标签：#p

OpenAI Agents SDK 0.13 → 0.17: Three Breaking Changes You Will Hit The OpenAI Agents SDK moved from 0.13 to 0.17 in five weeks (April 9 – May 19, 2026). That's 19 releases, including three breaking changes. Two of them are silent — they change runtime behavior without raising an error at upgrade time. If you're running agents on 0.13.x, this is the migration guide you need before you upgrade. The Three Breaks Break #1: ModelRefusalError (v0.15.0) — Silent to Loud The change: Model refusals used to return empty-string output. Now they raise an exception. What this means: If your code treated refusals as output == "" or checked for empty responses, you were silent-failing gracefully. That behavior changed. A model refusal now raises ModelRefusalError and will crash your agent run unless you handle it. What you need to do: Register a "model_refusal" error handler before upgrading past 0.15.0: from openai.agents import Agent , RunConfig def handle_refusal ( error ): print ( f " Model refused: { error . reason } " ) return " Model refused to respond. Try rephrasing. " agent = Agent ( model = " gpt-4 " , tools = [...], ) config = RunConfig ( on_error = { " model_refusal " : handle_refusal , } ) response = agent . run ( " ... " , config = config ) Without the handler, you'll see: ModelRefusalError: model declined to process this request This is an intentional change — OpenAI wants refusals to be explicit, not silent. But it means your error handling has to change. Impact: Any agent that doesn't add a refusal handler will crash on a refusal. High-risk if your agents field user input directly. Break #2: Default Model Changed (v0.16.0) — Silent Model Switch The change: The default model switched from gpt-4.1 to gpt-5.4-mini . What this means: If you created an agent without explicitly setting model= , you were running on gpt-4.1. On upgrade to 0.16.0+, that same code silently switches to gpt-5.4-mini. This isn't just a version bump — gpt-5.4-mini ships with different defaults

We’ve compiled an overview of some of the top alternative browsers available today aiming to challenge Chrome and Safari.

terraform plan is honest about what it's going to do. The problem is it's also verbose, repetitive, and full of cosmetic changes (like recomputed tags) mixed in with real ones (like a database instance scheduled for -/+ replace ). On a 400-line plan, the dangerous changes hide. This is the kind of task AI is actually good at: skimming structured text, flagging the entries that matter, ignoring the rest. But "paste plan into Claude" is not the workflow. There's a specific shape to this that works. Why people get this wrong The natural instinct is to copy the plan output and paste it into a chat: Terraform will perform the following actions : # aws_instance.web will be updated in-place ~ resource "aws_instance" "web" { id = "i-0abc123def456" ~ instance_type = "t3.small" - > "t3.medium" ... The model will respond with a sentence about each line. You'll scroll. You'll skim. You'll miss the -/+ replace on the database because it's in the middle of 30 routine updates. This is the same failure mode as pasting a wall of logs and asking "is anything wrong?" The model is too polite to skip things. You need to tell it to. The format that actually works: JSON terraform show -json tfplan outputs a structured representation of the plan that's much easier to reason about than the text format. Two reasons: The "actions" field is explicit. Each resource_change has a change.actions array — ["create"] , ["delete"] , ["update"] , or ["delete", "create"] for replace. No ambiguity. You can filter before pasting. With jq , you can extract only the dangerous changes, drop the noise, and feed a 20-line summary into the AI instead of a 400-line plan. Try this: terraform plan -out = tfplan terraform show -json tfplan > plan.json # Get just the dangerous changes jq '[.resource_changes[] | select(.change.actions | contains(["delete"])) | {address, type, actions: .change.actions}]' plan.json That's the AI's input. Compact, unambiguous, and pre-filtered to the changes that need a human decision.

submitted by /u/Critical-Ratio-3190 [link] [留言]

The difficulty If you’re using Google Cloud, you’re probably paying for stuff you don’t need anymore—a server someone forgot to turn off, a storage disk someone forgot to delete, or an IP address someone forgot to release. "That waste is costing us money." It consumes electricity. It generates carbon emissions. Almost nobody tracks those alongside the cost. I wanted a tool that could find both problems simultaneously, without me having to think. So I made one. Live demo: https://greenops-dashboard-845589445410.us-central1.run.app/ Code: https://github.com/raghu-putta/greenops-agent How it works: 4 AI agents in a row Imagine an assembly line in which each worker has only one job: Carbon Scout scans your Google Cloud project and reports on everything that looks like it might be unused or forgotten—idle servers, unattached storage disks, and unused reserved IP addresses. GreenOps Analyzer takes that list and adds two numbers to each item: how much it’s costing you in dollars, and how much it’s costing the planet in carbon emissions. Optimization Executor takes each finding and makes it an action: stop this server, delete this disk, release this address. It shows you the plan first; it only changes if you say go. Report Generator rolls up the entire run into a downloadable report so you (or your boss or your sustainability team) have something nice to look at. Powered by: FastAPI (the web framework), Google’s Agent Development Kit (a library for building AI agents), Gemini 2.5 Pro (the AI model doing the reasoning), and Google Cloud Run (where it’s all running). The “bug” that was not a bug: The dashboard has a terminal-style live window that shows you what each agent is doing in real time, using a technique called Server-Sent Events (basically, the server streams updates to your browser one at a time instead of making you refresh). And then at some point that window just stopped showing anything. Nothing. My backend logs told me that the updates were still being sent,

Unpopulate opinion: Fewer PRs done with proper prompting, review, and refinement usually win long term. 3 thoughtful PRs a day > 40 poorly thought ones no matter how many AI agents reviewed them.

