标签：#p

Every game jam lives or dies by its theme, and this year's June Solstice Game Jam handed developers something deceptively simple: the longest day of the year. What emerged from that single prompt wasn't a wave of near-identical sunrise simulators — it was a scattershot of genres, mechanics, and emotional registers, all orbiting the same core idea of light and time. One Theme, a Dozen Interpretations The solstice lends itself to more than one reading, and jam entrants leaned into that ambiguity. Some treated "longest day" literally, building puzzle games where a slowly arcing sun becomes a physical obstacle — light that reveals hidden platforms, burns away fog, or casts shadows players must dodge or exploit. Others went abstract, using the solstice as a metaphor for endurance, building narrative pieces about characters pushing through their hardest, brightest, most exhausting day. Sci-fi submissions reframed the concept entirely: distant planets with artificial suns, space stations timing their orbits to a 24-hour light cycle, or crews racing against a ship's failing life-support "day" before darkness means death. Meanwhile, a handful of more grounded, historically-minded entries used the solstice as a backdrop for ritual and tradition, drawing on centuries of human fascination with the year's turning point. Light and Time as Game Mechanics What makes this jam interesting from a design standpoint is how consistently teams turned an atmospheric theme into an actual mechanic rather than just window dressing. Light became a resource to manage, a weapon, a timer, or a stealth tool. Time compression and dilation showed up frequently too — some games squeezed an entire day-night cycle into a five-minute play session, forcing players to make fast decisions as shadows visibly crept across the map in real time. This is a common jam trick: constraints breed creativity. When a 48- or 72-hour deadline collides with a theme built around a literal clock, developers naturally start

A few years into my career, I went back to a project I'd built solo about eighteen months earlier. I was proud of it at the time. It had a custom state management solution, several layers of abstraction, a utility library I'd assembled myself, and what I distinctly remember thinking of as "a robust architecture." Reading through it again, I spent twenty minutes just trying to understand why I'd built a particular module the way I had. The logic was split across four files. There were abstractions on top of abstractions. Two functions did nearly the same thing with slightly different names. A third was never called anywhere. The worst part wasn't the code itself. It was realizing that a simpler version, one I could have written in a day instead of a week, would have done exactly the same thing with a fraction of the complexity. That experience changed how I think about software development more than any course, book, or conference ever did. Writing less code, genuinely less, often requires more thinking than writing more. And the developers who figure that out early tend to produce work that holds up significantly better over time. Why More Code Doesn't Mean Better Code There's a belief that's easy to absorb early in a development career, that skill shows up in volume. More features, more files, more clever solutions. A complex system feels like proof that something serious was built here. That feeling is almost entirely wrong. More code means more surface area for bugs. Every line is a line that can break, a line that needs to be read, a line that needs to be tested, a line that a new team member has to understand before they can confidently change anything. None of those costs are trivial, and they compound. Complexity hides bugs. A simple function with one responsibility is easy to test and easy to debug. A function that does five things, or calls three other functions that each do three things, creates a web of possible failure points that's genuinely difficult t

wa.me/username doesn't work yet — I verified it two ways, here's what to use instead If you've tried to build a "share my WhatsApp" link using a @username instead of a phone number, you've probably assumed wa.me/username (or wa.me/u/username ) works the same way wa.me/15551234567 does. It doesn't — at least not yet, as of writing this. I wanted a definitive answer instead of trusting blog posts or AI chatbot answers (more on that below), so I tested it two independent ways. Test 1: server response curl -I https://wa.me/u/some_real_reserved_username Every username path I tried — including a certified-real, currently-reserved username — 302-redirects to: api.whatsapp.com/resolve/?deeplink=...&not_found=1 Compare that to the phone-number path, which redirects to: api.whatsapp.com/send/?phone=...&type=phone_number Different resolver, different outcome. The server-side route for usernames exists, but every lookup currently resolves as "not found" — even for real, live usernames. Test 2: real device Server response alone doesn't rule out Universal Links / App Links intercepting the URL client-side before it ever hits a server — curl can't see that. So I also opened all three link variants ( wa.me/username , wa.me/u/username , and a redirect through my own domain) on a real phone with WhatsApp installed. None of them opened a chat. Why this matters if you're building anything around WhatsApp usernames WhatsApp has rolled out @username handles as a real, user-facing feature — but it hasn't published a public deep-link spec for opening a chat from one, the way it has for phone numbers for years. If you're building a tool, a profile page, a business card generator, anything that assumes wa.me/username "just works," it doesn't, for anyone. One more data point: I asked Meta AI directly about this, with the counter-evidence above in hand. It kept asserting the link already works and didn't engage with the evidence when pushed. That's a useful reminder that chatbot answers about

