标签：#p

Most job search tools focus on submitting more applications. I wanted to solve a different problem: reaching the people actually making hiring decisions. So I built PitchHired , an AI-powered platform that helps job seekers find hiring managers, generate personalized outreach emails, review them with AI, and send them from their own Gmail account on a business-hours schedule. The goal isn't to replace the job search, it's to remove repetitive work while keeping the candidate in control. I also chose a one-time credit model instead of monthly subscriptions because job seekers shouldn't have to keep paying while they're between opportunities. PitchHired is still evolving, and I'd genuinely appreciate feedback from fellow developers. What features would you want in a tool like this, and what would make you trust (or not trust) AI-assisted job search?

I started a gaming guide blog six weeks ago. Twenty-one articles later, it's getting traffic from Google, I have four affiliate programs set up, and I have never written a single line of code. This is not a "how to make money blogging" post. This is a practical breakdown of the tools, the workflow, and the mistakes I made so you can skip them. The blog is yxgonglue.com. It covers PC and console game guides — GTA VI pre-order comparisons, VPN setups for gaming, cloud gaming platform rankings, extraction shooter loot guides. Niche stuff. The kind of content people search for when they have a specific problem. Here is the stack that runs it. THE STACK WordPress + Kadence Theme Hosted on a standard shared hosting plan. Kadence is a free WordPress theme that loads fast and does not fight you. No page builder. No Elementor. Just the block editor and Kadence blocks for tables and formatting. The biggest lesson here: your theme does not matter as much as your content structure. Pick something lightweight. Stop theme-shopping. Start writing. Yoast SEO The free version. It gives you a red/yellow/green score for each post based on keyphrase density, subheading distribution, link count, and meta length. Is it perfect? No. Is it a useful checklist for someone who does not do SEO for a living? Absolutely. One thing Yoast taught me the hard way: Custom HTML blocks are invisible to the plugin. If you paste your article into a Custom HTML block, Yoast reads zero words, zero links, zero headings. Everything turns red. Use the regular editor. If you need a table, use a table block. Keep it simple. Google Search Console This is where you see what people actually searched before they clicked your article. The gap between what you think people search for and what they actually search for is enormous. Search Console closes that gap. Submit every new post URL manually. It takes ten seconds. Do not wait for Google to discover your site on its own. THE CONTENT WORKFLOW One Article Per Day Tw

Playwright and Selenium are great until you hit bot detection. Google OAuth, Cloudflare, and Vercel checkpoints all flag headless browsers. Here's how to control a real Chromium instance via CDP using Python and websockets. Why Not Playwright? Playwright launches a headless browser with automation flags. Even in headed mode with Xvfb, Google detects it. The CDP Approach Launch Chromium with remote debugging: chromium-browser --user-data-dir = /path/to/profile --remote-debugging-port = 9222 --no-first-run Connect via WebSocket in Python: import asyncio , json , websockets , urllib . request async def get_page_ws (): resp = urllib . request . urlopen ( ' http://localhost:9222/json ' ) targets = json . loads ( resp . read ()) for t in targets : if t [ ' type ' ] == ' page ' : return t [ ' webSocketDebuggerUrl ' ] async def cdp_call ( ws , method , params = None ): msg_id = cdp_call . id = getattr ( cdp_call , ' id ' , 0 ) + 1 msg = { ' id ' : msg_id , ' method ' : method } if params : msg [ ' params ' ] = params await ws . send ( json . dumps ( msg )) while True : resp = json . loads ( await ws . recv ()) if resp . get ( ' id ' ) == msg_id : return resp Key Advantages Real browser fingerprint, no automation flags Persistent sessions, cookies survive across runs Google OAuth works, existing sessions carry over No bot detection, it IS a real browser Follow for more tutorials on browser automation and AI agent architecture.

