标签：#p

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

See the perspectives you're missing. Discussion | Link

Imagine if there were a way for us to somehow ship a full-stack package that you could plug into your...

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is...

GitHub热门项目 | 15MB, lightweight, cross-platform database client. Supports MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, Redis, MongoDB, DuckDB, ClickHouse, SQL Server and more.15MB，轻量级跨平台数据库客户端、数据库管理工具。支持 MySQL、PostgreSQL、SQLite、Redis、MongoDB、DuckDB、ClickHouse、SQL Server 等。 | Stars: 7,530 | 1,100 stars this week | 语言: Rust

I want to talk about why philosophy is actually far more important than people think, especially when it comes to software engineering, systems design, and AI. When most people hear the word "philosophy," they roll their eyes. They think of abstract, circular arguments that don't matter in the real world. But true philosophy, good philosophy, is more like base mathematics. It is base physics. It is the raw understanding of the essence of a concept and how that translates into real-world action. If you don't understand the origin of a thing, you are left playing a game of perceptions. You will circle around a problem, coming up with endless rationalizations, but you will be completely unable to predict where it is going to go next. The origin of something is it fundamental nature. This origin is actually its bounding box. It dictates the absolute limits of its trajectory. Knowing this gives you predictive capability before you execute. It is the a priori knowledge that separates actual engineers from people who just copy-paste solutions. (When should and how should you copy paste, for example, 'it depends'.) The Gun Analogy and Inherent Limitations Imagine you are at a shooting range, and you point a gun downrange. As long as you point that gun in the general direction of the targets, it is not going to shoot directly behind you, or 90 degrees to the left. The inherent nature of the gun, and the velocity of the bullet, give it strict limitations. Because of those limitations, you can heavily rely on the fact that the bullet won't leave that bounding box. Therefore, shooting on a range is actually very safe. It only becomes unsafe when you turn the gun in a different direction. You have to understand that you cannot ask a tool to do more than its inherent nature allows. If you are firing an M16, it is not going to act like a guided missile and hit a target in another country hundreds of miles away. It does not have that capability. * Furthermore, a gun cannot read you

Last month, I had a problem with a popular mobile banking app in Southeast Asia. Nothing exotic. A transaction didn't go through, and my support ticket had been sitting untouched for two weeks. So I opened the app's chatbot. It greeted me warmly, asked how it could help, and then couldn't do a single useful thing. It couldn't look up my transaction. It couldn't check the status of my ticket. It couldn't tell me why my issue was unresolved. It could answer FAQ questions, and that was it. I called the hotline instead. Spent an hour navigating prompts, got bounced between menus, and every path ended the same way: "Please contact our chatbot or check your existing ticket." The system was built for deflection, not resolution. The ticket that nobody had touched for fourteen days. I gave up. And somewhere in that company's dashboard, my interaction counted as a successful AI chatbot deflection. The uncomfortable part: if you shipped a deflection-optimized bot this quarter, a customer somewhere is living this exact loop right now. Your dashboard is calling it a win. The Deflection Metric Everyone Loves (and Nobody Questions) Deflection rate measures the percentage of customer contacts handled without a human agent. It's cheap to track, easy to celebrate, and it maps directly to cost savings. Industry benchmarks citing McKinsey's 2026 service operations data put AI resolutions at $0.62 per ticket versus $7.40 for human agents. That's a 12x cost difference. Of course executives love this number. But deflection doesn't measure whether the customer's problem got solved. It measures whether the customer stopped asking. Those are very different things. This is Goodhart's Law applied to customer experience: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Deflection is cheap and easy to optimize. Resolution is hard and expensive to track. So companies optimize the proxy and stop looking at the goal. Gartner data, as reported by Forbes , confirms the gap: only 14% o

