Not “compression loses words.” Compression loses the one fact your agent needs later, after it has already committed to the wrong action. While researching this, I found a thread on r/openclaw about using Headroom with OpenClaw: https://reddit.com/r/openclaw/comments/1u3j5xs/anyone_using_headroom_with_openclaw/ That thread gets at the real tension: compression is useful, but only if you treat it as a reversible optimization, not a memory wipe with better branding. The bug pattern nobody talks about Here’s the pattern I keep seeing in long-running agents: The agent collects a lot of noisy context. The team compresses it to save tokens. The summary preserves the broad story. The summary drops one edge-case fact. Two hours later, that fact becomes the only thing that matters. The agent confidently does the wrong thing. This is why “same answers, fewer tokens” is not a serious reliability claim for agent workflows. It might be true for some short chat tasks. It is absolutely not something I’d assume for: n8n agents Make scenarios Zapier AI steps OpenClaw sessions Claude Code runs custom OpenAI-compatible agent loops multi-step debugging or incident workflows In those systems, exact details matter more than eleg

なぜ“特別な決済システム”の話は危険なのか？ 近年、SNSやメッセージアプリを通じて、「特別なPOS端末」や「秘密の決済システム」に関する話を目にすることがあります。 「通常の銀行システムを経由しない」 「オフラインでも大金を受け取れる」 「特別なカードと専用POSがあれば送金できる」 こうした説明は一見すると高度な金融技術のように聞こえます。 しかし、実際の決済システムを理解すると、多くの主張が現実的ではないことが分かります。 まず、POS端末とは何か？ POS（Point of Sale）端末は、店舗でクレジットカードやデビットカードによる支払いを処理するための装置です。 一般的な決済は以下のような流れで行われます。 顧客 ↓ POS端末 ↓ 加盟店契約銀行 ↓ カードブランド ↓ カード発行銀行 ↓ 承認または拒否 重要なのは、最終的な資金の確認を行うのはカード発行銀行であるという点です。 POS端末そのものが資金を生み出すことはありません。 「オフライン決済だから大丈夫」は本当か？ 一部の詐欺では、 「この端末はオフラインで動作する」 という説明が行われます。 確かに、現実の決済システムにはオフライン処理が存在します。 しかし、それは通信障害時の一時的な仕組みであり、最終的には銀行側との照合が行われます。 つまり、 オフライン処理 ≠ 資金の創造 です。 銀行が承認していない資金は、後の精算時に拒否される可能性があります。 なぜ人は信じてしまうのか？ 理由は単純です。 専門用語が多いからです。 例えば、 決済ネットワーク 国際ブランド オフライン認証 ISO規格 特殊プロトコル こうした言葉が並ぶと、本物らしく見えます。 しかし、本当に重要なのは技術用語ではありません。 重要なのは、 「お金はどこから来るのか？」 という一点です。 詐欺を見抜くための3つの質問 1. お金の出所はどこか？ 利益や送金の原資を説明できない場合は要注意です。 2. 誰が監督しているのか？ 銀行、決済事業者、規制当局など、責任主体が明確か確認しましょう。 3. 第三者による検証は可能か？ 説明が内部関係者の証言だけに依存している場合は危険です。 テクノロジーと金融リテラシー 新しい技術は私たちの生活を便利にします。 しかし、技術的な言葉が使われているからといって、その仕組みが正しいとは限りません。 本当に優れた金融サービスほど、 透明性が高い 説明が分かりやすい リスクが明示されている という特徴があります。 逆に、 「秘密」 「特別」 「限定」 「誰にも教えないでほしい」 といった言葉が頻繁に出てくる場合は、一度立ち止まって考えるべきです。 まとめ 金融詐欺の多くは、技術ではなく心理を利用します。 人々はお金を失うから騙されるのではありません。 「理解したつもりになる」から騙されるのです。 だからこそ、最も重要な防御策は、 「そのお金はどこから来るのか？」 というシンプルな質問を忘れないことです。 金融の世界に魔法はありません。 あるのは、透明な仕組みと説明可能な資金の流れだけです。

