标签：#p

Wiremodal is a framework-agnostic modal package for Laravel, which allows to handle modals, so you don't have co configure them in all your projects. It ships a few Livewire-side helpers that make exactly this pleasant. This post is the Livewire integration end to end: opening and closing from PHP, delivering a payload on open, the one trap to avoid, and the optional form panel for when a modal happens to be a form. How to install Pull the package in and get the assets onto the page. composer require edulazaro/wiremodal php artisan vendor:publish --tag = wiremodal-assets The service provider auto-registers and there is no config file. Point your layout at the published files: <link rel="stylesheet" href="{{ asset('vendor/wiremodal/css/wiremodal.css') }}"> <script src="{{ asset('vendor/wiremodal/js/wiremodal.js') }}" defer></script> If you bundle with Vite, skip the publish and import straight from the vendor directory instead, so a package update flows through without re-publishing anything: /* resources/css/app.css */ @import "../../vendor/edulazaro/wiremodal/resources/css/wiremodal.css" ; // resources/js/app.js import ' ../../vendor/edulazaro/wiremodal/resources/js/wiremodal.js ' ; Opening and closing from Livewire Define the modal once with the <x-wiremodal> component, give it a name , and fill the body and footer slots. Here is a delete confirmation: <x-wiremodal name="confirm-delete" title="Delete record?" size="sm"> <x-slot:body> <p>This action cannot be undone.</p> </x-slot:body> <x-slot:footer> <button type="button" data-wm-dismiss>Cancel</button> <button type="button" wire:click="destroy">Delete</button> </x-slot:footer> </x-wiremodal> The Cancel button carries data-wm-dismiss , and any element with that attribute closes the modal it sits in, so you never write a cancel handler. To open and close from the component itself, use the macros the package registers on every Livewire component: public function confirmDelete (): void { $this -> openModal ( 'confirm

A visitor lands on a website and immediately sees prices in the wrong currency, content written for another region, and shipping information that does not apply to them. Nothing is technically broken, yet the experience feels poorly designed. For international websites, location can be a useful personalization signal. Instead of asking every visitor to manually select a country before displaying relevant information, developers can use IP based geographic data as an initial indication of where a request originates. That is where ip geolocation for content personalisation can become useful. The objective is not to identify a person. It is to make an otherwise anonymous visit more contextually relevant. How can location improve content personalisation? Location can influence many small decisions that collectively affect the user experience. An ecommerce website may display a local currency. A news publisher may surface regional stories. A software company may show country specific documentation or availability information. The process is relatively simple. A visitor sends a request to a website. The server obtains the request's public IP address. That IP is sent to a geolocation service. The response provides geographic information. The application then selects content according to predefined rules. The crucial part is the final step. Geolocation provides data, but business logic determines what the visitor actually sees. Which approaches can websites use? One approach is manual location selection. The user chooses their country or region from a menu. This is transparent and usually accurate because the user explicitly provides the information. However, it adds friction and may be forgotten during future visits. Browser based location is another option. It can provide more precise positioning, but it normally requires permission and is not always appropriate for simple content personalization. IP based geolocation sits between these approaches. It requires no location

Samsung's latest memory and storage tech is mostly designed for data centers, not consoles or PCs.

Sites that start from a stock theme tend to look like it. This one did too — until recently it was the default PaperMod screen. The editorial homepage and unified article styling you're looking at came out of a single day of customization. This guide is that work written down, with the code. One principle drove all of it: never fork the theme. The theme stays a submodule and keeps receiving updates; you win with site-level files only. Hugo resolves same-path site files ahead of theme files, which makes this possible. The entire customization of this site is a handful of files: layouts/index.html ← full homepage replacement data/home/ko.yaml, en.yaml ← homepage copy (per language) assets/css/extended/home.css ← homepage styles assets/css/extended/custom.css ← unifying every other page The starting point is a Hugo site with PaperMod as a submodule, deployed to GitHub Pages. Basic installation is well covered by the PaperMod wiki , so I'll skip it. 1. Replace the homepage wholesale Create a single layouts/index.html and the homepage is yours. The theme's home template stays untouched. The key move: don't hardcode copy into the markup — pull it from data files. On a bilingual site, one template then serves both languages: {{- $copy := index .Site.Data.home .Site.Language.Lang -}} {{- $posts := first 4 (where .Site.RegularPages.ByDate.Reverse "Section" "blog") -}} <section class= "editorial-hero" > <p class= "editorial-eyebrow" > {{ $copy.hero.eyebrow }} </p> <h1> {{ range $i, $line := $copy.hero.titleLines }}{{ if $i }} <br> {{ end }}{{ $line }}{{ end }} </h1> <p class= "editorial-intro" > {{ $copy.hero.intro }} </p> </section> data/home/en.yaml holds nothing but words: hero : eyebrow : " IDEAS · PRODUCTS · OPPORTUNITIES" titleLines : - " Where ideas become products," - " and products become new opportunities." Copy edits stop requiring template changes, and adding a language is one more yaml file. Latest posts are pulled dynamically as above — handle the {{ else }} emp

