标签：#m

Cindy Zhang discusses the evolution of XDS, a unified UI system powering 10,000+ internal tools. She shares actionable insights for architects and engineering leaders on managing large-scale community contributions, executing safe monorepo refactors using JS AST and AI codemods, mitigating breaking changes via feature flags, and expanding UI libraries into full-stack platform systems. By Cindy Zhang

Customers have complained that a telehealth network selling compounded GLP-1s has been ripping them off—even after it had to pay $5 million to clients as part of a settlement with the US government.

From Wired: “We’re changing Fable 5’s safeguards for frontier LLM development to make them visible.” Anthropic said in a statement to WIRED. “We made the wrong tradeoff and we apologize for not getting the balance right.” Anthropic now says it’s changing course, and that Claude Fable 5’s safeguards for AI development will be visible to users. If the company suspects a user is trying to use Claude to build a highly capable AI it will alert them that it’s either refusing the request, or rerouting the user to a less capable model. Full article: https://www.wired.com/story/anthropic-responds-to-backlash-on-claudes-secret-sabotage-on-ai-research/ submitted by /u/goldcakes [link] [留言]

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

Deezer will now scan your playlists on other streaming platforms to detect AI-generated music. Deezer was the first of the big streaming services to start labeling AI-generated music. It even offered its tech to other platforms, but it doesn't seem like it had many buyers. Qobuz launched its own detection tech, while Apple and Spotify […]

ACL ARR May 2026 reviews are due on July 2. I do not see any reviewer assignement as of today. Will the review period be just 2 weeks in that case? Anyone got papers assigned for reviewing? submitted by /u/Impossible-Garden612 [link] [留言]

This is a submission for the June Solstice Game Jam What I Built Bletchley is a web codebreaking game set at Bletchley Park, 1939–1945. You play as an anonymous codebreaker in Hut 6. Your job: decrypt intercepted Enigma messages by adjusting mechanical rotors before time runs out. The game spans 4 levels across two cipher types — Caesar and rotor permutation. Early levels introduce the mechanics with a single rotor and generous time. By level 4, you're working with three rotors (two already solved by your colleagues), 90 seconds on the clock, and a hint you have to earn by clicking. The hint system mirrors a real codebreaking technique: cribs — words known to appear in the plaintext. Players use them as anchors, sweeping the rotor until the word surfaces in the decrypted output. That's exactly how Turing's team worked. Between each level, the screen goes quiet and a narrative fragment appears. No UI, no score — just text. Together they tell Alan Turing's story in chronological order: his arrival at Bletchley in 1939, breaking Naval Enigma in 1941, the classified silence after the war, and then 1952. The game doesn't end on victory. That's intentional. Theme connection: The game honors Turing on two registers — the mechanics recreate the known-plaintext attack his team developed, and the narrative tells his full story, including the parts history preferred to forget. June is also Pride Month. That's not incidental. Video Demo Note on the video: Due to a dental procedure, I wasn't able to record a voiceover. The narration was AI-generated. The gameplay, code, and everything else in the demo are entirely my own work. Code cristianrubioa / bletchley Web codebreaking game inspired by Alan Turing and the Enigma machine bletchley — A Turing Tribute Codebreaking game · June Solstice Game Jam 2026 · Best Ode to Alan Turing You are a codebreaker at Bletchley Park. Decrypt intercepted messages by adjusting Enigma rotors before time runs out. 4 levels · 2 cipher types · histori

Compares npm, Yarn (Berry), pnpm, Bun, and Deno as different dependency models. submitted by /u/OtherwisePush6424 [link] [留言]

I didn't set out to build a content API. I set out to stop copy-pasting. Every week, the same ritual: open a doc, stare at a blank page, write a headline, delete it, write it again. Multiply that by every client, every product page, every email drip campaign. I wasn't doing creative work — I was doing assembly-line work while pretending it was creative. PostAll started as a script I wrote to stop doing that. The API is what that script became after other developers asked if they could use it too. This guide walks you through integrating PostAll's API into your own workflow — authentication, the endpoints you'll actually use, real working code in both Python and Node.js, and the specific places things will break before they work. By the end, you'll have a functioning pipeline that generates formatted, CMS-ready content programmatically. What you'll build A script that takes a list of content briefs (keywords, tone, target length) and returns publish-ready content — with proper formatting, metadata, and error handling for the rate limits you'll hit in production. Here's the shape of what you're building: [ CSV of briefs ] → [ PostAll API ] → [ formatted content objects ] → [ your CMS / database ] The full working code for both languages is at the end of each section. I'll explain the interesting parts inline. Prerequisites A PostAll account with API access enabled (free tier works for this guide — rate limits noted below) Node.js 18+ or Python 3.10+ Basic familiarity with async/await in either language An HTTP client: axios or native fetch for Node, httpx for Python Step 1: Authentication PostAll uses API key authentication. Every request needs your key in the Authorization header. Get your key: Dashboard → Settings → API Keys → Generate New Key Store it as an environment variable. Never hardcode it. export PostAll_API_KEY = "postall_live_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" Your key has two prefixes: postall_live_ for production, postall_test_ for the sandbox. The sandbox returns r

