标签：#p

Edit videos 10x faster with AI Discussion | Link

These portable vacuums make quick work of snack crumbs, tracked-in dirt, pet hair, and the mysterious debris beneath your seats.

Everything you need to know about the solar eclipse and lunar eclipse that will occur in August 2026.

Your kid’s little lunch hauler takes a brutal beating every day. These are the backbacks our own kids have tried and loved.

Hello Devs 👋 AI coding assistants have dramatically accelerated code generation. Whether you're using Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, or Windsurf, writing code is faster than ever. The challenge is that code review hasn't improved at the same pace. Teams are shipping larger pull requests, reviewing more AI-generated code, and spending increasing amounts of time validating whether changes are actually correct, maintainable, and aligned with existing architecture. That's exactly why AI code review tools have become a key part of modern GitHub workflows. The problem is that not all AI review tools solve the same problem. Some generate pull request summaries. Some focus on security and compliance. Some extend traditional static analysis. Others attempt to understand repository-wide context and review changes the way an experienced teammate would. If you're evaluating AI code review tools for GitHub, here's a practical comparison of the most widely discussed options in 2026. ⚡ Quick Verdict Qodo stands out for teams that need automated pull request reviews with repository-wide context, not just diff analysis. The GitHub integration is straightforward, reviews run automatically on pull requests, and the platform focuses on understanding dependencies, related files, and existing code patterns across the repository. For small projects, lightweight review tools may be sufficient. For larger codebases, AI-generated code, and complex pull requests, context-aware review becomes significantly more valuable. What Makes a Good GitHub AI Review Tool? Before comparing tools, it's worth defining what actually matters. For most engineering teams, four factors determine whether an AI review tool provides real value. 1. Integration Reviews should appear where developers already work, directly inside GitHub pull requests. Nobody wants another dashboard, notification stream, or workflow to manage. 2. Review Quality Useful reviews surface meaningful issues, not just more comments. The

Welcome back to the React Mastery Series ! In the previous article, we explored Custom Hooks in React and learned how reusable logic helps developers build scalable and maintainable applications. Today, we will explore one of the most important concepts in modern frontend development: React Routing Almost every real-world React application contains multiple screens: Login Dashboard Profile Settings Reports Transactions Admin panels But React applications are usually built as: Single Page Applications (SPA) So how do we navigate between different pages without refreshing the browser? The answer is React Router What is Client-Side Routing? Traditional websites work like this: User Clicks Link | ↓ Browser Requests New HTML Page | ↓ Server Sends Page | ↓ Browser Reloads Every navigation causes a full page refresh. React Single Page Applications work differently: User Clicks Link | ↓ React Router Intercepts Request | ↓ URL Changes | ↓ React Loads Component | ↓ No Page Refresh This creates a smooth application experience. What is React Router? React Router is a library that enables navigation between different components based on the URL. Example: /login /dashboard /profile /settings Each URL maps to a React component. Example: /login | ↓ Login Component /dashboard | ↓ Dashboard Component Installing React Router For a React application: npm install react-router-dom The package provides: BrowserRouter Routes Route Link Navigate useNavigate useParams Setting Up BrowserRouter The first step is wrapping your application. Example: import { BrowserRouter } from " react-router-dom " ; import App from " ./App " ; ReactDOM . createRoot ( document . getElementById ( " root " )). render ( < BrowserRouter > < App /> </ BrowserRouter >, ); Now React can manage browser navigation. Creating Routes Routes define which component should display for a URL. Example: import { Routes , Route } from " react-router-dom " ; function App () { return ( < Routes > < Route path = "/" element = { < Ho

Originally published at nlqdb.com/blog The standard agent-memory build is an afternoon of work: embed every fact worth keeping, upsert it into a vector store, and before each reply pull the top-k most similar memories back into context. And for what it's built for, it works. Ask "what did this user say about the Berlin migration" and the right snippets come back, ranked by cosine distance. Recall is solved enough that it feels like memory is solved. Then the agent has been running for a month, and you ask its memory a different kind of question: "how many users asked about pricing this month?" "Average deal size per stage?" "Top 10 topics I logged, ranked by count?" The store dutifully returns the twenty memories most similar to the question text , the LLM eyeballs them, and you get a confident, specific, wrong number. Recall is similarity. Reporting is aggregation. Nothing malfunctioned — the two questions want different machines. A vector store's primitive is nearest-neighbour search: embed the query, rank stored vectors by distance, return the top-k, optionally narrowed by a metadata filter. That is the whole contract. There is no COUNT , no GROUP BY , no JOIN , no HAVING — a similarity engine ships no query planner, and even the metadata filter only narrows candidates around the approximate search, so what comes back is still a ranking of similar items, never a computed result set. "How many" has to touch every matching row . If the agent logged 4,000 memories and top-k is 20, the context the LLM sees is structurally incapable of producing the count — and an LLM doing arithmetic over a retrieved sample is a hallucination generator, not a query engine. The failure is quiet, too: the answer arrives fluent and plausible, and nothing flags that it was computed from half a percent of the data. -- "top topics this month, ranked by count" is not a similarity query. -- It's this — and it must scan every matching row, not the top-k: SELECT topic , count ( * ) AS mentions