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is free and source-available on Github. Star git-lrc to help devs discover the project. Do give it a try and share your feedback. Every CS program hammers the same seven into you. Arrays, linked lists, hash tables, stacks, queues, graphs, trees. You could probably recite their Big O complexities in your sleep at this point, and honestly, for 90% of the code you'll ever write, that's plenty. But every now and then a system hits a wall that none of the seven basics can handle gracefully, and someone had to invent a weirder tool to patch the gap. I went down a rabbit hole recently looking at a handful of these, and I liked them enough that I wanted to write them up properly instead of just leaving forty open tabs to rot. Fair warning, there is some depth here. Get a drink. When your hash table can't promise you a fast answer: Bloom filters Normal hash tables are great until you need to ask "have I possibly seen this before" across a dataset way too big to store in memory. Think a crawler checking billions of URLs, or a database deciding whether it's even worth going to disk to look for a row. A Bloom filter solves this by giving up on certainty in one direction. It's a fixed array of bits, plus a small handful of independent hash functions. Adding an item flips a handful of bits on. Checking for an item hashes it the same way and checks whether those same bits are on. If any single bit is off, that item was never added, full stop, no ambiguity. If they're all on, the item was probably added, but two unrelated items can accidentally light up the same bits, so you might get a false alarm. The asymmetry is the entire design. Zero false negatives, occasional false positives. It's the data structure equivalent of a metal detector at a stadium gate. It'll never wave through someone with a knife, but it might beep at your belt buckle and make you empty your pockets for nothing.

TLDR: The most powerful AI on the planet, only a few days of access. Maximize it. I'd first like to give credit where it's due: @trickell - Thank you for sharing Network Chuck's youtube video with me. The reference video is found here guys if you missed it: Network Chuck's Video on Fable I first started by creating a nice template for tech documentation for personal use. It created a beautiful piece of work in about 5 minutes - something I could easily expand on in the future. Here is what it generated for me with after a one or two careful prompts: Clean UI, Easy Navigation! Created this personal reference guide for studying for CCNA (Network Chucks Summer of CCNA) Wanna see it? It lives here: Techdocs But after learning about the true span of Fable's power, I started asking the serious questions, the ones that are life-changing. How can I increase my quality of life based on my resume, experience, and current life circumstances? I wrote about 2 pages of life issues that needed fixing - you know the stuff that slowly eats away at your soul, like student loan debt and people that are challenging to work with? Yes - I told it my biggest issues and instructed it to give me actionable plans that are free or low-cost. Even fable told me that this was a lot. 😅 Getting Organized Knowing the scope of my own problems I knew that my thoughts and processes had to be organized. Luckily for me, I remembered I had a good place to do that. A place that Fable could connect to and place documentation in place for me with checklists, notes, summaries and actionable plans. That app is called Notion, and some of you may have heard of it. No one is going to organize your life for you, no one, except for AI I couldn’t think of a better place for lightning fast critical life-admin documentation on the spot. And I can tell you, this integration works like a charm, and I highly recommend it. For a busy person with a million ideas, this is great. Anxiety Relief I had a tremendous amount of

Explore the latest CodeZero canary release featuring AI-powered flow generation, a brand-new module system, and a new execution results view in the IDE. We are excited to announce the release of our latest canary version, one of the biggest steps in the development of CodeZero so far. This update brings artificial intelligence into the platform for the first time, introduces a completely new module system, and gives you full insight into your flow runs with a new execution results view in the IDE. Build flows with AI CodeZero can now generate flows for you. Simply describe what your automation should do, pick one of the available AI models, and watch your flow being built in real time. This is the first milestone on our journey to make backend automation accessible to everyone, whether you prefer building visually or simply describing your idea in plain language. A smarter way to organize: modules With this release, the entire platform has been restructured around modules. Functions, flow types, and data types are now neatly bundled and delivered as modules, making it much clearer which capabilities are available in your project at any time. You can see all available modules at a glance, configure them individually for each project, and when adding a new step to a flow, suggestions are now conveniently grouped by module. The result is a tidier, more intuitive building experience that scales with your projects. Execution results at a glance Understanding what your flows are doing just got a lot easier. The IDE now features a new execution results view that shows you the outcome of every run, step by step, so finding and fixing problems takes seconds instead of guesswork. Results are saved as well, letting you revisit previous runs whenever you need them. Behind the scenes, this release also lays the complete groundwork for test executions, so soon you will be able to start test runs directly from the IDE. A better building experience The IDE has received plenty of lo

