标签：#p

Most bibliography failures show up the night before arXiv or the journal deadline: placeholder DOIs, year pasted into volume= , inverted page ranges, invented case reporters. The fix is a paper repo that fails closed from day one . One command pip install https://github.com/SybilGambleyyu/citesure/releases/download/v0.5.68/citesure-0.5.68-py3-none-any.whl citesure init my-paper cd my-paper citesure gate . --preset ci citesure gate . --preset arxiv citesure init writes refs.bib , pre-commit hooks ( gate --preset ci + soft-lint), .github/workflows/citesure.yml , and a short CITESURE.md for coauthors. Empty bibliographies skip hard-ID floors until entries appear. What the gate checks Soft-lint — placeholder number/issue, inverted pages, year-like volume/month/edition, unsafe keys, all-caps titles, missing venues, duplicate DOIs/titles Health — hard-ID coverage floors Promote dry-run — DOIs still buried in url= Live verify — Crossref, doi.org, arXiv, PubMed, Europe PMC, DataCite, OpenAlex, CourtListener Domain packs Fifty-five live-clean packs (demography, sociology, political science, anthropology, ML, law, ecology, …): citesure packs --gate-all citesure packs --run anthropology-classics Evidence: 256/256 integrity · 209/209 claim pairs · 55 packs. Source: github.com/SybilGambleyyu/citesure · Demo: citesure.sybilgambleyyu.workers.dev

Ethereal Bytecode for the Network: Unlocking XDP's Magic! Hey there, fellow tech enthusiasts! Ever felt like the traditional networking stack in your Linux kernel was a bit… sluggish? Like it was taking the scenic route when you needed it to be a supersonic jet? Well, let me introduce you to a superhero that swoops in and turbocharges your network packet processing: eBPF, specifically in the context of XDP (eXpress Data Path). Forget the days of wrestling with complex kernel modules or praying for better hardware offload. eBPF and XDP offer a revolutionary, in-kernel, safe, and incredibly efficient way to program packet processing at the very edge of your network interface. Think of it as giving your network card a tiny, super-smart brain, capable of making lightning-fast decisions before the packet even bothers the main kernel stack. Pretty cool, right? So, buckle up as we dive deep into the wonderful world of XDP and eBPF, demystifying its power and showing you why it's becoming the darling of modern networking. 1. The "What's the Big Deal?" Section: Introduction to XDP & eBPF Imagine a bustling highway (your network). Traditional networking is like having every car stop at a toll booth, get inspected, and then directed by a central traffic controller. This works, but it can get congested. XDP, on the other hand, is like having intelligent on-ramps where some cars can be instantly identified, rerouted, or even rejected before they even hit the main highway. eBPF (extended Berkeley Packet Filter) is the technology that makes this possible. It's a powerful, sandboxed virtual machine that runs within the Linux kernel. Unlike traditional kernel modules, which can potentially crash your entire system if written incorrectly, eBPF programs are rigorously verified by the kernel for safety and correctness before they are allowed to execute. This means you get the power of kernel-level access without the existential dread of a kernel panic. XDP (eXpress Data Path) leverages