Every developer I know has built something for themselves. A productivity tool. A habit tracker. A personal finance app. An AI that makes them smarter, faster, calmer. I did the same thing for 2 years. Then I had a conversation with someone close to me that I completely mishandled — and I realised no amount of personal productivity tools would have helped me there. The problem wasn't me, individually. The problem was the space between us. So I started asking a weird question Why has all of AI been built for individuals? Copilot helps you code faster. ChatGPT makes you smarter. Notion AI organises your thoughts. Calm helps you sleep better. Not one of them is built for what happens when two people try to understand each other. That's a massive gap. And it's one I couldn't stop thinking about. What I built Mendle — an AI-powered Relationship Intelligence platform. Not a therapy app. Not a chatbot companion. Not another journaling tool with an AI skin on top. The core idea is **shared emotional memory. Most relationship apps are built around one person's perspective. You log your feelings. You get insights. Your partner is an afterthought in the architecture. Mendle is different at the data model level. Both people contribute. Both people benefit. The AI builds an understanding of the relationship not just an individual. Over time it surfaces patterns. Communication loops. Emotional triggers. The things you keep missing because you're too close to them. The technical challenge that surprised me Building AI for two people is fundamentally harder than building it for one. Single-user AI: one context window, one set of preferences, one voice to understand. Relationship AI: two different communication styles, two different emotional vocabularies, shared history that neither person has complete visibility into, and privacy boundaries that have to be respected even between partners. The shared memory architecture was the hardest part to get right. How do you build something

The company has set aside an unusually high number of shares for retail investors. Still, experts say, you’re just getting the crumbs.

In this podcast, Shane Hastie, Lead Editor for Culture & Methods spoke to Craig McLuckie, co-creator of Kubernetes and CEO of Stacklok, about the impact of AI coding tools on open source communities and engineering teams, designing deliberate organisational culture, and navigating evolving career paths for engineers in the age of AI. By Craig McLuckie

MIT Technology Review Explains: Let our writers untangle the complex, messy world of science and technology to help you understand what’s coming next. You can read more from the series here. Your brain lives in the dark space of your skull. Yet it knows when the wind lifts the hairs on your skin, when your heart is…

Earlier this week, Life Biosciences, a biotech company focused on reversing age-related diseases, announced that it had dosed its first volunteer. A person with glaucoma has had an experimental treatment injected straight into their eyeball. The idea is to try to treat the disease—which can cause vision loss—by regenerating healthy nerves in the eye. But…

submitted by /u/hiIAmJan [link] [留言]

TL;DR: You'll learn how to replace Postman collections with plain-text Hurl files that live in Git, run in CI, and test your API’s geo behavior from any country. Debugging API issues always boils down to taking the tests you already have, running them from a different network or region, and comparing what your API receives. But I bet most of us can’t actually do that right away because our test infrastructure itself is fragmented. Your CI could be using a different config entirely from the “correct” one on a local dev machine, and half the collections may still point to a staging URL that changed months ago. Postman doesn’t produce diff-friendly artifacts, so even figuring out what changed is a full-on investigation. If any of that sounds familiar, I’d recommend finally taking the big step and replacing your Postman collection with Hurl — a command-line HTTP test runner where tests are plain **.hurl** text files that live in Git. For this tutorial, I’ll also walk you through multi-region testing — how to run those tests using a proxy to get a German egress IP, and see what the API actually returns from there. Everything below is self-contained, you’ll only need a new Git repo, then create the tests (three plaintext files.) The Test Suite at a Glance Create a folder (name it whatever you like — hurl-api-tests works) and these are the files we're going to be creating at its root . That folder is your Git repo root; paths in commands and CI are relative to it. Note how we’re using multiple .env files. If you're new to API testing, you'll find out why in a bit. hurl-api-tests/ ├── tests/ │ ├── health.hurl # smoke test -- Makes sure Hurl works, basic asserts. Skip if you want │ ├── auth-flow.hurl # Tests chaining + jsonpath capture + Bearer header │ └── geo-detail.hurl # Tests two egress profiles, real country/ASN diff (direct or proxied) ├── .env.local.example ├── .env.ci.example ├── .env.proxy-de.example ├── run-tests.mjs # cross-platform runner └── .github/workflows/a