A demo Andrej Karpathy posted over the weekend stuck with me. He gave Opus 5 a million-token context and the first paragraph of The Lord of the Rings, and asked for a procedural 3D rendering of the scene in Three.js. The model worked alone for about two hours, wrote 5,500 lines, and coordinated polygon placement, camera paths, and animation on its own. Total cost: about $10. The result is faster to watch than to describe. Most reactions read it as the next step past "draw a pelican SVG" benchmarks. Something else looked bigger to me. What changed isn't the model's artistry. It's the unit of delegation. The unit of delegation changed Until now, the work we handed agents came in prompt-sized pieces. One function, one bug, one file. Anything bigger, we decomposed ourselves. The reason was simple: with a small context, the early parts of a long job slide out of view, and coherence goes with them. A million tokens erases that premise. Everything the model wrote and tried across a two-hour session stays in view. When the desk is big enough, there is no reason to hand work over in slices. Delegation moves from the task to the session. That is the difference between a function call and a work session. The first, we decompose and supervise. The second, we hand over material and intent, and receive a result. Karpathy's entire contribution was picking the paragraph and watching the output two hours later. Where the builder's work moves When execution costs $10 and two hours, execution is no longer the bottleneck. Two things remain. On the way in: the brief. What goes into the context. Karpathy's input was one paragraph, but choosing it was the design act. Translated to our work, it becomes choosing which spec, brand guide, reference, or codebase goes in whole — and what stays out. On the way out: judgment. By what standard do you accept the result? Reviewing 5,500 lines one by one doesn't match session-sized delegation. Instead, you define "done" before the run, then judge the

This is disturbing: …a team of security researchers at UC San Diego, who found that a model of aftermarket car alarm known as the KARR Security System, installed in more than 2 million vehicles across the US by their estimate, can let any hacker within Bluetooth range send radio commands to silently unlock the car at will, turn off its alarm, honk the car’s horn or flash its lights, or even disable its ignition and leave a driver stranded.

Graphical tools are great, but most of my daily development now happens in the terminal. A good CLI tool saves time, integrates with automation, and keeps my workflow consistent across local development and CI/CD. Here are the 10 CLI tools I use the most. Apidog CLI If you're working with APIs, this is the tool I've found myself using the most. I use it to run API test scenarios, manage environments, and reuse the same tests in GitHub Actions instead of maintaining separate GUI workflows. Git Still the foundation of every development workflow. Docker CLI The fastest way to spin up local services and reproduce production environments. GitHub CLI Creating pull requests, reviewing issues, and managing repositories without leaving the terminal is a huge productivity boost. HTTPie Perfect for quick API requests when debugging or exploring endpoints. jq If you work with JSON every day, jq is almost indispensable. ripgrep (rg) Lightning-fast code searching. Once you start using it, it's hard to go back. fd A simpler and faster replacement for the traditional find command. kubectl Essential for anyone deploying applications to Kubernetes. just A lightweight task runner that helps automate repetitive development commands. Final Thoughts The biggest improvement to my workflow has been moving repetitive tasks into the terminal. API testing, deployments, version control, and automation all become easier when everything is scriptable. Among these tools, Apidog CLI has had the biggest impact because it lets me keep API testing in the same terminal-first workflow that I already use for development and CI/CD. What CLI tool couldn't you live without?