I spent yesterday building purejq , a pure-Python implementation of jq. I expected it to be the slow-but-portable option. Then I benchmarked it against the jq package on PyPI (the C bindings everyone uses to run jq from Python) and got this, on a 100k-object array, in-process: workload purejq jq PyPI (C bindings) field-access stream 9 ms 368 ms filter + count 55 ms 442 ms map + aggregate 18 ms 444 ms group_by 112 ms 704 ms transform + sort 136 ms 899 ms Pure Python, 7-40x faster than the C extension. That number looked wrong to me too, so before publishing anything I made the benchmark script verify every output against the actual jq binary first ( tools/bench.py --verify ), re-ran everything as median-of-7, and gave the bindings their best-case API. The gap is real. Here's why. The serialization tax The C bindings wrap real jq, and real jq only speaks JSON. So every call does this: your dicts -> JSON text -> C parser -> jq evaluates -> JSON text -> dicts That round trip costs about 350-450 ms for 100k small objects on my machine, before any actual filtering happens. You can see it in the numbers: even a trivial field access pays the same ~400 ms floor as a group_by. purejq skips the trip entirely. It compiles the jq program once into Python closures and walks your dicts and lists directly: import purejq prog = purejq . compile ( " group_by(.team) | map({team: .[0].team, n: length}) " ) prog . first ( data ) # operates on your objects, no serialization The lesson generalizes beyond jq: when you embed a C library that has its own data model, the marshaling boundary is often more expensive than the work. An interpreter written in your language gets to skip the boundary, and that can buy back an order of magnitude. Surprise number two: the CLI beats the jq binary on big files This one I really didn't expect. End to end on a 93 MB file (1M objects), parse + filter + output: workload purejq CLI jq 1.8.1 binary single lookup 0.51 s 1.68 s filter + count 1.08 s 1.96 s grou

https://dsa-life-simulator-frontend.vercel.app"I made a free tool to make DSA practice feel like an RPG — would like feedback from this community"Been grinding DSA for months and it never felt fun. So I built something. What it does: 🏟️ Real-time 1v1 Arena battles against other devs 🧪 Lab to create and publish your own challenges 🏘️ Community Hub to attempt others' challenges 📖 AI writes your weekly coding journey as a life story 🎮 XP, credits, levels, leaderboards Stack: React + Tailwind + Firebase + Node.js + Socket.IO + Groq AI Still early — would genuinely love feedback from people who've felt the pain of traditional DSA prep.

AI coding tools are changing how software gets built. Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Windsurf and other tools can generate code incredibly fast. For small tasks, they are already useful: write a component, explain a function, scaffold an endpoint, create a test, refactor a file. But after using AI in real projects, one thing becomes obvious: The problem is no longer code generation. The problem is engineering control. Most AI coding workflows still look like this: text idea -> prompt -> code -> fix -> prompt again -> more code -> lost context -> start over It feels fast at the beginning. Then the project grows. Requirements change. Architecture decisions disappear inside chat history. The AI forgets previous context. You start acting as product manager, architect, reviewer, QA, DevOps, and prompt engineer at the same time. That is not software engineering. That is vibe coding. ## Vibe coding works until it doesn't Direct AI coding is great when the task is isolated. Ask for a React component. Ask for a SQL query. Ask for a utility function. Ask for a unit test. No problem. But real software is not a collection of isolated snippets. Real software has: - business rules - architectural constraints - existing patterns - security concerns - database impact - deployment requirements - edge cases - regression risk - long-term maintenance When AI jumps directly from prompt to code, it often skips the thinking that should happen before implementation. The result may compile. But does it fit the architecture? Does it respect the domain? Does it create hidden technical debt? Does it solve the right problem? That is the gap we are trying to close with N45.AI. ## What is N45.AI? N45.AI is a framework that turns AI coding tools into a structured engineering workflow. It works with the tools developers already use, including Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, and Windsurf. The idea is simple: Instead of treating AI as one generic assistant, N45.AI organizes the work like a