Over the past year, one concept has fundamentally changed how I think about AI applications. Not larger language models. Not better prompts. Not even AI agents. It's Model Context Protocol (MCP) . For a long time, most AI applications lived inside a closed environment. They could generate text, answer questions, or write code, but they couldn't easily interact with external systems. MCP changes that. It provides a standardized way for AI models to communicate with tools, databases, APIs, and applications. Instead of building custom integrations for every project, developers can expose capabilities through MCP servers. After experimenting with different workflows, these are five MCP servers that have had the biggest impact on how I build AI applications. 1. GitHub MCP Server If you're building software with AI, GitHub integration is one of the most valuable capabilities you can add. Imagine asking an AI assistant to: Read a repository Review pull requests Search issues Create commits Open new issues Inspect project structure Instead of manually copying files into ChatGPT, the AI can interact directly with your repository. For developers, this dramatically improves productivity. Typical workflow: Developer Request ↓ GitHub MCP Server ↓ Repository ↓ LLM ↓ Action or Response This is far more scalable than copying snippets of code into prompts. 2. Filesystem MCP Server Almost every AI workflow eventually needs access to local files. Examples include: Reading documentation Editing Markdown Creating reports Refactoring code Updating configuration files Without an MCP server, these tasks often require multiple manual steps. With a Filesystem MCP server, an AI application can safely interact with project directories. For example: Read: /docs/api.md Update: /src/routes.py Create: /reports/summary.md This makes AI assistants feel much more like development partners. 3. PostgreSQL MCP Server One limitation of traditional chatbots is that they don't know your data. Connecting an

We're upgrading Crawlberg to a new version: Crawlberg v1.0.0. It builds on the previous kreuzcrawl. It declares the public API frozen under the new project name. All technical features below shipped in v0.3.0 (2026-06-23); v1.0.0 is a stability declaration and rename, not a new feature release. The four production-facing changes most likely to require operational action: Package and env var rename - every artifact identifier has changed; see the migration table. SSRF defense is now on by default - internal crawl targets (localhost, RFC 1918, cloud metadata) will fail without CRAWLBERG_ALLOW_PRIVATE_NETWORK=1 . CrawlError::WafBlocked is now a struct variant - exhaustive match arms will not compile until updated. max_retries semantics changed - off-by-one fixed; max_retries=3 now produces exactly 3 retries. Precompiled binaries cover Linux (x86_64/aarch64), macOS (ARM64 and x86_64), and Windows x64. Homebrew bottles and Docker images on GHCR are also available. What Is Crawlberg? Crawlberg is a web crawling engine written primarily in Rust that exposes a single consistent API across 14 language runtimes. It handles HTTP transport, JavaScript rendering, robots.txt compliance, per-domain rate limiting, SSRF safety, and structured extraction. Extension points ( Frontier , RateLimiter , CrawlStore , EventEmitter , ContentFilter , WafClassifier , ProxyProvider ) are injectable traits; wire in your own frontier, storage backend, or proxy pool without forking the engine. A single scrape() call returns text, metadata, links, images, assets, JSON-LD, Open Graph tags, hreflang, favicons, headings, response headers, and clean HTML→Markdown. When a site requires JavaScript, the optional headless browser tier handles it transparently. v1.0.0 promotes v1.0.0-rc.2 and freezes the public API under the new project name. The features described in the sections below represent the platform that 1.0.0 declares stable; they shipped in v0.3.0. What v1.0.0 Declares Stable These capabilities

The access you revoked in your last review is probably still live. I know how that sounds, but it is how most access recertification actually works. A tool generates a list, an owner clicks approve or revoke, the cycle gets marked complete, and then nothing touches the real resources. The review produces a record. The permissions stay exactly where they were. You attested to a state that was never made true. That gap bothered me for a long time, so I built something to close it and open-sourced it on AWS's aws-samples org. It is called VIGIL. The core idea A normal review answers one question: should this access still exist? The owner says no, a ticket gets filed, and maybe someone actions it next quarter. Between the decision and the change, the risk just sits there. I wanted the decision and the change to be the same step. So VIGIL does four things: It discovers resources by their owner tag and works out who actually has access to each one. It asks the owner to keep, trim, or remove that access. It applies that decision on the live resource. It records what happened in a way you can later prove. The part I care about most: scoped enforcement The lazy way to revoke someone's access to one bucket is to detach their policies. That nukes their access to everything, and it is how you cause an incident while trying to improve security. VIGIL never does that. If the access came from a bucket policy, it removes just that principal, or just the specific actions, from that bucket's policy. If the access came from the principal's own IAM policy, it adds a resource-scoped explicit Deny instead of touching shared policy, so nothing else the principal can do is affected. In practice it can remove only s3:PutObject for one principal on one bucket and leave everything else alone. If a change cannot be made safely and narrowly, it raises a ticket instead of guessing. I would rather it do nothing than do something broad. Making enforcement durable Enforcement is not a synchronous c