An AI can write a perfect email in seconds. Having a real back-and-forth conversation is much harder. Sarah runs a salon. She has an AI assistant that emails her customers when a slot opens up. Last Friday, a customer canceled his booking. The assistant sent an email: "We have an opening tomorrow at 2 PM. Want it?" The customer replied in a minute: "Yes, book it!" The assistant never saw that reply. The slot stayed open. The customer never got a confirmation. This happens more than people realise — not because it's hard to receive email, but because most setups were never wired to close the loop. Sending is easy. Wiring the whole loop isn't. To be fair, receiving and parsing email isn't some unsolved problem — providers like SendGrid, Mailgun, and Postmark have offered inbound email parsing for years. Point your domain at them, and they'll hand you the clean message. But those webhooks only push the message once. There's no inbox to check back later, and no built-in way to link a reply to the right conversation. You have to build that part yourself — and you still can't run any of it on your own servers. There's a second issue too. AI assistants sometimes send a slightly odd reply — nothing harmful, just a little off. Many managed email providers watch for exactly that pattern, and can suspend an account fast. One strange sentence, and Sarah's whole booking system could go dark with no warning. What a real AI assistant needs For an assistant like Sarah's to actually hold a conversation, a few things need to work together: Replies need to land somewhere the AI can read them They need to arrive clean, not messy They need to stay linked to the right conversation The AI needs to reply back from the same email address All of it needs to run on infrastructure you control, not three different vendors This is what we built Reloop for Reloop puts that whole loop in one place, self-hosted. When Sarah's customer replied "Yes, book it!", Reloop caught the reply, cleaned it up,

On July 3, as a heat wave swept the region, New York State’s grid imported 52 gigawatt-hours of electricity from Canada—enough to meet about 9% of its total electricity demand that day. Some of that power shuttled in on a 339-mile power line stretching from Quebec to Queens called the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE).…

submitted by /u/ffatty [link] [留言]

Increase your brand's AI visibility on autopilot Discussion | Link

submitted by /u/Electronic-Cook-9227 [link] [留言]

Permission-first real-time senses for AI companions Discussion | Link

The upper stage of a Falcon 9 rocket has been drifting in space for over a year after it launched. It's expected to crash into the moon next month.

A human-in-loop support agent that tracks customer signals Discussion | Link

A private data-usage meter for your Mac menu bar Discussion | Link

As a backend developer, I have build hundreds of endpoints, so the typical endpoint flow is deeply ingrained in how I think about web applications. But when I started building AI-powered endpoints, I noticed an interesting shift. At first, AI endpoints looked like simple proxy endpoints with some configuration for connecting to a model: API receives request ↓ send prompt to model ↓ receive response ↓ return it to the client And it worked well until I found out that passing a prompt directly from the client was not a good idea. The endpoint could be misused for a completely different purpose, allowing someone else to consume my AI usage credits. Then I realized that the input also needed limits. Sending a large context for a specific task costs more and may produce unexpected results. So when I started looking closer, especially when I needed reliable structured output and predictable application behavior, I quickly realized that it was not that simple. Validation was no longer only guarding execution, it had also become a post-processing step. AI models are probabilistic. Even with the same input, they may return different outputs, omit required information, misunderstand instructions or return something that is technically valid but logically wrong. And because every token has a price, I cannot simply retry the request and hope for a better result. That was when I started questioning whether AI endpoints should be designed in the same way as conventional Web API endpoints. Table of Contents Conventional Web API Endpoint Flow AI-powered Web API Endpoint Flow What This Difference Changes Unpredictable Latency Retry Logic Idempotency and Side Effects Testing AI Endpoints The Output Contract Observability and Cost Summary Conventional Web API Endpoint Flow A conventional Web API endpoint usually follows a similar flow: validate request ↓ execute business logic ↓ return representation The first phase is request validation. We validate the incoming data against property