Headline: The wins come from context, not cleverness. An AI with your codebase, your design system, and your deploy logs in scope writes code that ships. Without that scope, it writes plausible code that doesn't. Two years ago, AI coding tools were autocomplete with attitude. In 2026 they are a credible second engineer — provided you build the workflow around them. This is the workflow I run today at Devya Solutions and on personal projects like eng-ahmed.com . The Stack Claude Code in the terminal — long-horizon, multi-file edits with skills and subagents. MCP (Model Context Protocol) servers for live access to docs, deployments, browser, and design tools. Cursor or VS Code for inline edits when I want to stay in the IDE. Why Context Is Everything The single highest-leverage move in AI-assisted dev is feeding the model the right context. MCP servers do this without prompt stuffing. Docs MCP — pulls current library docs at call time, so the model doesn't hallucinate the Tailwind v3 API in a v4 codebase. Browser MCP (Claude-in-Chrome) — lets the agent open the running dev server, screenshot the page, and verify the change actually rendered. Vercel MCP — fetches deploy logs and runtime errors directly. No more pasting logs. Context-mode MCP — keeps file scans, search results, and command output in a sandbox, only surfacing what's relevant to your conversation. A Real Workflow The blog page redesign I just shipped was built in a single 45-minute session. Rough flow: State the goal — two sentences, not a spec doc. Let the agent scout — Claude Code greps, reads a few files, proposes a plan. Iterate visually — screenshot the result, feed it back. The agent fixes the sticky-filter scroll bug in one turn. Commit and push — a single cm shortcut runs build, commits, and pushes. Vercel deploys on push. What the Agent Is Still Bad At Holistic taste — it copies the closest example in your codebase. If that's mediocre, the new feature is mediocre. Domain knowledge — it doesn't kn

Your quiet space for reading articles later. Discussion | Link

is it a browser or server security? submitted by /u/AdvertisingFancy7011 [link] [留言]

What This Guide Covers When you start building LLM-powered applications, one pattern becomes unavoidable: RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) . LLMs only know what they were trained on. Your company's internal documents, the latest spec sheets, project-specific information — none of that exists in the model. To handle data the model doesn't know, you need a system that retrieves relevant knowledge in real time and injects it into the context. That's RAG. In this guide, we'll implement a RAG system from scratch using pgvector and Gemini, then extend it step by step through Tool Use, AI Agents, MCP, and cloud deployment. Step 1: Embedding · Vector DB · RAG — core implementation Step 2: AI Architect perspective — design decisions explained Step 3: Tool Use — LLM autonomously searches the DB Step 4: AI Agents — combining multiple tools Step 5: MCP — exposing tools as a server Step 6: Cloud deployment — Render × Supabase Three Concepts to Understand First Embedding Computers can't measure "semantic similarity" from raw text. Embedding converts text into a list of numbers (a vector), and semantically similar words produce numerically similar patterns. "dog" → [ 0.82 , 0.75 , 0.10 , ... ] 768 numbers "cat" → [ 0.78 , 0.72 , 0.12 , ... ] ← similar pattern to "dog" "bank" → [ 0.08 , 0.10 , 0.85 , ... ] ← completely different Gemini's embedding model handles this conversion. Vector DB A regular DB searches by keyword matching. A vector DB searches by numeric distance — meaning it finds semantically related documents even when the exact words don't match. -- Regular search (misses if keywords don't match) SELECT * FROM docs WHERE body LIKE '%F1 score%' ; -- Vector search (finds semantically related docs) SELECT * FROM docs ORDER BY embedding <=> query_vector LIMIT 3 ; Search for "how to measure model performance" and it finds "F1 score calculation" — even without matching words. We use pgvector , a PostgreSQL extension, for this. RAG LLMs are limited to their training data. R

The Agent Skills open standard today, and the 2026 research on agents that write their own skills. TL;DR: In late 2025, "Agent Skills" became a thing — a dead-simple way to teach an AI agent a task: a folder with a SKILL.md file (some instructions in Markdown). It's already an open standard. The wild part is what's coming next: agents that write their own skills. I built a demo where an agent solves a task the hard way once, saves a real SKILL.md , and then reuses it — cutting its total effort almost in half. ~130 lines, no API key. First, what's a "skill"? If you've used Claude Code or similar tools lately, you've probably seen SKILL.md files. The idea is refreshingly low-tech. A "skill" is just a folder with a Markdown file that says how to do something : --- name : csv-to-markdown description : Turn comma-separated text into a Markdown table. Use when the input looks like CSV and the user wants a table. --- # CSV to Markdown ## Instructions Split the text into rows on newlines and columns on commas. Make the first row the header, add a `---` divider row, then format every row as `| a | b | c |`. That's it. No SDK, no config. Anthropic introduced this in October 2025 and then published it as an open standard ( agentskills.io ) in December 2025, so the same skill folder now works across ~30+ different agent tools (Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot, and more). The full rules are short ( agentskills.io/specification ): the only required fields are name (1–64 chars, lowercase-with-hyphens, and it must match the folder name) and description (≤1024 chars, saying what it does and when to use it ). Everything else — license , metadata , compatibility , allowed-tools — is optional. That's the whole spec. The SKILL.md files my demo writes follow it to the letter, so they'd load unmodified in any compatible CLI. The clever trick: progressive disclosure Here's the smart part. If you just dumped 50 skills' worth of instructions into the agent's context, you'd fill it up and leave n