Part of "AI, engineering and what survives production", a series on the parts of building with AI that hold up once real traffic hits them. There is a claim going round that you have probably absorbed by now: AI-assisted development is making codebases worse. Refactoring is down, duplication is up, we are all writing more and revising less. The numbers behind it are real, the samples are enormous, and I found I had started repeating the conclusion in conversation without ever having checked it. Then it occurred to me that those figures are averages taken across hundreds of millions of changes from thousands of organisations, not one of which is mine. So what is the rate in your repository? Nobody has told you, and on current evidence nobody is going to. I set out to find mine, assumed it would take an afternoon, and spent three days discovering that the answer is far harder to get at than the confident version suggests. So this is not a piece about what AI does to code. It is about how to ask that question of your own repository without arriving at a wrong answer, which turned out to be the genuinely difficult part. The tool I built to do it is git-habits : free, local, and it reads no source code whatsoever. What git can actually tell you Git history is a surprisingly rich behavioural record. Not of quality, about which it knows nothing at all, but of habits: how often you commit, how large those commits are, whether you go back and change what you wrote last month, and whether anybody still touches the old code. That is a narrower thing than quality and it is the thing the industry claims has changed, so it is the thing worth measuring. Four signals are computable from commit metadata alone, without opening a single source file: Moved lines. The share of changed lines sitting in files git detected as renamed or copied. It is the closest thing history offers to "somebody went back and reorganised this." Legacy touch. The share of changes landing on files nobody has

Introduction In June 2026, the IETF published RFC 10008 - the first new general-purpose HTTP method since PATCH was introduced in 2010. The method is called QUERY . In simple terms: QUERY = Safety of GET + Body of POST You can now send complex search/filter queries in the request body, while the server knows the operation is safe and idempotent . This means caching, automatic retries, and CDNs can all work properly. This single change can finally end the long-standing practice of using POST for search. The Problem We Had 1. Limitations of GET With GET, query parameters go in the URL: GET /products?category=electronics&price_min=1000&price_max=50000&brand=samsung,apple&sort=-rating&page=1&limit=20 When filters become complex (JSON filters, nested conditions, many tags), the URL easily exceeds 8,000 characters. Many servers, proxies, and browsers struggle with this. URLs also get logged, bookmarked, and shared — which is often undesirable. 2. Problems with POST So many developers started using POST for search: POST /products/search Content-Type: application/json { "filters": { "category": "electronics", "price": { "min": 1000, "max": 50000 }, "brands": ["samsung", "apple"] }, "sort": "-rating", "page": 1, "limit": 20 } But POST is not safe and not idempotent . That means: Caches and CDNs cannot safely cache the response Automatic retries after network failures are risky The server may treat it as a state-changing operation We have been pretending that a read operation is a write operation for years. What is the QUERY Method? According to RFC 10008: A QUERY requests that the request target process the enclosed content in a safe and idempotent manner and then respond with the result of that processing. In plain English: You send the query in the request body (like POST) The server processes it and returns the result It does not change any server state (like GET) Sending the same request multiple times produces the same result (idempotent) Comparison Table Property GET Q

At the end of August, NASA is set to launch the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Its quest is to help us better understand how the universe works, from the glue-like dark matter that keeps galaxies together to the elusive dark energy that drives the expansion of the cosmos.…

A single-author repo of instruction files, not code, Ponytail passed 44,000 GitHub stars in nine days by making coding agents stop over-building. Its headline claim of 80-94% less code came from a flawed baseline; after a contributor said so, the maintainer rebuilt the benchmark as a real agentic run and published a lower figure of 54%. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

Microsoft and Uno Platform have released the first stable versions in the SkiaSharp 4 series, beginning with SkiaSharp 4.148.0 and followed shortly afterward by 4.150.0. A 4.151.0 prerelease line is also available, demonstrating the project’s new approach of aligning package versions and release cadence with upstream Skia milestones. By Edin Kapić

Wispr Flow's new terms of service indicate it will introduce a notetaker that generates meeting summaries and action items.

Wispr Flow, a popular dictation tool, has released a live notetaker that transcribes and summarizes meetings. It joins a growing wave of AI notetakers for the workplace.