Key takeaways Summarizing conversation history can reduce costs by up to 60%. Implementing an effective summarization algorithm is key to efficiency. Balancing detail and brevity in summaries is crucial for context. Optimized context windows lead to faster response times and lower latency. The problem Startups leveraging large language models (LLMs) often face significant costs associated with managing context windows during conversations. Each token processed incurs a cost, and as conversations grow, replaying entire histories can lead to runaway expenses. Founders and engineers encounter this issue particularly during customer support interactions or chatbots, where lengthy dialogues require constant context retention, drastically inflating operational costs. What we found Our research indicates that instead of replaying the entire conversation history, summarizing the dialogue can maintain context while drastically reducing token usage. By distilling key points and intents into a concise summary, we can effectively minimize the number of tokens processed, leading to major cost savings without sacrificing the quality of interaction. This non-obvious insight repositions how we approach conversation management in LLMs. How to implement it Start by selecting a summarization algorithm suitable for your use case. Techniques like extractive summarization (e.g., using TextRank) can identify and retain essential sentences from conversations, while abstractive methods (e.g., fine-tuning a transformer model) rephrase the content. Next, integrate this summarization step into your workflow: after each interaction, generate a summary that captures the main points. Ensure that the summary is stored and utilized as context for subsequent interactions, replacing the need for the entire conversation history. Monitor token usage before and after implementation to quantify cost savings. How this makes life easier By summarizing conversation history, startups can see a reduction in c

I use my SSH manager every day. I also use a separate monitoring tool every day. For a long time I just accepted that these were two different things. Then one day I was SSH'd into a server that was behaving weird. I wanted to check if it was CPU or memory, but I had to open a different app, find the server in there, and wait for the dashboard to load. It took maybe 15 seconds. Not a huge deal. But it broke my flow every single time. I already had an SSH connection open to that server. Why was I opening a second thing just to see what was happening to it? That's what pushed me to build server monitoring directly into Termique, the SSH manager I've been working on. The interesting part: reusing the existing SSH connection SSH connections aren't just for terminals. The protocol supports multiple channels over a single TCP connection. You can have a terminal session running in one channel while sending short exec commands through another channel on the same connection. That's how the monitoring feature works. When you open the metrics panel for a server, Termique creates a separate exec channel on the existing SSH connection and polls /proc/stat for CPU, /proc/meminfo for RAM, and /proc/loadavg for system load. Short-lived commands, called on an interval, over the connection you already have open. No second SSH handshake. No separate auth. Just another channel on the same pipe. The tradeoff: you do need an agent I want to be upfront about this. The monitoring feature requires a small agent installed on each server. It's not agentless. I considered going agentless, relying entirely on /proc reads through exec channels. That works fine on most Linux servers. But the agent makes it easier to handle edge cases properly and opens the door for future features like alerts and longer history retention. Without it, I'd be fighting a lot of fragile shell parsing. If you're managing Linux servers, it's a one-command install. Non-Linux systems aren't supported yet. That's a real l