Floating-point addition isn't associative. For a corporate inventory with tens of thousands of rows, naive summation drifts — and the number you disclose depends on row order. Here's why, and the fix. Here's a result that should bother anyone building carbon software. Take a corporate emissions inventory — tens of thousands of line items, each a number in tonnes CO₂e. Sum it. Now sort the same rows differently and sum again. The totals don't match. Not by much — maybe the third or fourth decimal place — but they don't match, and nothing in your code changed except the order. If you've never seen this, open a console: 0.1 + 0.2 === 0.3 // false That's the same bug, scaled up to a reporting deliverable. Why order changes the answer IEEE 754 doubles have 52 bits of mantissa. That's about 15–16 significant decimal digits of precision — generous, until you add numbers of very different magnitudes. When you add a small number to a large running total, the small number gets shifted right to line up the exponents before the addition happens. Bits that fall off the end of the mantissa are gone. Add a 0.0001 tCO₂e line to a running total of 80000.0 and there simply aren't enough mantissa bits to hold both the 80,000 and the 0.0001 — the small value is partially or completely swallowed. Float addition, as a result, isn't associative. (a + b) + c is not guaranteed to equal a + (b + c) . Sum your rows largest-first and the small values vanish early against a big accumulator. Sum smallest-first and they accumulate into something large enough to survive. Same data, different total. Here's the effect, deliberately constructed to be visible: const big = 80000 ; const smalls = Array ( 50000 ). fill ( 0.0001 ); // small values first, then the big one let a = 0 ; for ( const x of [... smalls , big ]) a += x ; // big value first, then the smalls let b = 0 ; for ( const x of [ big , ... smalls ]) b += x ; console . log ( a ); // 80004.99999999... console . log ( b ); // 80004.99999999...

So you asked Claude to animate something. Maybe a logo, a loading screen, a data viz. It spat out a neat HTML file with CSS keyframes, everything looks crisp in the browser — and now you need it as an MP4. The obvious approach is screen recording. Open QuickTime or OBS, hit record, play the animation, stop, trim. Works, kind of. Except it's not frame-perfect. If your machine lags for half a second, that lag is baked into the video. The animation runs at whatever speed your CPU felt like that afternoon. Completely non-deterministic. And the moment you tweak something — wrong colour, timing off by 200ms — you're setting the whole thing up again, which is just tiring. Not to mention that every time you hit record you start at a slightly different frame, so swapping the asset in your video editor becomes a pain because nothing lines up the same way twice. There's a better way. You can use htmlrec — a CLI tool that renders HTML animations to video frame by frame, without touching your screen. It controls the browser clock directly, so every frame is captured at exactly the right moment regardless of your machine's load. Pixel-perfect, every single time. Install it with: brew install dsplce-co/tap/htmlrec ffmpeg How to convert an HTML animation to video The reliable way to convert an HTML animation to video is to render it headlessly, frame by frame, instead of screen-recording it. Point a tool at your HTML file, let it drive the browser clock, and capture each frame at an exact timestamp: hrec render animation.html -o out.mp4 This works for any self-contained HTML/CSS animation — a logo reveal, a loading screen, a chart, or anything an LLM like Claude generated for you. The full step-by-step is below. The workflow 1. Get your animation from Claude (skip if you already have an HTML animation) Ask Claude for whatever you need. Something like: "Create an HTML/CSS animation of a logo appearing with a fade and slight upward motion, black background, 3 seconds" You'll get back

There's a quiet lie rotting at the heart of modern software development, and almost nobody wants to say it out loud: the industry is drowning in people who can ace a LeetCode interview, argue endlessly about architectural patterns, and hold strong opinions about tabs versus spaces — but who have never actually shipped a product that real people use. We've built an entire culture around the performance of engineering rather than the practice of it. Walk into any dev team today and you'll find brilliant people who can recite the SOLID principles from memory, who have strong feelings about hexagonal architecture, and who will spend three weeks bikeshedding a folder structure — but who have never felt the particular anxiety of watching your own code process a real user's real money. Never felt that accountability. Never shipped something and then lived with the consequences. That's a problem! The industry has confused credentials and vocabulary with competence. A computer science degree, a GitHub profile full of tutorial clones, and the ability to reverse a linked list in a whiteboard setting are now routinely mistaken for the ability to build software that matters. They're not the same thing. The people who actually make software work — who ship under pressure, who fix production bugs at 11pm, who make pragmatic calls with incomplete information — often look terrible on paper. They'll choose a boring, proven technology over the shiny new thing. They'll skip the elegant abstraction in favour of something they can debug in a hurry. They understand that a running system that's 80% right beats a perfect system that's still in design. AI has made this worse. Now you can generate plausible-looking code, confidently-written documentation, and technically-accurate architecture diagrams without ever having built a system that stayed up under real load, without ever having migrated a production database at 2am, without ever having owned something from idea to invoice. Knowing ho

