标签：#p

Abstract Executing autonomous AI agent payloads in Google Workspace via the Apps Script...

China's Zhipu AI (Z.ai) released its open-weight GLM-5.2, and some researchers have claimed that it matches Mythos in certain bug-finding and cybersecurity scenarios. While GLM lags behind models from Anthropic and OpenAI in other, more general tasks, it seems that China has dramatically reduced the gap in the capabilities between its models and those of […]

Streaming ads might be getting a lot quieter.

Your AI coding agent writes something that looks right. It compiles in your head. Then you notice it called user.getProfileById() — a method that doesn't exist anywhere in your codebase. You didn't ask it to make that up. It invented it confidently, in the middle of otherwise-fine code. And that's the worst kind of wrong: not obviously broken, just quietly incorrect in a way you have to catch. If you've run Claude Code, Cursor, or any agent on a real repo, you know this one. Here's why it happens — and why the obvious fix doesn't work. The fix everyone tries first (and why it fails) You reword the prompt. You add "Don't make up functions." It behaves… for one file. Then it does it again. So you add "Only use methods that exist in the provided code." Better for a bit. Then two more sentences — and now your prompt is fifteen rules long and it still invents a method the moment the task gets complex. Here's the part nobody tells you: rewording treats a structural problem as a vocabulary problem. A prompt isn't a contract the model reads once and obeys. It's something the model has to hold in working memory while it reasons about your actual task. A flat list of fifteen rules is unholdable. As the work gets harder, the model spends its attention on the code and quietly drops whichever rule wasn't front-of-mind. "Don't invent methods" is usually rule #11. Under load, it falls out. You can't out-word that. A sixteenth rule just gives it one more thing to drop. The actual cause: shape, not wording The agent invents a method because nothing in the prompt's structure requires it to check. You told it what not to do. You never changed what it actually does, step by step. So stop forbidding the bad thing. Remove the opportunity for it. Instead of a rule it has to remember, make grounding a required step it has to perform. Before — a pile of rules:You are an expert engineer. Write clean code. Follow our conventions. Don't make up functions. Only use methods that exist. Handle er

Performance optimization has always been one of the hardest parts of web development. You run...

Originally published on danholloran.me The original Grimicorn was an exercise in restraint: muted pastels on a blue-gray base, tuned so nothing on screen ever burns your eyes. Grimicorn Neon is the opposite impulse. Same grim-reaper-meets-unicorn idea, except this one is plugged into the mains — saturated, glowing accents on a near-black base, dark-only, loud on purpose. What makes the pair interesting from an engineering angle is how little had to change to get there. Neon is not a new theme so much as the same theme with the volume knob turned all the way up. That only works because of a decision made back in the calm version: colors are defined by role, not by appearance. Eight roles, eight louder hexes Both themes share the exact same role map. Blue is keywords, links, and the primary accent. Green is strings, success, and the cursor. Yellow is types, decorators, and warnings. The accent hierarchy is still blue → purple → teal, and the semantic anchors still hold: green means good, the error color means wrong. What changes is only the values bound to those roles. Calm Grimicorn's blue is a soft #83AFE5 ; Neon's is an electric #2323FF . Calm green is a sage #A9CE93 ; Neon green is an acid #A3E635 . The error role even swaps identity, from a gentle salmon to a hot #FF2D9B pink. Lay the two palettes side by side and the structure is identical — only the saturation and brightness move: // same eight roles, two personalities const calm = { blue : " #83AFE5 " , green : " #A9CE93 " , error : " #DD9787 " , base : " #253039 " , }; const neon = { blue : " #2323FF " , green : " #A3E635 " , error : " #FF2D9B " , base : " #0A0A0B " , }; Because every one of the fourteen tool ports — VS Code, Ghostty, Obsidian, Claude Code, JetBrains, tmux, and the rest — is generated from a single palette.md , producing the neon set was mostly a matter of feeding the build a different eight values. The emitters that translate roles into VS Code scopes or ANSI slots never knew the difference.