What building cross-service RBAC taught me about the difference between a fast check and a correct one VaultPay is a wallet microservice I built on top of AuthShield. Previous parts: Part 1 is here: I Built AuthShield and Immediately Knew It Wasn't Enough Part 2 is here: The Silent Failure I Never Saw Coming: What VaultPay Taught Me About Consistency Under Failure Part 3 is here: I Started With a Blocklist. That Was the Wrong Instinct and VaultPay Taught Me Why. Part 4 is here: I Watched Money Move Twice From the Same Request. That's When I Understood Idempotency. Part 5 is here: I Almost Hashed a Document Number That Needed to Be Read Again When I designed JWT validation for VaultPay, the only thing I was optimising for was speed. Local verification, no network call, decode the token with the shared secret, read the claims, move on. Every request gets this. It's fast - no round trip to AuthShield, no added latency on the hot path. That felt like the obvious right answer for a system processing financial transactions, where every millisecond on the request path matters. Then I asked myself a question I hadn't thought through properly: what happens if an admin gets deactivated in AuthShield right now, this second, while they still have a valid token sitting in their browser? The answer, with pure local validation, is uncomfortable. Nothing happens. The token is still cryptographically valid. The signature checks out. The claims say role: admin . VaultPay has no way of knowing that AuthShield revoked this person's access thirty seconds ago, because VaultPay never asked AuthShield. It just trusted the token. That's the moment dual-mode validation stopped being a performance optimisation and became a correctness requirement. Two Services, No Shared Database VaultPay and AuthShield are separate microservices with separate databases. AuthShield owns user accounts, login, JWT issuance, and role management. VaultPay owns wallets, transactions, KYC, and admin operations on t

I log commutes in a spreadsheet because mobility apps smooth over the ugly legs. Last week I added a column I should have tracked years ago: carry seconds ? time from curb to platform when stairs replace ramps. The hidden leg My one-wheel leg is fine on paper. Three metro exits on my route have no elevator during maintenance. Carrying a 14 kg wheel down 22 stairs does not show up in trip duration. It shows up in whether I arrive annoyed enough to skip coffee. What I logged (one week) Exit Stairs Carry time (s) Mood after (1-5) North gate 22 38 2 Side ramp (control) 0 8 4 East stairs 16 29 3 Battery delta on those days? Within noise. Mood delta? Not noise. A cheap decision rule I turned this into a go/no-go check before leaving: if stairs > 15 AND carry_weight_kg > 12: prefer transit-only or locker elif stairs > 0 AND wet_floor: walk the wheel (no riding in station) else: ride It is blunt. It works better than pretending every leg is rideable. Assumptions up front Wheel weight includes pads and charger pouch (~14 kg for my commuter setup). I am not timing competitive carries ? just whether I can do this daily without hating it. Your threshold differs if every exit has elevators. What I would do differently I would log carry seconds from day one, same tab as distance and battery percent. Range math without carry math is incomplete for anyone who mixes metro and one-wheel. I work around personal EVs and sometimes cross-check specs on the official Kingsong catalog. https://www.kingsong.com/collections/electric-unicycle

When the enemy is too strong to attack directly, attack what they hold dear. They will come to you...

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

Comparing the most feature-rich React data grids in 2026, from pivot tables and tree data to...

Two things happened this month and they tell you everything about where AI is actually going. Coinbase quietly cut its AI bill nearly in half. Open models, smarter routing, better caching. No drama. A finance footnote that happens to be a glimpse of the future. And Dario Amodei published another essay. Not a tweet. An essay. The kind of sprawling, twenty-thousand-word civilizational scripture he keeps handing down from the mount. This one is called "Policy on the AI Exponential," and the gist is that AI is about to hand humanity "almost unimaginable power," that our institutions are too immature to hold it, and that therefore the government should be able to test, gate, and block frontier models before mere mortals get hurt. One of these is a price cut. The other is a prophecy. I want to talk about the prophecy. The robes Let me be fair before I am not. Dario is not a dumb man and he is not a fraud. He runs one of the best labs in the world. The safety concerns are not all imaginary. Misuse is real. I am not the guy arguing that anyone should be able to download a bioweapon recipe for a laugh. If that is the bar, sure, regulate it. Nobody serious disagrees. But watch the move he keeps making. Every few months the prophet descends with a new text. The stakes are always civilizational. The language is always biblical. "Unimaginable power." A "decent possibility" of "significant enduring job loss." Disruption that will be "unusually painful." Humanity handed a force it is not mature enough to wield. He is not describing a product roadmap. He is describing a flood. And conveniently, he is also selling the ark. That is the part that should make you tilt your head. Read the actual proposal Strip the poetry off "Policy on the AI Exponential" and here is the machinery underneath. Mandatory third-party testing for any model above a compute threshold. Authorized evaluators. Security standards. Incident reporting. Government authority to block or reverse a deployment that fail

