标签：#p

You merge the PR. The build passes. The code does what you expected it to do. You move on. That is review for most engineers. A final read. A feeling that things looked right before the branch closed. I did it the same way for years. Three phases had already run before this one. Think had scoped the work, Plan had written the requirements, Build had shipped a diff that matched the plan exactly. I trusted that the chain held. I had never actually checked. Then I ran the Review phase, and checking turned out to mean something specific: not does this work, but does this requirement hold up, and what is my evidence. I went in expecting to approve it or send it back. The phase gave me three answers instead: covered, partial, missing. I found out what they meant one requirement at a time, starting with the one I almost got wrong. I had been giving impressions, not verdicts The notification scheduler used a queue to manage dispatch. Every call to the external provider went through it. The provider was never exposed directly. The requirement said the provider must be notified. It was notified, exactly the way I had pictured it. I almost called it covered and moved to the next line. The Review phase stopped me there. But the requirement said must be notified , not how. The queue had introduced a call order and a timing the requirement never anticipated. Nothing was broken. Something had changed shape, quietly, and nobody had written that shape down. I sat with that for longer than I expected to. Not because the code was wrong. Because I could not immediately tell you whether the change mattered. The same pass gave the shim from Plan a different verdict on the same page: covered. Mapped to the requirement it existed to satisfy, no gap between what was promised and what was in the diff. One requirement held exactly the shape it was given. The other had quietly grown a new one. Same review. Same pass. Two verdicts. Partial is not a softer word for broken. It is the verdict for

Here is a question I could not answer from the headlines: which European countries are actually losing people the fastest, in absolute terms or per capita? Those are two different questions, and they give two different answers. So I pulled the open data and ran the numbers. The headline figure Across the 19 European countries in the 2024 dataset, 17 recorded a net loss of native-born residents . Only two were net positive. So the "brain drain" story is not a handful of outliers, it is the default state of the continent. But the interesting part is who tops the ranking, because it depends entirely on how you measure. Load the data yourself The dataset is public on GitHub (CC BY 4.0). Every number below is reproducible with a few lines of pandas. No download, no API key, it reads the raw CSV straight from the repo: import pandas as pd url = ( " https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DatapulseResearch/ " " brain-drain-eu/main/data/net_migration_native_born_2024.csv " ) df = pd . read_csv ( url ) print ( df . shape ) # (19, 3) print ( df . columns . tolist ()) # ['country', 'net_migration', 'per_1000_residents'] # How many countries lost native-born residents? losers = ( df [ " net_migration " ] < 0 ). sum () print ( f " { losers } of { len ( df ) } countries had a net loss " ) # 17 of 19 net_migration is the raw count for 2024 (negative means a net loss of native-born residents). per_1000_residents is the same flow normalized by population size. The absolute ranking: Germany runs away with it Sort by the raw count and one country dominates: worst_absolute = df . sort_values ( " net_migration " ). head ( 5 ) print ( worst_absolute [[ " country " , " net_migration " ]]) country net _ migration 0 Germany - 91067 ... Germany loses -91,067 native-born residents, far more than anyone else in absolute terms. If you stop reading here, the story writes itself: "Germany, Europe's biggest brain drain." Plenty of coverage did exactly that. The counterintuitive finding: the ranking inve

Introduction Most projects start with a single repository. Imagine you're building an e-commerce platform: a Next.js storefront for customers, a React Native mobile app, and a NestJS backend API. Splitting these into three repositories feels like the obvious, clean solution. ecommerce-web ecommerce-mobile ecommerce-api For the first few months, this works fine. Then the project grows, and the cracks start to show: You copy utility functions between repositories instead of importing them. You duplicate TypeScript interfaces across the frontend, mobile app, and API. Your frontend and backend drift apart because each repo defines its own version of the same models. Updating one shared component means editing it in three different places. Eventually, maintaining the project becomes harder than building new features. If that sounds familiar, you're not alone — it's exactly the problem monorepos were designed to solve. In this article, we'll cover: What a monorepo actually is, and how it differs from a multi-repo (polyrepo) setup Why engineering teams choose it How Turborepo makes monorepos fast instead of slow A practical, production-ready structure for a Next.js + React Native + NestJS monorepo Common mistakes and best practices Whether you work with React, Next.js, React Native, or NestJS, these concepts will help you build projects that scale without becoming a maintenance burden. The Problem With Multiple Repositories A typical multi-repo setup looks like this: web-app/ mobile-app/ backend-api/ shared-components/ Each repository has its own package.json , dependencies, CI/CD pipeline, Git history, and versioning strategy. It looks clean at first — but as the project grows, several problems appear. 1. Code duplication You write a helper function once: export function formatPrice ( price : number ) { return `$ ${ price . toFixed ( 2 )} ` ; } Both the web app and the mobile app need it, so instead of importing it, someone copies it. Now there are two versions. When one

Cursor hopes to continue offering third-party AI models after it's acquired by SpaceX, testing the relationships between frontier AI labs.

The company has been gaining traction in Europe.

A former software manager claims Wisk rushed software testing ahead of a crucial 2025 flight test.

New US rules would legalize quiet supersonic flights without the sonic boom.

I have not seen anyone put out a date for a new rocket, and actually hit it.

This is a nine-year account of building Rune, a new IDE for Go (Python and Rust are next). It started when my Vim's go-to-definition broke in 2017 and I decided to build my own editor rather than adopt an IDE. Happy to answer questions. submitted by /u/ernestrc [link] [留言]

Plex is pushing customers to newer features and more frequent payments.