2026 is shaping up to be an excellent year for Apple TV. Apple's streaming service has built out an impressive slate that spans returning favorites like Silo and Sugar to all-new hits including OnlyFans-inspired dramedies, terrifying comedies, and paranoid tech thrillers. But the most important release might be a feel-good sports sitcom. After what seemed […]

Remember everything you've worked on Discussion | Link

submitted by /u/donmyar4 [link] [留言]

Most "which AI coding model is best?" debates I see devolve into vibes. Someone pastes a cherry-picked diff, someone else counters with a different cherry-picked diff, and nobody learns anything transferable. The problem isn't the models — it's that we almost never evaluate them on our code, with our constraints, using a method we could rerun tomorrow. This article is the harness I wish more teams built before arguing. It's a small, language-agnostic evaluation loop you can point at any model you have access to — including free tiers — and get a defensible answer to a narrow question: does this model help with the tasks I actually do? The evaluation trap Public benchmarks (HumanEval-style tasks, leaderboard scores) measure performance on curated problems with clean specifications. Your work is rarely that. Real tasks look like: "Add retry logic to this half-migrated HTTP client without breaking the old call sites." "Write tests for a function whose behavior depends on a config file three directories up." "Refactor this 200-line function, but the ORM calls must stay in the same transaction." These tasks share a trait: correctness is checkable, but only by you . Your test suite, your type checker, your lint rules. That's actually good news — it means evaluation can be automated against artifacts you already have. The artifact: a task-runner harness The core idea is dumb on purpose. Define a set of tasks as directories. Each task has a prompt, a snapshot of the relevant code, and a verification command. The harness applies a model's patch and runs the verifier. No scoring model, no LLM-as-judge — just your own build. eval/ ├── tasks/ │ ├── 001-retry-http-client/ │ │ ├── prompt.md │ │ ├── repo/ # snapshot of the relevant files │ │ └── verify.sh # exit 0 = pass │ ├── 002-test-config-loader/ │ └── 003-split-billing-fn/ └── run_eval.py Here's a minimal runner (Python 3.10+, stdlib only): #!/usr/bin/env python3 """ run_eval.py — apply a model-produced patch to each task and

Most comparisons of AI coding models are useless to you. Not because the authors are dishonest, but because they test on their problems: greenfield LeetCode-style prompts, demo TODO apps, or a framework you don't use. Your codebase has different failure modes — a weird build system, a legacy module nobody wants to touch, tests that take 40 minutes. This article is a small, reproducible harness you can run in an afternoon to compare coding models against your own repository, with scoring based on your own test suite instead of vibes. The artifact is ~120 lines of shell and Python, plus a scoring rubric you can adapt. The core idea Instead of asking "which model is best?", ask: on a fixed set of real tasks from my repo, which model produces patches that pass my tests, fastest, with the least hand-holding? That gives you three measurable axes: Correctness — does the resulting diff pass the relevant tests? Edit locality — did the model touch only the files it should have? Iteration cost — how many prompt rounds did it take to get there? Step 1: Build a task set from your own git history The cheapest source of realistic tasks is your own commit log. Find commits that fixed a bug or added a small feature, then check out the parent commit and ask the model to reproduce the fix (without showing it the actual fix). #!/usr/bin/env bash # extract_tasks.sh — mine candidate tasks from git history # Usage: ./extract_tasks.sh <repo_path> <count> set -euo pipefail REPO = " $1 " ; COUNT = " ${ 2 :- 8 } " cd " $REPO " # Small, self-contained commits: <= 3 files, <= 80 changed lines, has a test file touched git log --oneline --no-merges -n 300 | while read -r sha msg ; do files = $( git diff-tree --no-commit-id --name-only -r " $sha " | wc -l ) lines = $( git diff --shortstat " $sha ^" " $sha " | grep -oE '[0-9]+ insertion|[0-9]+ deletion' | grep -oE '[0-9]+' | paste -sd + | bc ) if [ " $files " -le 3 ] && [ " ${ lines :- 999 } " -le 80 ] ; then echo " $sha | $files | $lines | $msg "

SpaceX is preparing to build a terrestrial mobile network to "acquire quite a few" of the customers now subscribed to T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon. The message to compete head-to-head with the US carriers was delivered by SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell and CEO Elon Musk during the Q&A section of the company's first earnings call. "The […]