Bolting an LLM onto your pull requests is a weekend project. Building AI code review that your engineers don't disable within two weeks is the actual problem. The failure mode isn't missing bugs — it's crying wolf. Post twenty nitpicks and three hallucinations on someone's PR and they'll mute the bot forever. This is the pipeline we built on Mattrx to earn — and keep — that trust. Mattrx is our multi-tenant marketing-analytics SaaS: ~95k lines of C#, 11 engineers, and enough pull requests that senior-reviewer time was the bottleneck. We tried the naive thing first — pipe the changed file into a model, post the output — and watched the team stop reading it in nine days . TL;DR Dimension Human-only / naive AI (before) AI review pipeline (after) Coverage selective / whole-file dump every PR, diff-focused First-review latency ~6 hours (wait for a human) ~3 minutes (AI first pass) Context none / a naked file diff + call sites + conventions Reviewers one mega-prompt specialized dimensions, in parallel False positives ~35% (so it gets ignored) ~6% (adversarially verified) Merge control human, or nothing severity gate; human always decides Governance none gateway: audit, cost, secret redaction ~90 PRs/week across 11 engineers; the pipeline reviews 100%. First-pass review latency 6h → 3 min. False-positive rate ~35% → ~6% — the single number that decides whether the bot lives or dies. Escaped defects to production down ~40%; senior-reviewer time down ~30%. ~$0.05 per PR (cheap model for style, frontier only for correctness). The one mental shift: AI code review is not about finding issues — models find plenty. It's about not crying wolf . The product is trust, and trust is a false-positive-rate problem. Verify before you comment; let the AI propose and the human dispose. The naive approach — and why it collapses // BEFORE: dump the whole changed file into one prompt, post whatever comes back. foreach ( var file in pr . ChangedFiles ) { var text = await File . ReadAllTextAsyn

Notes from shipping a real-world PWA in Korea: Vite SSG is worth it. SPAs lose Korean SEO because Naver's crawler doesn't fully render JS. Leaflet > Mapbox for cost-sensitive projects. Free OSM tiles + zero cost. Firebase Hosting rewrites let you have deep URLs (/city/suwon) without a backend. KakaoTalk share is non-negotiable in Korea — 70%+ of social traffic. PWA install banner: don't auto-prompt, let the user discover. Project: https://gyeonggi-currency-map.web.app?ref=devto&utm_source=devto&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=multi-site-bot

Cuando un SaaS quiere recuperar usuarios de prueba que se quedaron a medio camino, casi siempre empieza por email. El problema es que una sola prueva mal hecha puede mezclar cohortes, disparar métricas falsas y dejar a marketing discutiendo con backend sobre datos que nunca fueron confiables. Ese tipo de campaña merece más cuidado del que parece. A simple vista solo hay que revisar asunto, CTA y enlace final, pero en la práctica también hay que comprobar segmentación, ventanas de tiempo, estados de cuenta y eventos analíticos. Si alguien en tu equipo busca cosas como facebook temp email para crear usuarios rápidos, en el fondo está intentando resolver eso: probar sin tocar bandejas reales ni contaminar reportes. Por qué los correos de reactivación confunden más de lo que ayudan Un correo de reactivación no se envía a cualquiera. Sale cuando una persona creó cuenta, probó algo, se quedó quieta y entra en una regla específica. Si esa regla se valida con datos sucios, el equipo termina optimizando un mensaje para usuarios equivocados. En SaaS esto pega fuerte porque marketing y producto suelen mirar la misma campaña con preguntas distintas. Marketing quiere saber si el copy reabre interés. Producto quiere saber si el usuario vuelve al flujo correcto. Backend quiere confirmar que la automatización no reenvía a quien ya convirtió. Cuando esas capas no se prueban juntas, aveces el correo “funciona” y aun así el experimento sale mal. Si ya estás ordenando tus pruebas de onboarding en SaaS , el siguiente paso natural es tratar la reactivación como un flujo distinto. Tiene otra intención, otra ventana de tiempo y otro riesgo de mezclar datos. Paso a paso para probar una campaña sin mezclar cohortes La forma más segura es preparar un escenario por cohorte. En vez de mandar varios usuarios de prueba al mismo inbox, creá un usuario, asignale una condición clara y validá un solo recorrido de punta a punta. Este proceso suele ser suficiente: Crear una cuenta de prueba que realmen