I'll guide you through Python fundamentals by comparing concepts with JavaScript. Let's start! 1. Hello World & Basic Syntax JavaScript console . log ( " Hello World " ); let x = 5 ; Python print ( " Hello World " ) x = 5 # No semicolon, no let/const Key Differences: No semicolons in Python Indentation matters (replaces curly braces) Comments use # instead of // 2. Variables & Data Types JavaScript let name = " Alice " ; // string let age = 30 ; // number let isStudent = true ; // boolean let scores = [ 95 , 87 , 91 ]; // array let person = { // object name : " Bob " , age : 25 }; let nothing = null ; let notDefined = undefined ; Python name = " Alice " # str age = 30 # int (or float for decimals) is_student = True # bool (capital T/F) scores = [ 95 , 87 , 91 ] # list (mutable) person = { # dict (dictionary) " name " : " Bob " , " age " : 25 } nothing = None # Python's null/undefined Key Differences: Python uses snake_case (not camelCase) True / False capitalized None instead of null / undefined Lists ≈ Arrays, Dicts ≈ Objects 3. Control Flow JavaScript // If-else if ( age >= 18 ) { console . log ( " Adult " ); } else if ( age >= 13 ) { console . log ( " Teen " ); } else { console . log ( " Child " ); } // For loop for ( let i = 0 ; i < 5 ; i ++ ) { console . log ( i ); } // While loop let count = 0 ; while ( count < 5 ) { console . log ( count ); count ++ ; } Python # If-else (indentation instead of braces) if age >= 18 : print ( " Adult " ) elif age >= 13 : # NOT else if print ( " Teen " ) else : print ( " Child " ) # For loop (more like for...of in JS) for i in range ( 5 ): # range(5) = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4] print ( i ) # Iterate over list (like for...of) for score in scores : print ( score ) # While loop count = 0 while count < 5 : print ( count ) count += 1 # No ++ operator in Python 4. Functions JavaScript // Function declaration function add ( a , b ) { return a + b ; } // Arrow function const multiply = ( a , b ) => a * b ; // Default parameters function greet ( n

Deploy Python Bots on Render Without Sleep Using StayPresent Render is one of the most popular free hosting platforms for small Python projects, but it comes with a well-known catch: free-tier web services spin down after a period of inactivity and require a fresh incoming request to wake back up. For a render python bot — a Discord bot, Telegram bot, or scraper — that "wake up" delay can mean minutes of downtime every time the service goes idle. This guide covers exactly how Render's sleep behavior works, and how to eliminate it using StayPresent . Table of Contents Understanding Render's Free Tier Why HTTP Port Requirements Matter Setting Up StayPresent for Render Health Checks Explained Self-Ping to Avoid Idle Sleep Crash Recovery on Render Full Working Example Best Practices Common Mistakes FAQs Conclusion Understanding Render's Free Tier Render's free web services sleep after roughly 15 minutes without incoming HTTP traffic. Once asleep, the next request has to spin the container back up before it responds, so real users (or a bot's own polling loop) experience a delay. Render also expects your web service to bind to a port it provides via the PORT environment variable — if nothing is listening there, Render's own health checks will consider the deploy unhealthy. [Render Health Check] --HTTP GET--> [Your Service on $PORT] | No response = unhealthy Why HTTP Port Requirements Matter A typical Telegram or Discord bot doesn't open an HTTP port — it just connects outward to Telegram's or Discord's API and waits for events. That's perfectly normal bot behavior, but it fails Render's expectations for a web service. The fix isn't to change how your bot works; it's to run a small HTTP server next to it, purely so Render has something to check. Setting Up StayPresent for Render Install the production extra so Waitress serves the app instead of Flask's development server: pip install staypresent[prod] Then in your entry point (commonly main.py ): import os import staypres

Track Codex and Claude Code and respond from your Notch Discussion | Link

Every day, I see discussions about how AI assistants and Copilot are changing software development. And honestly? I agree. AI is helping us save time, automate repetitive work, and learn faster than ever before. But recently, I've noticed something that concerns me. Some interviewers, managers, and even developers are starting to treat AI-generated answers as the "correct" answers. That's where I think we're making a mistake. 🤔 Does Copilot Know Your Responsibilities? We've all seen responses like: "With 10 years of experience, you should know this." But who decides that? Does Copilot know: The projects you've worked on? The systems you've built? The challenges you've solved? The responsibilities you've carried for the last 10 years? The answer is simple: No. Two developers can have 10 years of experience and possess completely different skill sets. One may be an expert in distributed systems. Another may specialize in frontend architecture. A third may have spent years building enterprise applications. Meanwhile, a developer with only 5 years of experience may know a modern technology that none of them have ever needed. Does that make anyone less capable? Absolutely not. It simply means their journeys were different. 🚨 Experience Is Not a Checklist Let's take a different example. Suppose someone has spent 10 years mastering Figma and has become an exceptional designer. Does that automatically mean they should be an expert in Photoshop, Illustrator, CorelDRAW, Sketch, and every other design tool? Of course not. Their expertise reflects the work they've done and the problems they've solved. The same applies to software engineering. Experience is about depth, not knowing everything. ⚠️ The Risk of Over-Relying on AI Don't get me wrong. I use AI. Most developers I know use AI. And it saves hours of effort. But there's a difference between: ✅ Taking help from AI and ❌ Letting AI think for you When every answer, every opinion, and every decision comes from AI, something