The idea of running a local LLM (Large Language Model) has always appealed to me, especially concerning data privacy and cost control. However, when I first delved into this, I realized through my own experiences how misleading market claims like "a few GB of RAM is enough" can be. In real-world scenarios, running a 70B parameter model with 8GB of VRAM is only possible with significant optimizations, which come with certain trade-offs. In this post, I will share my experiences, the problems I encountered, and the solutions I found, from hardware selection to optimization techniques for local LLMs. My goal is to offer a concrete, practical, and "good enough" perspective to anyone interested in this field. As we begin, we must remember that VRAM is the most critical part of this equation. VRAM: The Heart of Local LLMs and Capacity Limits At the core of running an LLM locally is keeping the model's weights in the GPU's VRAM. As the model size grows, the amount of VRAM it needs naturally increases. For example, a 7 billion parameter (7B) model in 16-bit float (FP16) format requires about 14GB of VRAM, while a 70B parameter model can demand up to 140GB. These values are far beyond the hardware owned by an average user. While working on AI-powered operations for my side product and a production planning model for a client project, I had the opportunity to experiment with models of different sizes. I clearly saw that there can sometimes be differences between theoretical VRAM requirements on paper and practical usage, especially as the context window grows. A 7B model, with a common quantization like Q4_K_M, can generally run with around 5-6GB of VRAM. However, for a 13B model, this value jumps to 8-10GB, and for a 70B model, it can soar to 40-50GB. This also varies depending on parameters like context window and batch size. 💡 VRAM Monitoring Tips You can monitor the real-time status of your GPU and VRAM with the nvidia-smi command. Using watch -n 1 nvidia-smi to update VR

Two related, Oracle-backed projects published opposing policies on open-source contributions created with generative AI: The OpenJDK Governing Board approved an interim policy prohibiting such contributions, while the Coding Assistants policy from GraalVM permits them. Both projects require contributors to sign the same Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA) for intellectual property. By Karsten Silz

TL;DR Welcome back to Dev Opportunity Radar. This is a weekly series where I share opportunities,...

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

Here's a five-line function. It calls an LLM, logs the answer, returns it. async function ask ( question : string ) { const res = await openai . responses . create ({ model : " o4-mini " , input : question }); console . log ( " answer: " , res . output_text ); return res . output_text ; } This compiles. It passes tests. It ships. And it will quietly cost you four figures a month before anyone notices, because nothing in that log tells you the model burned 8,000 hidden reasoning tokens to produce a 40-token reply. That's the gap this article is about. AI calls are not regular HTTP calls. The interesting state isn't the response body - it's the messages you sent, the tools the model picked, the tokens it consumed (visible and otherwise), and the dollars that drained out of the budget. If your observability story is "we log the answer," you're flying a plane with one gauge and that gauge is the altimeter. Let's talk about what to actually capture. The four signals that matter Every AI system has the same four dimensions worth instrumenting, and most teams only track one or two of them: Logs - the request/response pair, the error, the latency. The boring stuff that traditional APM already covers. Prompts - the actual text that went in and the actual text that came out. Including system prompts, tool definitions, and history. Tool calls - which tool the model picked, with what arguments, what came back, in what order, with what retries. Cost - input tokens, output tokens, cached tokens, reasoning tokens, model, and the per-million-token price for each. Multiplied per user, per feature, per request. Lose any one of these and you're working blind on a different axis of the problem. Lose the cost signal and you wake up to a Slack message from finance. Lose the tool-call signal and you can't tell why your agent kept booking the wrong flight. Lose the prompt signal and a prod regression becomes a guessing game. Lose plain logs and you don't even know the call happened. The go