Have you ever wondered how apps like university portals know which courses a student is enrolled in, or how they pull up an instructor's full schedule in seconds? The answer lies in database relationships - one of the most important concepts in backend development. In this article, we'll explore: What database relationships are and why they matter The three types of relationships: One-to-One, One-to-Many, and Many-to-Many How relationship schemas work (primary keys, foreign keys) How SQL Joins let you pull connected data from multiple tables To keep things grounded, we'll use one running example throughout: a University Management System . By the end, you won't just understand the theory, you'll see exactly how these concepts connect in a real-world scenario. What Are Database Relationships? A database relationship defines how data in one table connects to data in another. Instead of storing the same information repeatedly, relational databases organize data into separate tables and link them using keys . Think about our university system. We have a table for students and another for courses . A student can enroll in multiple courses, and each course can have many students. Rather than storing a student's full details on every course record, we store the student's info once and create a relationship between the two tables. This keeps data clean, reduces duplication, and makes updates easy. If a student's email changes? Update it in one place - done. Here's a simple visual of what that looks like: +------------------+ +------------------+ | Students | | Courses | +------------------+ +------------------+ | student_id (PK) | | course_id (PK) | | name | | title | | email | | credits | +------------------+ +------------------+ \ / \ / \ / Enrollments (links students ↔ courses) Now let's look at the three types of relationships you'll encounter. Types of Database Relationships 1. One-to-One (1:1) Each record in Table A matches exactly one record in Table B and vice versa

Share a portion of your ultrawide or high-res screen on Mac Discussion | Link

Most of the web's foundational moments have vanished. The servers were unplugged, the code was lost, the pages 404'd into history. But the first website ever published is a striking exception: you can still read it today, more or less as it appeared when it went live on August 6, 1991. It is a plain, text-only page with a white background and blue hyperlinks, and it explains a brand-new idea called the World Wide Web. One page that described itself The author was Tim Berners-Lee, a British computer scientist working at CERN, the particle physics laboratory near Geneva. By the end of 1990 he had quietly assembled the three technologies that still define the web: HTML for writing pages, HTTP for moving them between machines, and the URL for addressing any document on any server. The first website, hosted at the address info.cern.ch , was the web explaining itself - what hypertext was, how to browse it, and how to make your own pages. It ran on a NeXT computer, the sleek black workstation designed by Steve Jobs's company during his years away from Apple. That single machine was the entire World Wide Web for a while. A handwritten label was stuck to its case: "This machine is a server. DO NOT POWER IT DOWN!!" One unplugged cable would have taken the whole web offline. Why a 1991 web page still matters to IoT It is easy to file this under nostalgia, but the first website is more than a museum piece. It is the origin point of the request-and-response model that quietly powers almost everything connected today. When an ESP32 sensor node pushes a reading to a cloud dashboard, when a smart meter checks in with a server, or when you open an app to see whether your device is online, the same basic conversation is happening: a client asks a question over HTTP, a server answers, and a URL says where to look. Berners-Lee made a deliberate choice that turned out to matter enormously. He kept the standards open and unlicensed. Anyone could implement a browser or a server without pa

What happens when thousands of people decide they're hungry at the exact same time? The Quiet Before the Storm 10:00 PM. The numbers are gentle tonight. One hundred eighty-nine requests trickle in. Someone in Lagos is ordering late-night suya. A rider in Ibadan is wrapping up his last delivery. In Bangladesh, someone is just discovering us for the first time. By 11:00 PM , things get quiet. Just 8 requests. The platform takes a breath. 2:00 AM. A mystery. 151 requests spike out of nowhere. We check the logs. Nothing unusual. Just a group of night owls ordering food, maybe shift workers, maybe students pulling an all-nighter. The beauty of a platform is we're always on, always ready. 7:00 AM. Good morning, Nigeria. Fifty-five requests. People waking up, checking their wallets, planning their day. The coffee hasn't even brewed yet, but the platform is already humming. The Morning Rush 9:00 AM. 315 requests. The workday begins. Offices buzz with conversations about lunch plans. If someone searches "foodmat site" for the third time this week, they're getting closer to finding us. A corporate client logs in to set up their employee meal program for the first time. By 10:00 AM , the traffic settles to 50 requests. A calm before the real storm. 11:00 AM. 173 requests. The hunger is building. People are making decisions about what to eat, where to order, and which vendor to choose. Our World Cup campaign notifications ping. Someone shares their referral code. The viral loop begins. The Lunch Explosion 12:00 PM. 321 requests. It's happening. The platform comes alive. 1:00 PM. 339 requests. The peak is building. Our servers are handling it smoothly. This is where the magic happens when thousands of people decide they're hungry at the exact same time. 2:00 PM. 289 requests. Still going strong. Vendor dashboards refresh. Riders accept orders. Laundry bookings come in alongside food deliveries. If someone cancels an order with a reason, we take note. Every interaction teaches us