Most developers never have to design a network protocol from scratch. You use HTTP, gRPC, WebSockets, or something else that already exists and has been debugged by thousands of people over many years. That is the right call for most situations. I did not take that path when building Vaylix, a key-value database engine. I designed a custom binary protocol called VTP2, and the process taught me things about networking that I would not have picked up any other way. This is not an argument that you should also build a custom protocol. For most things, you should not. This is an honest account of what I ran into. Why not HTTP The first question anyone reasonably asks is: why not just use HTTP? HTTP is everywhere. The tooling is excellent. Every language has a client. Debugging with curl is trivial. If I had used HTTP, I would have had working client libraries in a dozen languages before writing a single line of server code. The problem is that HTTP is stateless by design. Every request is independent. Every request carries headers. Every response carries headers. The model assumes that each round trip is a fresh conversation with no memory of what came before. A database session is the opposite of that. A client connects, authenticates, and then issues many commands over the same connection. The authentication should happen once. The session should carry state. Pipelining requests without waiting for each response to return should be natural, not something you fight the protocol to achieve. HTTP/2 closes some of this gap. But using HTTP/2 correctly for a stateful session model involves working against the grain of what HTTP was designed for. I would have been spending a lot of time on infrastructure that exists to make HTTP behave less like HTTP. The other issue is overhead. HTTP headers are verbose. For small key-value operations, the headers can easily exceed the payload. That felt wrong for something designed to be a tight operational data store. So I went with TCP d

A useful thing happened in agent infrastructure this June: several teams shipped "escrow layers for AI agents" - production MCP tools that let an agent run a full commit -> hold -> complete lifecycle without a human anywhere in the loop. An agent can now park value with a contract or service, wait for the other side to deliver, and release on completion. That is genuinely new, and it solves a real problem. It is also worth being precise about, because "escrow" and "settlement" get used as if they were one thing. They are not. There are two structurally different ways to make a trade your agent does at 3am trustworthy, and the difference is exactly who holds the money while the trade is in flight . Model one: held custody In the held-custody model, a third party - a smart contract escrow, a custody service, a payment facilitator - takes the funds, holds them, and releases them when a condition is met. The condition can be anything you can express: a delivery confirmation, an evaluator's attestation, a timeout, a multi-sig approval. This is the right tool for a large class of agent commerce. If your agent is paying a merchant, buying a dataset, or hiring another agent to do a unit of work, the hard question is subjective : did the thing actually get delivered, and was it any good? A hash function cannot see that. A custodian can - it gives the trade a place to pause while something or someone checks. The new agent-escrow tooling is built around exactly this shape: a job, a held balance, a release on completion. For agent-to-merchant payments riding on rails like x402, held custody is the honest primitive. The cost is equally concrete. A held balance is a honeypot. Someone controls the funds between commit and complete, which means someone can freeze them, lose them, misconfigure the release condition, or get drained. You have added a trust assumption and a liveness dependency - the custodian has to be online, solvent, and honest at release time. That is often an accep

It is a privacy-first, local-first photo organizer powered by deep learning face recognition. It detects, embeds, and groups faces to organize your photos automatically—all 100% offline. 🔥 Highlight Features: ✅ 100% Local: No cloud APIs, no telemetry, no leaks. ✅ Deep Learning: Driven by OpenCV DNN (YuNet + SFace ONNX models). ✅ Smart Automation: Copies matches, partial matches, and individual profiles into organized folders, complete with ZIP archives and JSON reports. ✅ Standalone EXE: Run it on Windows instantly with zero dependencies. ✅ Dynamic UI: Fully responsive Tailwind dashboard with Dark/Light modes. Check out the repository, download the EXE, or contribute: 👉 https://github.com/Shaan-alpha/face-sort-studio Let me know what you think! ⭐ machinelearning #computervision #python #localfirst #privacy #developers #opensource #ai Internet access on first launch only (to fetch the AI models ~40-50mb)

Hey DEV community! 👋 I'm Gamya, an iOS developer and new here on DEV. So excited to be part of my...

If you doubted his genius, doubt no more.