An astrolabe doesn’t map every star. It gives you a way to find your position relative to the ones that hold still. That’s the instrument I reach for when someone asks which AI tool they should be using. The honest answer is that the tools will be different in six months. The layers won’t. I spent a week trying to make sense of a handful of names that kept showing up in the same conversations. Tessl . Goose . Archestra . Kestra . Modelplane . RAG , MCP , half a dozen others orbiting nearby. Each one has its own pitch, its own funding round, its own reason it’s the thing you should adopt next. Taken together they read like noise. Taken apart, they sit on different floors of the same building. The agent loop again, the one I keep coming back to. Once you place each tool on a floor, the noise turns into a map. Tessl sits left of the loop , at the intent layer. Turn a spec into something an agent runs against directly. This is the one tool on the list that pushes back instead of going along with it. A well-formed spec is not the same thing as a team that agrees on what the spec means. The Agora produces the second thing as a byproduct of producing the first. Tessl produces the first and assumes the second follows. It doesn’t, automatically. That’s the whole argument. RAG and MCP are plumbing. Protocol, not position. They carry context into the loop and don’t take a side in any argument about who should be in the room when the spec gets written. They’re also the one floor with an actual standard. MCP, A2A , ACP , all under Linux Foundation governance now, joint working groups, cross-protocol commitments. Passing data between systems is a solved problem with decades of precedent behind it, so it standardized almost on contact. Nothing else on this floor plan has that. Governance, orchestration, the harness, the spec layer: every vendor is still building its own version and calling it the obvious one. The standard showed up first at the floor that mattered least to this ar

Top up your Qi2 Android phone or MagSafe iPhone with a magnetic wireless charging stand, pad, car charger, or power bank.

submitted by /u/joladev [link] [留言]

Explore decades of incredible images and videos of stars, planets, moons, and galaxies—most of which are free to use and share.

Plus: Alleged Scattered Spider hacking member extradited, dozens of license plate reader errors, and Indian officials are concerned about WhatsApp’s username rollout.

Apple built a tool for people with cognitive disabilities, but I accidentally discovered it’s also the best kids’ phone setup no one is talking about—not even Apple.

We have all been there. You are sitting at your desk late at night, your code is throwing errors that...

Book: Agents in Production — Building, Tracing, and Shipping Multi-Step AI You Can Trust Also by me: Observability for LLM Applications — the companion book in The AI Engineer's Library (2-book series) My project: Hermes IDE | GitHub — an IDE for developers who ship with Claude Code and other AI coding tools Me: xgabriel.com | GitHub In June 2025 two engineering teams posted opposite advice in the same week. Anthropic shipped How we built our multi-agent research system : an orchestrator dispatching subtasks to worker agents, beating a single agent by 90.2% on breadth-first research. A few days later Cognition, the team behind Devin, published Don't Build Multi-Agents , arguing that parallel subagents without shared context produce fragile systems. Both were right. They were describing different workloads. Anthropic's research agent is embarrassingly parallel: four workers go read four things and come back with four small summaries. Cognition's target is writing code, where every edit depends on every other edit and context cannot be sliced. Most people get the plumbing wrong, not the decision. Once you have two agents that need to coordinate, you have to choose how they talk. That choice decides your failure modes long before the models do. Handoffs vs a shared bus There are two ways to wire agents together, and they fail differently. A handoff transfers control. Agent A finishes, hands the whole conversation to Agent B, and steps out. This reads well in a demo. In production it means the transcript grows on every hop, and by the fourth agent you are paying to re-read a conversation nobody trimmed. Handoffs also lose the parent: once A hands off to B, nobody is holding the original task to check the final answer against it. A shared bus keeps a supervisor in charge. Workers never talk to each other. They receive a small typed task, do the work, and return a small typed artifact to the supervisor, which composes the result. This is the shape of Anthropic's research

