标签：#p

Your domain event fires. Your notification service queries the DB for the entity that just got saved. It finds nothing. You add a log line. It starts working. You remove the log. It breaks again. That's not a race condition. That's @EventListener . What's actually happening Spring's @EventListener fires synchronously, inside the calling thread, before the transaction commits. The DB row exists in Hibernate's session — but it hasn't been flushed and committed yet. Other connections, including the one your listener opens when it calls findById , can't see it. The log statement "fixes" it because the delay gives Hibernate time to flush. Remove the log, the flush doesn't happen in time, and you're back to an empty Optional . Here's the broken setup: @Component public class OrderEventListener { @EventListener // fires MID-TRANSACTION, before commit public void onOrderCreated ( OrderCreatedEvent event ) { // Transaction not committed yet. // Other DB connections see nothing. Order order = orderRepository . findById ( event . getOrderId ()) . orElseThrow (); // ← throws here, row doesn't exist yet notificationService . notifyCustomer ( order ); } } The obvious fix and what it costs you Spring ships @TransactionalEventListener for exactly this. Set phase = TransactionPhase.AFTER_COMMIT and the listener fires after the transaction commits. The row is visible. findById returns the order. Problem solved. @Component public class OrderEventListener { @TransactionalEventListener ( phase = TransactionPhase . AFTER_COMMIT ) public void onOrderCreated ( OrderCreatedEvent event ) { // Transaction committed. All connections see the row. Order order = orderRepository . findById ( event . getOrderId ()) . orElseThrow (); // ← works fine notificationService . notifyCustomer ( order ); } } But the trade-off is real. Your listener is now decoupled from the transaction. If the listener fails — notification service is down, the email throws, the external API times out — the transaction alrea

Shopping Roborock’s models can feel overwhelming. But there’s just one I recommend snagging during Prime Day.

Introduction With the World Cup 2026 group stage reaching its climax, football fans worldwide are speculating about who will make it to the finals. To make this experience interactive, I built a fully dynamic World Cup 2026 Bracket Simulator. Instead of just letting users click and choose winners, this app dynamically calculates ELO win probabilities and probabilistically generates realistic match scores (including extra time and penalties) based on team ratings. It also syncs with live match data in real-time. Live URL: https://worldcup-predict2026.github.io/champion/ Tech Stack: Vanilla JS, CSS3 (3D parallax), GitHub Actions, Python, football-data.org API Core Features & Technical Implementation ELO-Based Win Probability & Score Simulation Each team in the database is assigned an ELO-based strength rating. When a user runs the AI auto-prediction, the script calculates win probability and generates a realistic scoreline. Here is the goal roll algorithm (Poisson-like simulation) implemented in Vanilla JS: javascript function generateMatchScore(team1, team2, winner) { if (team1 === "TBD" || team2 === "TBD" || !winner) return null; const s1 = teamStrengths[team1] || 70; const s2 = teamStrengths[team2] || 70; const winnerIsTeam1 = (winner === team1); const strengthDiff = Math.abs(s1 - s2); const baseGoalExpected = 1.1; const bonusGoal = Math.min(1.8, strengthDiff / 12.0); // Goal weight based on ELO difference const rollGoals = (lambda) => { let L = Math.exp(-lambda); let k = 0; let p = 1.0; do { k++; p *= Math.random(); } while (p > L && k < 10); return k - 1; }; let gWin = 0; let gLose = 0; const r = Math.random(); if (r < 0.75) { // Regular time win (90 mins) gLose = rollGoals(baseGoalExpected); gWin = gLose + 1 + rollGoals(0.7 + bonusGoal); return winnerIsTeam1 ? ${gWin} - ${gLose} : ${gLose} - ${gWin} ; } else if (r < 0.92) { // Extra time win (AET) const normalGoals = rollGoals(baseGoalExpected); gLose = normalGoals; gWin = normalGoals + 1; return winnerIsTeam1 ?

Indie movie fans are upset about Google DeepMind’s $75 million investment in the studio, which comes as AI companies are deepening their influence in Hollywood.