Have you noticed how every demo of "an AI agent" looks impressive in the video and falls apart the moment you ask a sharper question? The agent confidently does the wrong thing. It forgets what it just decided. It tries to call a tool that doesn't exist. It loops forever rewriting the same file. It calmly tells you the deployment succeeded when it didn't. These aren't failures of the model. They're failures of the workflow around the model. Because that's all an agent really is: a software workflow where a language model can pick the next step and call tools. The "intelligence" sits in the prompt and the orchestration around it, not in some secret agent-flavoured fairy dust. Strip the word "agent" away and you've got five pieces of plumbing: planning, tool use, memory, constraints, verification. Every production-grade agent stands or falls on those five. This is a long walk through each one. Not the marketing version. The kind of detail you actually need before you ship something that talks to your database. The Loop You're Actually Building Before we touch any pillar individually, hold the whole loop in your head. A useful agent does roughly this on every turn: Read the goal (and whatever memory is relevant to it). Decide the next action: answer directly, call a tool, ask a clarifying question, or stop. If it called a tool, observe the tool's result and feed it back in. Update memory if anything is worth remembering. Check constraints: are we over budget, out of iterations, touching something off-limits? Verify the output before declaring success. Loop until done or stopped. That's it. Every framework (LangGraph, OpenAI Agents SDK, Claude Agent SDK, smolagents, whatever ships next month) is a different shape of the same loop with different defaults. agent-loop.ts async function runAgent ( goal : string , ctx : AgentContext ) { const state = ctx . startState ( goal ); for ( let step = 0 ; step < ctx . maxSteps ; step ++ ) { const decision = await ctx . model . decid

I've been thinking about this problem for a while. Developers and businesses need quality websites fast — but the options are either overpriced custom builds, outdated templates, or starting from scratch every single time. So I decided to build the solution myself. Softchic is a premium template and ready-made website marketplace — production-ready, built on modern stacks, designed to actually look good. This is Week 1 of building it in public. Why Softchic The market exists. Developers need templates. Businesses need websites. But most template stores are either bloated, outdated, or built on stacks nobody wants to touch in 2026. Softchic is different — every template ships with: Modern stack (Next.js, TypeScript, Tailwind CSS v4) Clean, production-ready code Premium design out of the box The name went through 25+ candidates across multiple languages before landing here. Clean, available, memorable — Softchic. The Stack Framework: Next.js 14 (App Router) Language: TypeScript Styling: Tailwind CSS v4 Components: shadcn/ui Payments: Lemon Squeezy (international) + Paystack (Nigeria) Email: Resend Deployment: Vercel Design language: dark and premium — #0D0D0D background, #2563EB blue, #F97316 orange accents. Week 1 — What Got Built ✅ Waitlist page — designed and ready to deploy ✅ Navbar — responsive, dark-themed ✅ WaitlistForm — wired to Resend for email capture ✅ Brand system — colors, typography, full design identity locked ✅ Payment architecture — Lemon Squeezy + IP-based currency detection via ipapi.co with PPP pricing for global fairness The waitlist goes live very soon. Follow me here on Dev.to — I'll drop the link the moment it's live. Early subscribers get first access when the store launches. The launch goal: 200 waitlist subscribers before opening the store. That's the benchmark. No exceptions. What's Next Waitlist page goes live 🚀 Product listing page Template preview system First upload — a SaaS landing page template The Real Talk Building a marketplace fr

Active inference: curiosity emerges for free from minimizing surprise — 48% vs 100% on a foraging task. TL;DR: Most AI agents chase rewards — they pick whatever action scores the most points. I tried a different, brain-inspired goal: avoid surprises . Something neat happened — the agent became curious without being told to. It goes looking for information before acting, and that takes it from 48% to 100% on a simple task. ~100 lines. Two different ways to make decisions Most AI agents are "reward chasers." Give them points for doing well, and they'll pick whatever action they expect to score highest. Simple and effective. There's another idea from brain science: instead of chasing points, try to avoid being surprised — act so the world matches what you expected. It sounds almost too simple, but it leads to a surprising bonus: when you're trying not to be surprised, going and finding out what you don't know becomes valuable all by itself. In other words, curiosity isn't something you have to bolt on. It comes for free. This is called active inference , and in 2026 it jumped from neuroscience into AI as a serious approach ( here's a 2026 paper ). Here's the smallest demo that makes it click. The 10-second version The task: a reward is hidden behind either the LEFT door or the RIGHT door (50/50). There's also a hint you can check that tells you which door — if you bother to look. ❌ Reward-chaser ✅ Curious agent What it cares about getting the reward, right now getting the reward + not being unsure What it does guesses a door checks the hint first, then opens the right door Success (400 tries) 48% 100% Nobody told the second agent "go check the hint." It did it on its own, because being unsure bothered it. How it works Before acting, the agent scores each option on two things: Does this get me closer to the reward? Does this make me less unsure about what's going on? value_of_checking_the_hint = how_unsure_am_i # high when it's a total coin-flip value_of_just_guessing =