Book: Agents in Production — Building, Tracing, and Shipping Multi-Step AI You Can Trust Also by me: Observability for LLM Applications — the companion book in The AI Engineer's Library (2-book series) My project: Hermes IDE | GitHub — an IDE for developers who ship with Claude Code and other AI coding tools Me: xgabriel.com | GitHub The agent works on your laptop. It passes evals. Your manager asks when it ships and you say Monday, because the modeling is done. Then you try to put it behind a load balancer and it falls apart, because you deployed it like a web service. An agent is not a web service. A web service answers in milliseconds and forgets. An agent thinks for minutes, burns tokens across two or three providers, streams partial output to a browser, and sometimes decides to call delete_invoice on the eighth turn. Every deployment decision you make flows from one question: what does this thing do to your infrastructure while it is running? Here is how to package it, where to hold state, and how to scale a workload whose bottleneck is a model call you do not control. The shape is decided by the longest step The single rule that saves you the most pain: an agent's deployment shape is decided by its longest step, not its average step. A support chatbot answers in two seconds. A code-review agent thinks for six minutes. A research agent runs for forty. You cannot put all three behind the same HTTP endpoint and expect any of them to survive. Pick the pattern that matches the longest step, then cap the rest with timeouts. Under 30s → stateless HTTP endpoint (Cloud Run, Fly.io). 30s to 5m with a user watching → streaming over WebSocket or SSE. 5m to an hour, async → queue plus worker (Temporal, Inngest, or Redis). Longer than an hour → still queue plus worker, whether you like it or not. Do not hold an HTTP request open for forty minutes. Something you did not know existed will kill it at the worst moment: a proxy, a CDN, a load-balancer idle timeout. Package it: p

How to Compress Images in the Browser with Canvas API Every image you upload to a "free" online compressor is sent to a server — often without you knowing what happens to it afterward. For a tool that processes your private photos, that's a terrible design. Here's how to build (or use) an image compressor that runs entirely in the browser using the HTML5 Canvas API. No uploads, no server costs, and unlimited file sizes. The Core Technique: Canvas toBlob() The key API is HTMLCanvasElement.toBlob() : js const canvas = document.createElement('canvas'); const ctx = canvas.getContext('2d'); const img = new Image(); img.onload = () => { canvas.width = img.naturalWidth; canvas.height = img.naturalHeight; ctx.drawImage(img, 0, 0); canvas.toBlob((blob) => { const url = URL.createObjectURL(blob); }, 'image/jpeg', 0.8); }; img.src = 'your-image.jpg'; The second parameter is the MIME type (image/jpeg, image/png, image/webp, image/avif). The third is quality (0–1). Step-Down Resizing for Large Images If you're compressing a 6000×4000 px photo, drawing it at full resolution onto a canvas can eat 70+ MB of memory. Step-down resizing halves the dimensions repeatedly: function stepDownEncode(img, maxDim, quality) { let w = img.naturalWidth; let h = img.naturalHeight; let src = img; while (w > maxDim * 2 || h > maxDim * 2) { w = Math.floor(w / 2); h = Math.floor(h / 2); const temp = document.createElement('canvas'); temp.width = w; temp.height = h; temp.getContext('2d').drawImage(src, 0, 0, w, h); src = temp; } const canvas = document.createElement('canvas'); canvas.width = w; canvas.height = h; canvas.getContext('2d').drawImage(src, 0, 0, w, h); return new Promise((resolve) => { canvas.toBlob((blob) => resolve(blob), 'image/jpeg', quality); }); } This prevents memory crashes and actually produces better quality (step-down preserves more detail than a single jump). Comparing Real-World Results Format Avg Original Avg Compressed Avg Savings JPEG → JPEG (Q80) 3.2 MB 0.8 MB 75% PNG → We