"Operation Endgame" simultaneously disrupts two widely used crime tools.

Lawsuit alleged Disney inflated market prices by making carriers include ESPN.

Save big during Prime Day on the best fake Christmas trees you can buy if you’re willing to stash them for six months.

Window ACs and portable air conditioners are on great Prime Day deals. Get some, uh, cool prices.

Privacy advocates and domestic violence groups say ID mandate is a big mistake.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) says her staff used AI for "spellcheck" in an amendment summary for a major defense bill, but denies it was used for the bill text itself and says "NO Legislation is ever drafted with AI." Luna issued the response after accounts on X began sharing screenshots of an amendment summary […]

While there was probably a moment when Slate’s leadership had to green-light the switch from one battery type to another, the momentum toward that decision had been building for years.

This curious phenomenon was documented by the seismometer at the University of Bergen, which recorded slight vibrations whenever the national team scored a goal.

Describe your app and Blop tests it and repairs broken tests Discussion | Link

Open Graph images are the single biggest factor in whether your shared links look credible or broken. Yet most sites ship one generic image on every page because making a unique one by hand is tedious. Here is a more sustainable approach: treat preview images as generated data, not hand-made design. The problem, concretely When you share a link, the receiving platform reads your page's og:image meta tag and renders a card. If that tag is missing, points to a low-res logo, or is the same image on all 200 pages, your links look generic in every feed, Slack channel, and group chat. Studies of social sharing consistently show that posts with a clear, relevant preview image get meaningfully more engagement than those without. The reason teams skip it is not ignorance. It is friction. Opening a design tool, duplicating a template, swapping the title text, exporting at the right dimensions, and uploading the file takes 10 to 20 minutes per page. Nobody keeps that up across a real publishing schedule. So the back catalog stays bare and new posts get whatever the default is. The insight: it is template work Look at a typical preview card and ask what actually changes between pages. Usually just the title, maybe the author and a category tag. The layout, background, logo, and fonts are constant. That is the textbook definition of a job you should template once and generate programmatically, not redo by hand each time. How to solve it The cleanest pattern is to generate the image at build time or on first request, then cache it. Conceptually: // During your build or in an API route async function getOgImage ( post ) { const params = new URLSearchParams ({ title : post . title , author : post . author , tag : post . category , }); // Returns a ready Open Graph image URL return `https://getcardforge.dev/api/card? ${ params } ` ; } // In your page head // <meta property="og:image" content={getOgImage(post)} /> You can build this yourself with a headless browser plus an HTML templ

Hi, I'm Hugo. I built MinecraftServers-List.com — a Minecraft server directory that ranks servers by genuine player votes and uptime. Why I built it Most existing Minecraft server lists have the same problem: the rankings are easily gamed. Server owners run scripts to inflate their vote counts, and players searching for a good server end up with a list that reflects who has the best bots, not which servers are actually worth playing on. I wanted to fix that. What makes it different Vote integrity — votes are tied to real player sessions and IP validation, making bot voting significantly harder Uptime monitoring — servers that go offline lose ranking visibility automatically Player reviews — verified players can leave reviews with star ratings, giving prospective players real signal Java & Bedrock — both editions listed and filterable by gamemode, version, and country The tech stack Built with TanStack Start (React SSR), Supabase for the database, and deployed on Cloudflare Workers. The SSR approach was important for SEO — server listing pages need to be fully rendered for Googlebot to index individual server pages properly. What I've learned so far Getting a new directory site indexed by Google is genuinely hard. The challenge isn't technical — it's convincing Google that hundreds of server listing pages are individually worth indexing when they all share a similar template structure. The solution has been enriching each server page with structured data (VideoGame schema with AggregateRating), genuine user reviews, and making sure every page has a meaningfully unique meta description generated from real server data — version, gamemode, player count, country. Still a work in progress but the site is live, servers are actively listed, and players are voting daily. Try it If you run a Minecraft server, you can list it free at https://minecraftservers-list.com If you're looking for a server to join, the SMP list and survival list are good starting points. Happy to answe