Next.js 16 shipped Cache Components - the feature that finally lets a single route mix static HTML, cached data, and per-request dynamic content without splitting it into separate pages. It is Partial Prerendering (PPR) made stable, plus a new use cache directive that replaces the old unstable_cache and the awkward route-segment config flags. This guide covers what changed, the three content types you now think in, and the runtime-data rule that trips up almost everyone on day one. What actually changed If you were using the experimental PPR flag, it is gone. Cache Components is a single config switch, and it turns on the whole model - static shell, cached segments, and streamed dynamic content in one route. // next.config.ts import type { NextConfig } from ' next ' const nextConfig : NextConfig = { cacheComponents : true , // replaces experimental.ppr } export default nextConfig Once it is on, every piece of your route falls into one of three buckets. The whole mental model is learning which bucket each component belongs in. The three content types Static - synchronous code, imports, and pure markup. Prerendered at build time and served instantly from the CDN. Your header, nav, and layout shell. Cached - async data that does not need to be fresh on every request. Marked with use cache . Think product lists, blog posts, dashboard stats. Dynamic - runtime data that must be fresh (cookies, headers, per-user state). Wrapped in Suspense so it streams in after the shell paints. import { Suspense } from ' react ' import { cookies } from ' next/headers ' import { cacheLife } from ' next/cache ' export default function DashboardPage () { return ( <> { /* Static - instant from the CDN */ } < header >< h1 > Dashboard </ h1 ></ header > { /* Cached - fast, revalidates hourly */ } < Stats /> { /* Dynamic - streams in with fresh data */ } < Suspense fallback = { < NotificationsSkeleton /> } > < Notifications /> </ Suspense > </> ) } async function Stats () { ' use cache ' cacheL

Seu agente escreveu o teste. O Cursor sugeriu três casos extremos que você não havia pensado. O Copilot preencheu o corpo da requisição, e o Claude executou tudo uma vez e reportou “verde”. A pergunta é justa: se o agente faz tudo isso, a IA pode substituir completamente o teste de API? Experimente o Apidog hoje Não. A IA não substitui o teste de API, mas já substitui boa parte da autoria dos testes. Agentes elaboram casos, sugerem cenários extremos e geram payloads com eficiência. Porém, eles não garantem execução idêntica em cada commit, não bloqueiam merges com um resultado confiável e não decidem se um contrato está correto. Para isso, você precisa de uma ferramenta determinística e de revisão humana. Essa separação responde a uma dúvida maior: você ainda precisa de uma ferramenta de API na era dos agentes de IA ? Sim — mas o papel da ferramenta mudou. Use agentes para acelerar a autoria e ferramentas determinísticas para validar, executar e bloquear regressões. Onde este artigo difere do guia prático Se você procura instruções para gerar testes com agentes, consulte o guia sobre como usar agentes de IA para teste de API . Este artigo trata de outra pergunta: quais partes do fluxo você pode delegar a um agente e quais precisam continuar em uma suíte determinística? Uma implementação prática separa o trabalho assim: O agente lê a especificação e cria um rascunho de testes. Um desenvolvedor revisa cenários, asserções e regras de negócio. Um runner headless executa a suíte no CI. O pipeline bloqueia o merge usando o código de saída do runner. Quando algo falha, você inspeciona a requisição e a resposta reais. O que a IA faz bem em testes de API hoje Agentes removem trabalho repetitivo de autoria. Use-os principalmente para criar e expandir artefatos de teste. Elaborar uma primeira suíte a partir de uma especificação Entregue ao agente um endpoint, uma definição OpenAPI ou uma resposta de exemplo. Ele pode gerar rapidamente: verificações de status HTTP; asserções de