Book: Agents in Production — Building, Tracing, and Shipping Multi-Step AI You Can Trust Also by me: Observability for LLM Applications — the companion book in The AI Engineer's Library (2-book series) My project: Hermes IDE | GitHub — an IDE for developers who ship with Claude Code and other AI coding tools Me: xgabriel.com | GitHub On April 2, 2026, Microsoft shipped agent-framework 1.0 and, in the same blog post, moved AutoGen into maintenance mode. Semantic Kernel went with it. Three overlapping projects folded into one package with stable APIs and long-term support. Microsoft framed the move as a consolidation. If you had an AutoGen project that morning, you woke up with a migration. That is the shape of this whole category. The framework landscape you pick from today is not the one you picked from a year ago, and it will not be the one you pick from next year. So the useful question is not "which framework is best." It is "which framework has which wedge, and which trade-off comes with it." Here is an honest read on six frameworks worth installing in 2026, and when to reach for each. The churn is the feature, not the bug Before the tour, one thing that changed the math: the wire formats underneath these SDKs converged. Every framework here speaks MCP for tools. Most support A2A for cross-framework handoffs. Model Context Protocol started as an Anthropic proposal at the start of 2025 and is now the default way agents pick up external tools. That convergence means the framework you pick locks you in less than it used to. You are still locked at the abstraction layer, though. Migrating a production system from CrewAI to Pydantic AI is a rewrite of every Agent definition and every tool decorator. The pick is sticky. Choose it with that in mind. LangGraph : durability as the wedge Reach for LangGraph when your agent has to survive a crash. It models the agent as a graph with checkpointers backed by Postgres or SQLite, so a workflow that dies at step seven resumes a

Book: Agents in Production — Building, Tracing, and Shipping Multi-Step AI You Can Trust Also by me: Observability for LLM Applications — the companion book in The AI Engineer's Library (2-book series) My project: Hermes IDE | GitHub — an IDE for developers who ship with Claude Code and other AI coding tools Me: xgabriel.com | GitHub You ship an agent that resolves billing disputes. It works in the demo. Two weeks later a support ticket lands: the agent tried to refund $4,000 on a $19 charge. You read the trace. The model returned a JSON blob, your code did json.loads , pulled amount , and passed it straight to the payments API. No cap. No type. No check. The model hallucinated a number and your code trusted it. The model is stochastic. Your code does not have to be. The gap between those two facts is where most production agent bugs live, and it is exactly the gap Pydantic AI is built to close. The wedge is types Most agent frameworks hand you an Agent object and a bag of strings. Pydantic AI hands you Agent[Deps, Output] — a generic parameterized by its dependency type and its output type. The IDE and your type checker read those parameters. So does the runtime. Install pulls in the framework plus an optional tracing extra: pip install "pydantic-ai[logfire]" The smallest program that earns its keep: from dataclasses import dataclass from pydantic import BaseModel from pydantic_ai import Agent , RunContext @dataclass class Deps : customer_name : str class SupportReply ( BaseModel ): reply : str escalate : bool agent = Agent ( " anthropic:claude-opus-4-8 " , deps_type = Deps , output_type = SupportReply , system_prompt = " You are a support agent. " , ) A tool is a plain function whose type hints become the schema the model sees, and the run returns the validated SupportReply : @agent.tool def customer_name ( ctx : RunContext [ Deps ]) -> str : return ctx . deps . customer_name result = agent . run_sync ( " What is my name? " , deps = Deps ( customer_name = " Ana "

Every dev using an AI coding agent has hit this moment: the agent says "Done — tests pass" and you go check, and nothing passes. Or worse, nothing changed at all. The instinct is to ask "why did it just lie to me?" That's the wrong question. It assumes intent. There isn't any. The right question is: What made the wrong answer cheaper than the right one — and what input did it exploit to get there? That question always has an answer. And the answer is always your next check. The mantra An LLM agent isn't a person deciding whether to be honest. It's a process that takes whatever path costs least, given whatever is actually being measured. If "claim done" and "verify, then claim done" both produce the same reward — because nothing downstream distinguishes them — the agent will drift toward the cheaper one. Every time. This isn't a flaw you can prompt your way out of. "Please don't lie to me" doesn't change the cost structure. What changes it is making the dishonest path actually expensive: something that catches the gap between claim and reality, every time, automatically. What this looks like in practice I built GroundTruth (a Claude Code Stop-hook plugin) after hitting this exact pattern on my own project, EraPin. Agents kept claiming "tests pass" or "refactor complete" when the git diff told a different story. Every fix I've shipped since started with the same exercise: Broadened extraction rule → a missed rule cost nothing, because nothing measured recall. Fix: track what's not being parsed, not just what is. Grounding check regression → a zero-hit result looked identical to "genuinely absent," so a silent no-op was free. Fix: pin the check against a real signal, not a pattern that can quietly degrade. Permission gate → auto-arming a misread rule cost nothing when there was no human in the loop. Fix: nothing gets armed without explicit approval. Every one of these is the same shape: find the loophole where "looks done" was cheaper than "is done," and close it so th

Stop Feeling Like a Fraud. Start Owning Your Success. Discussion | Link