Most on-page audits catch the obvious stuff: a missing title here, a duplicate meta description there. The thing that quietly costs you rich results is structured data that exists but is invalid, and most flat-list crawlers either skip it or bury it. Here is why it happens and how to catch it. The problem, concretely You add FAQ schema to a product page to win that expandable rich result in Google. You paste a JSON-LD block into the head, ship it, and move on. Six weeks later the rich result never showed up, and nobody knows why. The usual culprits are small and silent: A @type that does not match the content (FAQPage with no mainEntity ). A required property missing ( acceptedAnswer without text ). A trailing comma or a stray character that makes the JSON parse fail entirely. Schema that contradicts what is actually on the page, which Google can flag as spammy and ignore. None of these throw a visible error. The page renders fine. The schema is just dead weight, and a standard "issues" crawl that only counts titles and headings walks right past it. How to catch it First, validate the JSON itself. A block that does not parse is invisible to search engines. Even a quick local check surfaces the dumb-but-fatal errors: // Pull every JSON-LD block and check it parses + has a @type const blocks = [... document . querySelectorAll ( ' script[type="application/ld+json"] ' )]; blocks . forEach (( b , i ) => { try { const data = JSON . parse ( b . textContent ); if ( ! data [ " @type " ]) console . warn ( `Block ${ i } : missing @type` ); } catch ( e ) { console . error ( `Block ${ i } : invalid JSON ->` , e . message ); } }); If that logs an error, the schema was never going to work, no matter how perfect the markup looked. Second, check required properties for the specific type you are using. FAQPage needs mainEntity with Question items, each carrying an acceptedAnswer . Article needs headline , author , and datePublished . Validating "it parsed" is not the same as "it is c

Table of Contents The Moment That Changed Everything What It Actually Is The Setup Nobody Believes Is This Simple Focused Sessions — One Agent, One Mission Sub-Agents With Specific Skill Sets Building MCPs for Your Own Stack What We've Actually Achieved How It Became a Force Multiplier for Incident Response From OpenCode to FRIDAY — The Agent That Investigates Incidents Autonomously From FRIDAY to JARVIS — Thinking About Write-Path Autonomy Deleting 130,000 Accounts Without Writing Code Learning the Entire Product in Conversations Why This Is Different From ChatGPT The Uncomfortable Truth What's Next The Moment That Changed Everything It was 11pm on a Tuesday. A cache migration in our production environment had just caused thousands of authentication failures for two of our largest enterprise customers. Our VP of Product wanted answers. Our support team was fielding escalations. And our engineers were alt-tabbing between AWS console, Datadog, GitHub, Azure DevOps, and PagerDuty trying to piece together what happened. Three weeks later, when we needed to attempt the same change again, an engineer typed this into a terminal: "Review the ADO change ticket, compare the MOP against the actual ElastiCache configuration in prod region, check the K8s config repo for how Redis env vars are wired on the Green cluster, and tell me if this approach avoids the token validation failure that caused the previous customer impact." Fourteen seconds later , the system had pulled the work item, queried AWS ElastiCache across four regions, read the Kubernetes configuration from GitHub, cross-referenced the deployment patches, and delivered a precise technical assessment including a risk it identified that the team hadn't documented: in-flight tokens during the 30–60 second Global Accelerator propagation window. That system is OpenCode — an AI-powered CLI assistant connected to our entire operational stack through the MC(Model Context Protocol). And it has fundamentally changed how a 20-