"Prop drilling is bad, use Context" is repeated everywhere — but the actual cost stays abstract. So I put the two approaches side by side with live render counters. Click one button and the difference is impossible to miss. ▶ Live demo: https://context-vs-props-drilling.vercel.app/ Source (React 19 + TS): https://github.com/dev48v/context-vs-props-drilling Two identical 4-level trees, both React.memo 'd. One threads a value down as a prop through every level; the other provides it once via Context and reads it only at the leaf. Change the value: Prop drilling → 4 components re-render. Every component on the path receives the changed prop, so all of them re-render — and each intermediate is cluttered with a value it does nothing with except pass along. Context → 1 component re-renders. The intermediates take no value prop, so they're skipped (memoized, props unchanged). Only the consumer leaf re-renders. The summary tallies it on every click: 4 vs 1 . Why Context skips the middle This is the part that surprises people: with Context, an intermediate component can be skipped even though a descendant re-renders . < ThemeCtx . Provider value = { val } > < A /> { /* memo, no props → skipped on value change */ } </ ThemeCtx . Provider > const A = memo (() => < B />); // skipped const B = memo (() => < C />); // skipped const C = memo (() => < Leaf />); // skipped const Leaf = () => { const value = useContext ( ThemeCtx ); // ← re-renders on context change return < div > { value } </ div >; }; React re-renders context consumers directly when the provider value changes — it doesn't need to re-render the components in between. With prop drilling there's no such shortcut: the only way the value reaches the leaf is through every parent, so every parent must re-render. The catch — Context isn't a free lunch Context isn't a "no re-renders" button. Every consumer re-renders whenever the provider value changes — there's no built-in selective subscription. One big, chatty context ca

I am committed to understand how systems actually work. I'm working on a multi-node lab to follow the complete path of a request from Python APIs to Linux processes, through Docker containers, networking and observability. The idea is simple: build a system that observes another system to understand the abstraction layers behind modern infrastructure. This project is about learning by building, experimenting and understanding what happens under the hood. Link: [ https://github.com/daniloprandi/devops-network-automation-lab ] DevOps #Linux #Python #Docker #Networking #Observability #Infrastructure

submitted by /u/Important-Addition79 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/HHalo6 [link] [留言]

Most teams reach for Temporal when they need coordination guarantees.The tradeoff is rewriting your entire codebase to be deterministic and learning a new programming paradigm. Redis SETNX wasn't giving me correctness guarantees. You can make your own coordination primitive on postgres Like I did for my payments service Full writeup: https://statecraft.hashnode.dev/you-don-t-need-temporal-you-need-postgres Edit: i formatted poorly and the bracket became a part of the link it's fixed submitted by /u/munch_muffin_solas [link] [留言]

Why console.log() can be misleading in browser DevTools: live object references, promises that look different when expanded later, logs changing timing-sensitive behavior, stale React state after updates, and source maps pointing at surprising line numbers. submitted by /u/OtherwisePush6424 [link] [留言]

System stats and translation on your Mac's notch Discussion | Link

"Mistakenly we thought that by just introducing artificial intelligence ... that would produce a high-quality product.”

Clicking on the links now reveals blank pages and empty PDFs. "Intellectually, it’s not acceptable.”

These little tricks will help you spend more time driving instead of charging.