For decades, to be a gamer was to accumulate a lot of stuff. Consoles, controllers, accessories, weird VR gloves that never worked properly, but mostly the games themselves. Over the years, games have come in every shape and size you can imagine. And now that era appears to be ending. On this episode of The […]

The federal agency says it will temporarily schedule the drug, which has been called “gas station heroin,” as a controlled substance—a boon for MAHA and the mainstream kratom industry.

The EU went after Google for the practice of bundling its search engine and browser with Android.

GitHub had 20,000+ secret scanning alerts across 15,000 repositories. Here's how we separated signal from noise, built remediation workflows, and reached inbox zero in nine months. The post How GitHub used secret scanning to reach inbox zero appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

Announced at WWDC 2026, the latest SwiftUI release brings a new Document protocol for efficient disk access and snapshot-based updates, along with improved APIs for reordering items in lists, grids, and sections. In addition, it expands presentation features, such as swipe actions on any view, better AsyncImage caching, and lazy state initialization for Observable types to boost performance. By Sergio De Simone

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

Create your own Mac apps by chatting with AI Discussion | Link

You've probably written a CommandExecutor before. Everyone who's touched Bukkit has. Declare the command in plugin.yml , implement onCommand , cast args[0] to whatever you need, hope nobody fat-fingers the input. It compiles. It runs. It's confusing to debug. And it's the wrong way to do it in 2026. # plugin.yml commands : punish : description : Opens the punishment GUI usage : /punish <player> public class PunishCommand implements CommandExecutor { @Override public boolean onCommand ( CommandSender sender , Command command , String label , String [] args ) { if (!( sender instanceof Player staff )) return true ; if ( args . length < 1 ) return true ; Player target = Bukkit . getPlayer ( args [ 0 ]); if ( target == null ) { sender . sendMessage ( "Player not found." ); return true ; } // ... open the GUI return true ; } } Tie it together in onEnable() with getCommand("punish").setExecutor(new PunishCommand()) , add a separate TabCompleter implementation to handle suggestions, and you're done. Seems perfectly fine... totally not confusing at all... (if you understood any of that, you're doing better than I am :P) This implementation has many issues... like Bukkit.getPlayer(args[0]) only matching an exact, currently-online name. No selectors. No partial matching. You write all of that yourself or not at all. Tab completion lives in a second method you keep in sync with parsing by hand. Change one, forget the other, and tab completion starts "lying" to your players (a problem that has taken me HOURS to solve in the past... i'm getting flashbacks ;-;). And the tree itself is static, fixed in plugin.yml . Want /report to take a severity argument only when severities are configured? You can't say that in plugin.yml and you end up with a tangled mess that is almost never clean (either to you, or the players). Paper ships Mojang's Brigadier (the same framework vanilla Minecraft uses for everything) through a lifecycle hook: LifecycleEvents.COMMANDS . You register a tree of

Nearly half a century ago, the free software movement made a demand that was both technical and moral: Users should have the freedom to understand, run, modify, and share the software on which they depended. It was a demand born from practical life with machines. A printer that couldn't be fixed. A program that couldn't be studied. A system that asked its users to accept dependence as the price of progress. That belief shaped modern computing and gave us the tools and norms that made the internet, open infrastructure, and collaborative software development possible. Today, that belief faces its hardest test. The technology has changed, but the warning signs are familiar. In 1980, at the MIT AI Laboratory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a new Xerox 9700 printer was installed. The previous printer had come with source code that could be modified, inspected, recompiled, and reinstalled. Richard Stallman had changed that software to message users when their print job was done or when there was a jam, a small but meaningful feature since the printer sat several floors away. The new printer arrived with software preloaded and installed, no source code available, no way to modify it. If you needed help or new features, you hoped and prayed Xerox would listen. That loss of agency, alongside other anti-consumer shifts in early software, helped push him toward GNU and the free software movement: the belief that software should be free as in freedom, free to inspect, run, study, modify, understand, and redistribute. AI and inference services today are not too dissimilar. Closed frontier intelligence can make entire companies, governments, developers, and communities dependent on systems they cannot inspect, reproduce, modify, or meaningfully contest. At the dawn of this AI moment, we were promised unfettered intelligence across our products, companies, and codebases. We were told we'd be free to build whatever we wanted. At first, with tab completions. Then whole function blocks.

What happens when a machine no longer needs to be trained to see something new? That's the quiet question sitting underneath this week's news, buried next to a less invasive brain implant and a handful of robots getting tougher for the real world. Neuralink says it's completed its first "transdural" brain implant, a surgical approach built to reduce trauma during the procedure. As someone who spends a lot of time thinking about how you get sensors close to a human eye without hurting anyone, I find these less-invasive-implant strategies worth watching, because the surgical-risk problem is basically the same one we wrestle with in ophthalmic hardware. Vision is getting less invasive too, in its own way. Roboflow rolled out text-prompt object detection built on SAM3 (Meta's latest segmentation model): you type the class of object you want "forklift," "cracked tile," whatever, and it returns boxes and masks without you collecting a single training image first. That's a real shift. For most of computer vision's history, teaching a model to recognize something new meant labeling hundreds of examples before you could even start; this collapses that step into a sentence. The same week brought several applied builds using the same detect-then-orchestrate pattern: a drone system that patrols for intrusions, a pipeline that inspects transmission lines for damaged cables, and an airport tool that spots foreign debris on the tarmac. The Robot Report's roundup of June's biggest robotics stories leaned heavily on humanoid robots companies going public, new deployments, and production milestones stacking up faster than would have seemed plausible a few years ago. Apptronik unveiled its Apollo 2 humanoid alongside a dedicated data-collection facility built so the robot keeps learning after it's deployed, not just during initial training which quietly answers one of the harder questions in robotics: how do you keep a system improving once it's out of the lab? X Square Robot raised e