AI coding tools are incredible. But I noticed something — they ship code fast, skip the rules, and nobody catches it until it's already in production. That's exactly what GuardDuo is built to fix. The Problem We're in the age of vibe-coding. You describe what you want, the AI builds it, it works — and you ship it. But "works" and "correct" are two very different things. Imagine asking an AI to build a login form. It works perfectly. But under the hood it has hardcoded API keys, no input validation, missing aria-labels , and it's using fetch directly instead of your project's apiClient wrapper. Your Issue said none of that was allowed. Nobody caught it. That's the vibe-coding trap — and it's happening on every team using AI-assisted development right now. What is GuardDuo GuardDuo is a GitLab Duo Agent skill that acts as your AI guardian. Instead of just reviewing code in isolation, it cross-references your code changes against the actual intent of the linked GitLab Issue — using the Orbit Knowledge Graph , which is essentially the brain that knows your project's rules, requirements, and success criteria. In plain terms: GuardDuo reads what the Issue asked for , reads what the code actually does , and tells you exactly where they don't match. It audits across three dimensions: 🔐 Security — hardcoded secrets, SQL injection, missing input validation ♿ Accessibility — missing alt text, aria-labels , poor color contrast 📐 Standards — deviations from your project's established patterns and conventions And when it finds a problem, it doesn't just flag it — it fixes it. How It Works Just open GitLab Duo Chat or GitLab Agent Platform(on your choice of IDE) -> choose the agent as GuardDuo and type: Audit issue #[issue no.] — GuardDuo pulls the Issue context from Orbit, analyzes the code, and returns a structured report Fix issue #[issue no.] — GuardDuo generates a corrected implementation that satisfies all requirements Or paste any code snippet directly and ask it to audit o

Every serious AI workflow eventually runs into the same failure. The agent does useful work in one session. It learns the shape of the project. It figures out which assumptions were wrong. It follows a correction, makes a decision, and gets closer to the real work. Then the session changes. The next run starts too cold. Old context comes back without the correction that changed it. The agent asks for the same setup again. It repeats an assumption that was already fixed yesterday. You end up managing the memory of the work instead of moving the work forward. That is the problem Pith is built for. Pith gives AI agents durable project memory they can trust when facts change. It is not trying to make an agent remember everything. That would be the wrong goal. Real projects are messy. Facts change. Decisions get reversed. A note that was useful last week can become stale after a release, a migration, a new customer constraint, or one correction from the human operator. The harder problem is not recall. The harder problem is knowing which memory is still useful. Why Longer Context Is Not Enough Longer context helps, but it does not solve continuity by itself. A long prompt can carry more text into a single run. It cannot automatically decide which prior facts survived a correction, which decision is now superseded, or which evidence should come back when the project resumes three days later. Developers working with agents already feel this. The friction shows up as small taxes: repeating project background that the agent should already know; re-explaining decisions that were already made; correcting stale assumptions that were already corrected; losing the reason behind a prior choice; restarting from a cold state after every meaningful break. Those taxes compound. The more serious the workflow, the more expensive the memory gap becomes. If an agent is helping with a toy task, forgetting is annoying. If an agent is helping with a codebase, a release, a customer workflow,

Why API Breaking Changes Still Reach Production Even With CI/CD A few years ago I watched a "tiny" API change take down checkout for about forty minutes. The change was a one-liner. The pull request had two approvals. CI was green across the board. And it still broke production, because the thing that actually mattered was never tested. If you run microservices at any real scale, you have lived some version of this. Let's talk about why it keeps happening even with a mature pipeline, and what the teams who don't keep getting paged do differently. The Problem Here's the change that caused the outage. A payments service had a response that looked like this: { "status" : "ok" , "transaction_id" : "txn_8842" , "amount_cents" : 4200 } Someone renamed amount_cents to amount and switched it to a decimal, because "cents is confusing." Cleaner field, better docs. The producing service's tests were updated to match, everything passed, it shipped. The problem: three downstream services still read amount_cents . One of them was the order service, which now received undefined , multiplied it by a quantity, and wrote NaN into the database. The failures didn't even surface in the payments service. They surfaced two hops away, in a service the original author had never opened. This is the core issue. A breaking change is not defined by the service that makes it. It's defined by the consumers who depend on it. And the producer's CI pipeline has no idea those consumers exist. Why Existing Approaches Fail The natural reaction is "we need more tests." But look at what each layer actually checks. Unit tests verify the code does what the author intended. The author intended to rename the field. The unit tests were updated to expect amount . They passed because they were testing the new, broken behavior. Green unit tests told us nothing. Integration tests verify the service works with its own dependencies — its database, its cache, the APIs it calls. They almost never spin up the services