Theory of Mind and the Sally-Anne false-belief test, in ~60 lines of Python. TL;DR: There's a famous test that kids pass around age 4. It checks whether you understand that other people can believe things that aren't true. I built two AI agents: one that only knows "what's actually happening" (fails, like a toddler) and one that keeps track of what each person believes (passes). It's ~110 lines, and it's the foundation for agents that can actually work together . The test Sally puts her marble in the basket , then leaves the room. While she's gone, Anne moves the marble to the box . Sally comes back. Where will she look for her marble? If you said basket , nice — you just used something called "theory of mind." Sally never saw the marble move, so in her head it's still in the basket. What's actually true (it's in the box) and what Sally believes (it's in the basket) are two different things, and you kept them separate without even thinking about it. A 3-year-old says "box" — they can't yet separate what they know from what Sally knows. A 4-year-old says "basket." It's one of the most famous tests in child psychology, and in 2026 it's become a real test for AI agents too. The 10-second version ❌ Agent with no "theory of mind" ✅ Agent that models other minds What it tracks only what's actually true what each person believes, separately Where will Sally look? "box" "basket" Result FAIL (only knows reality) PASS How it works (the whole trick) The only difference between the two agents is one rule: a person's belief only updates when that person is actually in the room to see it happen. def someone_moves_the_marble ( new_place , who_is_watching ): for person in who_is_watching : # only people in the room beliefs [ person ] = new_place # update THEIR mental picture So when Anne moves the marble while Sally is out, only Anne's mental picture updates. Sally's is frozen at "basket." Ask the simple agent and it just reports reality ("box"). Ask the smarter agent and it answer

A sleep-like phase that consolidates noisy daily experience into durable memory — 75% vs 100% recall. TL;DR: There's a wave of 2026 research giving AI a "sleep" phase — time spent not answering questions, just tidying up what it learned that day. I built a 90-line demo of the idea. The agent that "sleeps" remembers 100% of what it learned. The exact same agent without sleep remembers only 75% and gets confused by bad info. Runs on a laptop. The memory problem every AI app hits If you've built anything with an LLM, you know the pain: the model only "remembers" what's in its current context window. Once the conversation gets long enough, the oldest stuff scrolls off the top and is just... gone. Forgotten. The usual fix is "make the context window bigger." But that's like fixing a messy desk by buying a bigger desk. It's expensive, and the model still gets worse as you cram more in (a real, measured effect — more text in the window can actually lower accuracy). Your brain doesn't work this way. You don't remember every sentence anyone said today. While you sleep, your brain replays the day, keeps the important bits as long-term memory, and dumps the rest. That's how you remember "I like coffee" without remembering every single cup. A couple of 2026 papers ask the obvious question: Do Language Models Need Sleep? Their answer: giving an AI a quiet "offline" phase to consolidate memories makes it remember better. So I built the simplest version that shows why. The 10-second version ❌ Agent with no sleep ✅ Agent that sleeps How it remembers keeps only the last N messages saves a tidy summary every night After 30 noisy days 75% recall 100% recall Tricked by bad info? yes no — it goes with what it saw most often Same experiences, same noise, same memory test. The only difference is whether the agent sleeps. How it works Each "day," the agent hears facts like Alice → drinks → coffee . To make it realistic, about 1 in 5 facts is wrong (people misremember, logs have errors). Th