Your CI catches the npm vulnerability. Your developer is already three branches away and one standup behind. The package is installed, the lockfile regenerated, the import wired into a service, and the human who made that decision did it on a Tuesday afternoon with a tab open to Stack Overflow. Now the scanner is yelling. From the terminal, that is not security. That is grief counseling. That is the frame Sonu Kapoor lays out in a DevOps.com essay this week, and the engineering bones of it are correct. A scanner is not a gate. It is a status check. Kapoor's argument is about feedback loops. A developer installs, codes, commits, pushes. Only then does CI run. By the time the finding surfaces, the decision to add the package, and the context for why, has evaporated. So has the lockfile churn that caused it. What started as "is this package safe?" becomes "fix this in a different sprint." The scanner did its job. The fix is now a project. He backs it with a small case study from the NestJS repo: a scan of package-lock.json returned 1,626 resolved packages and 25 vulnerabilities. Of those, 12 were directly fixable. Thirteen were transitive, buried in upstream graphs, waiting on someone else's release. In a pipeline-first workflow, every dependency hop is a separate commit and a separate run. (Multiply by the number of services your team owns. Then by your runner-minutes budget. Send me the bill.) The arithmetic gets ugly quickly. A single lockfile with more than fifteen hundred resolved packages is not exotic for a working Node app, it is the default. The chance that the first time anyone looks at that graph is during a pipeline run, after the merge intent is already in the reviewer's queue, is the structural bug. Where the essay is right, and where it gets too tidy Concede the obvious. CI is not the problem. CI is fine. It runs uniformly, it cannot be skipped, and it is the right place to fail a build when an OSV record drops mid-week against a dependency that was clea

In the world of wearable health technology, the holy grail has always been moving intelligence from the cloud to the edge. Waiting for a cloud server to analyze your heart rhythm is not just a latency issue—it's a privacy and battery life concern. Today, we are diving deep into TinyML , Edge AI , and ECG signal processing to build a real-time abnormality detector. By leveraging TensorFlow Lite for Microcontrollers and the versatile ESP32 , we can process raw electrocardiogram (ECG) data locally. This approach ensures low-latency detection of arrhythmias while keeping sensitive medical data on-device. If you've been looking to bridge the gap between high-level deep learning and low-level embedded systems, you're in the right place! The Architecture: From Raw Signal to Insight 🏗️ The pipeline involves capturing a high-frequency analog signal, cleaning it, and feeding it into a quantized Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). Here is how the data flows through our ESP32: graph TD A[Raw ECG Signal/Sensor] -->|ADC Sampling| B(Preprocessing: Bandpass Filter) B --> C{Buffer Management} C -->|Windowed Segment| D[TFLite Micro Inference Engine] D --> E{CNN Model Classification} E -->|Normal| F[Log: Sinus Rhythm] E -->|Abnormal| G[Trigger Alert: Arrhythmia] G -->|Bluetooth/Wi-Fi| H[Mobile Dashboard] Prerequisites 🛠️ To follow this advanced guide, you'll need: Hardware : ESP32 (DevKit V1 or similar). Sensor : AD8232 ECG Module (or simulated ECG data). Software : Arduino IDE or PlatformIO. Frameworks : TensorFlow Lite for Microcontrollers (TFLM), EloquentTinyML (optional wrapper), or the standard C++ TFLM library. Step 1: Model Training & Quantization 🧠 Before we touch the C++ code, we need a model. Typically, we use the MIT-BIH Arrhythmia Database to train a 1D-CNN. The crucial step is Post-Training Quantization . Since the ESP32 doesn't have a dedicated NPU, we convert our 32-bit float model into an 8-bit integer (INT8) model. This reduces the size by 4x and speeds up inference s