I've noticed something about myself. It's become much harder to get things done. I see less movement compared to my previous self. And sometimes, when I see people get so much done, tasks, projects, anything, I wonder why I can't make progress like that. Now I'm not comparing myself to Elon Musk here, I'm just wondering if I'm doing my best. For the longest time, I've wanted to build a portfolio website. But for some reason or another, I never actually ended up making it, or should I say, starting it. Whenever I had a free block of time, I wouldn't know where to start. I also have this side project I've been wanting to work on. I started it, then never made any more progress beyond the initial feasibility analysis. Why did I never allocate time to either? The Overthinking Starts Early I wanted the portfolio website to be really good. I wanted cool additions, beyond the usual "about me" and "projects" sections, I wanted things like "songs I'm obsessed with right now" and "last night I slept at." I was also looking if my fitbit has an API to show my live heart-rate on my portfolio (why would someone do that?). I was obsessed with the features, and with using the right tech to make it as efficient as possible. What stack should I even use for a portfolio? Same story with this very blog. Before writing a single word, I was wondering what stack to use. I looked into a ton of existing blogs for inspiration, how do I track views, what about comments, how do I stop a DDoS from flooding my DB if I'm storing comments, should I require auth just to leave a comment, should I support font and background color changes, themes, what's the best tool to do all of that? I've noticed this pattern with almost everything I do. I'm so obsessed with doing things right on the first attempt that I never actually make the first attempt, because "doing it right" is just too demanding. Or a related trap, when I want to do something perfectly , I discover prerequisites, and those prerequisites

OAuth recovery emails look harmless until you test them the lazy way. A team sends password reset links or recovery codes into one shared mailbox, confirms that something arrived, and marks the job done. From a security view, that test is too weak. It can hide token reuse, wrong-user delivery, or log retention that exposes sensitive account events. For non-production checks, I like using a disposable email address that belongs to one test run. Some teams build that inbox layer themselves, some use tempmailso, but the core principle is the same: isolate the recovery event, inspect it quickly, and delete the evidence you no longer need. That is helpful when Authentication and OAuth changes ship together. Why OAuth recovery emails deserve their own threat model Recovery email tests are not just "did the mail send?" checks. They sit on the edge of account takeover risk, so the message itself matters almost as much as the login flow. A decent threat model for these emails should ask: did the message reach only the intended inbox for this run? does the link or code expire when the product says it does? is the message revealing too much user data in subject lines or previews? can an older token still be used after a new recovery request? do logs or test fixtures keep the recovery secret longer than they should? This is where shared inboxes become dangerous in a subtle way. Even if nobody has bad intent, mixed test data makes it harder to prove which token belonged to which request. The same operational confusion shows up in email change confirmation checks , and it gets worse when the email can restore account access. OWASP recommends testing authentication recovery features with the same care as sign-in and session controls, because weak recovery paths are a common bypass route for stronger primary login defenses: https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Forgot_Password_Cheat_Sheet.html A safer test flow for recovery links and codes The cleanest pattern is one inbox

In case you were wondering in which country you should buy a Pixel phone, you world traveler you.

The $149 Dune keyboard can be a meeting controller at least and a script-executing keypad at best.

The companies’ Fourth of July plans include celebrating new reactor designs coming online. But there’s still a long way to go before they deliver energy at a meaningful scale.

AI that fights customer service for you Discussion | Link

It’s not easy to transplant a whole human eye. The surgery is difficult. And the eyes themselves start to degenerate as soon as they’ve left the body. When surgeons attempted it a few years ago, the newly-transplanted eye wasn’t able to see. But researchers believe they might have a solution: a device that maintains and…

submitted by /u/Infamous_Sorbet4021 [link] [留言]

The Chevy Silverado EV is a solid first draft of an EV pickup truck. Here's what could make it better.

submitted by /u/CrociDB [link] [留言]

The current Claude models give you an effort knob with five settings: low , medium , high , xhigh , max . The docs tell you what each is for. I wanted numbers, so I ran the same three real tasks across all five levels and measured tokens, latency, and quality. The results changed how I set effort, and one of them surprised me. Here is the data and what I do with it now. What effort controls Effort is not just "how much the model thinks." It controls overall token spend: how much it thinks and how it acts. Lower effort means fewer, more consolidated tool calls, less preamble, terser output. Higher effort means more exploration before answering. The default is high if you omit it. const response = await client . messages . create ({ model : " claude-opus-4-8 " , max_tokens : 16000 , thinking : { type : " adaptive " }, output_config : { effort : " medium " }, // the knob messages , }); The three tasks I picked tasks that span the range of what I actually do: Classification : label a contract finding as low/medium/high/critical. Short, scoped. Code generation : write a TypeScript function with edge-case handling. Medium difficulty. Multi-step audit : analyze a 200-line contract for vulnerabilities across functions. Hard, agentic. I ran each at all five effort levels, three times, and averaged. I scored quality against a known-correct answer for tasks 1 and 3, and by manual review for task 2. The results Task 1, classification. Quality was flat across every effort level. The right label is the right label, and the model nailed it at low just as well as at max . But token usage climbed steeply: max used roughly 8x the tokens of low for an identical answer. Latency tracked tokens. The lesson: for genuinely simple, scoped tasks, high effort is pure waste. I set classification to low . Task 2, code generation. Quality improved from low to high , then plateaued. At low the model sometimes skipped an edge case. At high it caught them. xhigh and max produced essentially the sam