There is a moment, about ten minutes into using Lovable, where you feel like the future has arrived. You type a few sentences, and a real website appears. It looks good. It works. You did not write a line of code. We get it. That moment is genuinely impressive, and Lovable deserves the credit it gets for it. But a website is not a launch. It is a thing you live with. You update your hours. You add a blog post. You publish a case study. You change a price. You hire someone and want them to handle the news page without breaking anything. That is where the two platforms stop looking alike. So instead of comparing the first ten minutes, this post compares the next ten months. What Lovable actually builds Lovable is an AI coding tool. When you describe your site, it writes a React application: components, state, routing, build tooling. Your content, the actual words and images on your pages, lives inside that code. This is a fine architecture for a web app. It is an awkward one for a website, because every future change is a code change. Want to fix a typo in a testimonial? That sentence is a string inside a React component. You can ask the AI to change it, and it usually will. But you are editing software to edit a sentence. Your marketing person is not going to do that. Your client definitely is not. And there is a quieter problem underneath. The site Lovable generates depends on a specific framework, a specific set of packages, and a build pipeline. Frameworks move fast. The React app that builds cleanly today may need dependency updates a year from now just to keep working. Someone has to own that, and it is probably you. What SleekCMS builds SleekCMS starts from a different assumption: most businesses do not need a web application. They need a website, and a website is mostly content. So when you describe your site to SleekCMS, you get two things: First, your content as structured data. Your pages, your services, your team bios, your blog posts all live in a CMS, in

I built a knowledge graph out of my own work sessions. Hundreds of them — transcripts of me building a system with LLMs, extracted into concepts, decisions, findings, and the edges between them. For a while it felt like the thing was working. I'd query it, get back a clean structured answer, and move on. Then I ran a foreign model against it. I gave a different model my concept definitions and asked it to reconstruct the system, both the vocabulary and the relationships. It recovered 97.7% of the words. It recovered 61.1% of the structure. That 36-point gap was the first time I could see the problem instead of just living inside it. The vocabulary transferred because the definitions were written carefully. The edges didn't, because the edges were the part I'd let the extraction handle. And the whole time, querying the graph had felt complete. The structure came back typed, connected, confident-looking — so I stopped looking. I started calling it premature retrieval closure: the retrieval returns something shaped like a whole answer, which is exactly why I didn't notice the parts that were missing. Part 10 of Building at the Edges of LLM Tooling . If you're running a long-term project through an LLM-backed memory system (anything that turns raw sessions into structured, persistent memory), this is about the step where the structure starts lying about how complete it is. Start here . Why It Breaks Every memory system of this kind does the same move. An LLM reads raw interaction (a conversation, a document, a session log) and lifts structured memory out of it: entities, facts, rules, summaries. That structured memory becomes the thing the agent reads later, instead of the raw record. The lift is where fidelity goes. Pulling clean structure out of messy text means making decisions the text didn't make explicit: which entity this pronoun refers to, whether a relationship is real or inferred, what to keep and what to drop. Those decisions can be wrong, and when they are,

After 8 months of daily Claude Code use, I've distilled my workflow into a 5-layer system. Each layer builds on the previous one. Skip one, and the whole thing falls apart. The Problem with Most Claude Code Users Most people use Claude Code like ChatGPT — open terminal, ask a question, close, repeat. The next day, they explain their project from scratch. Again. The symptom: 20% of every session is wasted on context re-establishment. The root cause: No project memory, no workflow discipline. Here's the system that fixed it for me. Layer 1: CLAUDE.md — Your Project's Memory Anchor This is the foundation. Without it, nothing else works. CLAUDE.md is a file at your project root. Claude reads it automatically at the start of every session. It tells Claude: What this project is (one sentence) The tech stack (specific technologies, not "Python web framework") The architecture (the big picture you'd need 3 files to understand) Unique conventions (not generic advice like "write tests") Quality priorities Bad CLAUDE.md (you've probably written this): # My Project A web application built with Python and FastAPI. ## Development - Write clean code - Add unit tests - Use Git This tells Claude nothing it doesn't already know. Good CLAUDE.md: # CLAUDE.md ## Project Overview Internal RAG knowledge base serving 500+ employees. ## Tech Stack FastAPI + LangChain + Milvus + PostgreSQL + Redis ## Commands - Start: `uvicorn app.main:app --reload --port 8080` - Test: `pytest -x --cov=app --cov-report=term-missing` ## Architecture Request flow: router → service → retriever → Milvus → generator → LLM API Key directories: - app/router/ - API layer - app/service/ - Business logic orchestration - app/retriever/ - Retrieval strategies (vector/BM25/hybrid) - app/generator/ - LLM calls and prompt management ## Key Conventions - All APIs return `{"data": ..., "error": null}` - Retrieval results MUST include source field - Milvus collection naming: `{env}_{doc_type}` The rule: Only write what's uniq