Most code that calls an AI model works like a conversation: ask, wait a second, get a reply. Fine-tuning doesn't. You hand off a job and walk away, checking back every few seconds to see if it's finished. DSPy is a framework for building programs that call language models. Instead of hand-writing and endlessly tweaking prompt strings, you declare what you want in terms of inputs and outputs, and DSPy turns that into the actual prompt. It can even optimize those prompts for you automatically, so getting a better result doesn't mean rewording things by hand. Here's something I didn't know starting out: DSPy already knows how to talk to almost any AI model, Together AI included. Asking a question and getting an answer back is handled by a shared layer that works for everyone, so no new code is needed there. Fine-tuning (the "hand off a job and walk away" thing from the top) is the exception. Every company does fine-tuning its own way, so DSPy needs a small custom piece, called a Provider, to handle each one. Building the Provider for Together AI is what my PR does. Why does this matter? Together AI is one of the cheaper, more popular places to fine-tune open-source models like Llama, so a lot of people building with DSPy end up wanting to use it. Before this, they had to step outside the framework: fine-tune on Together by hand, then wire the finished model back into their DSPy program themselves. With the provider in place, fine-tuning becomes a first-class option. You point DSPy at your training data, and it handles the upload, the job, the waiting, and hands back a model you can drop straight into the rest of your pipeline. That is the whole point of a framework, taking a fiddly manual process and making it one clean step, and adding a provider is how that gets extended to one more company. The Provider does one job from start to finish: take your training examples and hand back a fine-tuned model. Under the hood, that's five steps: Check your training data is in a

Storyblok pricing trips up teams because the free tier is genuinely usable — until one specific limit hits and suddenly you're looking at a four-figure annual bill. This post breaks down every tier as of July 2026: what's included, what the hard ceilings are, and which usage pattern pushes you past each one. If you're comparing across the whole headless CMS landscape, I've already written a Headless CMS Pricing Comparison 2026 covering Sanity, Contentful, Payload, and Strapi side-by-side. This post zooms in on Storyblok specifically. How Storyblok structures its pricing Storyblok sells on three axes: seats (users who log into the Studio), locales (languages per space), and API calls (CDN requests to their Content Delivery API). There's also a fourth soft limit that catches people by surprise: the number of spaces (separate CMS environments). Pricing is per-space, not per-organisation, which matters for agencies managing multiple clients. All paid plans are billed per space per month, with annual billing being roughly 17–20% cheaper than monthly. Storyblok tier breakdown Plan Price (per space/mo, annual) Seats included Locales API calls/mo Custom roles Community (Free) $0 1 1 10,000 CDN calls No Starter $23 1 3 25,000 CDN calls No Growth $99 3 (then $15/seat) 5 1,000,000 CDN calls No Business $299 5 (then $25/seat) 10 Unlimited Yes Enterprise Custom Custom Unlimited Unlimited Yes + SSO Prices reflect Storyblok's published rates as of July 2026. Monthly billing adds roughly 20% to each tier. Community tier: the real limits The free Community plan is genuinely useful for a personal project or a proof of concept. One editor seat, one locale, and 10,000 CDN API calls per month. That 10k call limit is the thing most people underestimate. Every published story fetched from Storyblok's CDN counts as one call. If your Next.js site fetches 12 stories on the homepage, that's 12 calls per visitor. At 1,000 monthly visitors you've burned through 12,000 calls — already over the f