A tiny Darwin Gödel Machine that edits itself and keeps only changes that verifiably score higher. TL;DR: I built a small program that improves itself . It looks at the tasks it's failing, edits its own code to fix them, and keeps a change only if the change actually makes it score better on a test. It goes from passing 1 of 8 tasks to 8 of 8 — and nobody wrote those fixes but the program itself. It runs on a laptop in under a second. No fancy hardware, no API key. The old dream: software that improves itself Normally, software only gets better when we make it better. You write code, you find a bug, you fix it, you ship again. The program never improves on its own. People have wanted "software that improves itself" for decades. The classic version (called a "Gödel Machine") had one rule that made it impossible to build: before the program could change a line of its own code, it had to mathematically prove the change would help. Proving that about real code is basically impossible, so the idea never worked. In 2025, researchers found a way around it with the Darwin Gödel Machine . They dropped the "prove it first" rule and replaced it with something every engineer already trusts: Try the change. Run the tests. If the score went up, keep it. If not, throw it away. That's it. It's basically how we all work — make an edit, run the test suite, keep what passes. The twist is that the program is the one making the edits. In the real paper, this let an AI coding assistant improve its own tooling and jump from solving 20% to 50% of a hard benchmark of real GitHub issues. I wanted to actually see this happen, so I built the tiniest version I could. The 10-second version Start After improving itself What it can do only uppercase learned 6 more skills on its own Test score 🔴 1 / 8 🟢 8 / 8 Who wrote the fixes? — the program did Start: ███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 1/8 (only knows: uppercase) +reverse ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░ 2/8 +dedup_csv █████████░░░░░░░░░ 3/8 +sum_csv ████████████░░░░░░

I run an AI system that maintains itself on a schedule. One of its routines is supposed to do a job twice a week and save the result to a file. The scheduler swore it ran. Twice. lastRunAt right there - timestamped, green, smug. The file? Didn't exist. Not "saved in the wrong folder" - didn't exist anywhere. Here's the thing nobody warns you about when you wire up autonomous agents: "it ran" and "it worked" are different claims, and most of your dashboards only check the first one. The trap A scheduler firing a job tells you a process started . It tells you nothing about whether the job did the thing. My routine started, hit an early error reading a file that didn't exist yet, and just... ended. No crash. No red anywhere. It "ran." It produced nothing. For days. If I'd trusted the green checkmark, I'd still think it was fine. How I found it I stopped reading the status and went to the disk. Three checks, in order: Does the output actually exist? Not "did it run" - does the artifact it's supposed to produce exist, right now, where it claims to put it? If yes - is it fresh and non-empty? A stale or empty file is a silent failure wearing a costume. If no - read the raw run log. Not the summary. The actual transcript of what the agent did, tool call by tool call. That third check is where the truth was hiding. The summary said the routine was "episodic." The transcript said something blunter: it tried to read its own memory file, got "file does not exist," and never recovered to create it. Zero write calls the entire run. It never even tried to save anything. "Episodic" and "dies before it writes" lead to completely different fixes. The summary would've sent me down the wrong one. Steal these If you run anything autonomous: "Ran" is not "worked." Health is the artifact: it exists, it's fresh, it's not empty. Not a green dot from the thing that launched it. Described is not executed. What the spec says a routine does is a hypothesis. What's on disk is the fact. When they

Instagram users could soon see more ways to tune their content.

Series: AI, Ego & Regret — Bonus Chapter Editor's Note: While compiling the old series for the...

Not everyone is buying Elon Musk’s vision for orbital data centers.

submitted by /u/Cultural_Wheel_6936 [link] [留言]

In the landscape of modern programming, delimiters serve as the essential scaffolding that organizes logic and defines structure. Among these, curly braces—often referred to as braces or squiggly brackets—occupy a unique position. While they are ubiquitous, they are frequently the source of developer frustration and logic errors. A common pitfall for many programmers is the tendency to treat all delimiters as interchangeable, leading to a fundamental misunder身 of how a compiler or interpreter parses a script. Confusion often arises when developers conflate the purpose of curly braces with those of parentheses or square brackets. For instance, in many languages, curly braces denote a scope or a code block, whereas square brackets handle indexing. However, the nuances become even more complex when examining specific environments like R, where the semantic meaning of a symbol can shift depending on the context—moving from defining a function to facilitating list extraction. Understanding the specific curly braces semantics is not merely an academic exercise in syntax; it is a practical necessity for writing clean, maintainable code. When a developer understands why a brace is used, they can more easily debug nested structures and communicate intent to their teammates. Grasping these distinctions reduces the cognitive load required to read complex scripts and prevents the subtle bugs that emerge when syntax is used incorrectly. Curly Braces vs. Other Delimiters: Semantic Roles in R and Beyond To master programming syntax, one must move beyond recognizing symbols and begin understanding their semantic intent. While many developers treat curly braces as just another set of punctuation, their role is fundamentally distinct from parentheses and square brackets. Understanding the nuance of curly braces semantics is essential for writing logic that is both functional and readable. The Primary Role: Defining Code Blocks In most procedural and object-oriented languages (such as