🕉️ Devlog — गुरु-दीक्षा: Teaching Karma Without Breaking Immersion "गुरु बिना ज्ञान नहीं।" Without a Guru, there is no knowledge. The Problem Moksha is a game rooted in Sanatan Shastra — Vedic Karma mechanics, Sanskrit concepts, rebirth cycles. It's intentionally deep. And that depth was quietly becoming its biggest barrier. New players would start the game and immediately face naama-jaap, vairaagya, prarabdha, chetana-jagriti — all at once, with no guidance. Within the first 30 seconds, most had no idea what they were doing or why. The game needed a tutorial. But it needed one that didn't betray what Moksha is. Why a Normal Tutorial Wouldn't Work The obvious solution — pause the game, show a tooltip, unpause — felt completely wrong for Moksha. Spiritually, a hard pause breaks the flow of consciousness. Mechanically, isPaused = true is deeply wired into audio ducking, gamepad state, and ambient layers. Hijacking it for tutorial logic would have introduced subtle bugs across every system. An earlier attempt at a tutorial (Issue #30) tried to live inside engine.js itself. That was worse — the engine is already the heaviest file in the codebase, and embedding tutorial step state there violated the entire modular architecture we'd been building toward. So I scrapped both approaches and started over. The Solution: गुरु-दीक्षा (Guru's Initiation) The new system is built around one philosophical reframe: a Guru doesn't stop the world to teach. They walk alongside you. This became the technical foundation too. A New Module — src/tutorial.js TutorialManager is a self-contained ES6 class. It doesn't import from engine.js or touch any game state directly. Instead, main.js passes it an engine state snapshot every frame via checkCompletion(state) . The tutorial reads — never writes. engine.js ──(no connection)──> tutorial.js main.js ──(snapshot feed)──> tutorial.js Zero coupling. Zero risk to existing systems. Slow Motion, Not Hard Pause When a tutorial card is visible, the game

I'm halfway through the MLH Production Engineering Fellowship, and while I've learned a lot technically—from Linux fundamentals, Docker, NGINX, automated testing, and contributing to open source, the thing that has stood out to me most is how well the program is structured. Beyond the technical curriculum, there is a strong emphasis on interview preparation and career growth. We’ve had regular opportunities to practice technical interviews, receive feedback, and stay in close contact with our Meta mentors, who have been incredibly approachable throughout the program. Looking forward to seeing what the second half of the fellowship has in store. Thanks to the MLH team, mentors, and my podmates for making it such a rewarding experience so far!

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

Finding the right API project ideas is one of the fastest ways to turn a thin resume into a portfolio hiring managers actually stop to read. Building and consuming APIs proves you understand authentication, data modeling, error handling, and the kind of real-world messiness that tutorials tend to skip. This list covers eighteen projects ranked roughly by difficulty, from weekend builds to systems worth putting at the top of your GitHub profile. Why API Projects Move the Needle A to-do list app tells an employer you can follow instructions. An API project tells them you can design a system. Every API you build forces decisions about status codes, rate limiting, pagination, and versioning — the exact vocabulary that shows up in technical interviews. Consuming third-party APIs adds a second skill: reading documentation, handling flaky responses, and caching data so you're not hammering someone else's server on every page load. The projects below split into three buckets: building your own API from scratch, consuming an existing API to create something useful, and full-stack projects that do both. Pick a few from each bucket rather than eighteen shallow clones of the same idea. Beginner Builds: Your Own First APIs Start by designing and shipping a REST API before you touch anyone else's data. A personal blog API with endpoints for posts, comments, and tags teaches CRUD operations and basic authentication without much domain complexity. A recipe box API that stores ingredients, steps, and cook times works well because the data model has natural relationships worth practicing on. A habit tracker API, where users log daily check-ins against goals, adds a light analytics layer once you start returning streaks and completion rates. Here's a minimal example of what a habit tracker endpoint might look like in Express: app . post ( ' /habits/:id/checkins ' , async ( req , res ) => { const { id } = req . params ; const { date } = req . body ; const habit = await Habit . findById

When I published v2.0.0 , I thought the hard part was over. The CLI could turn Claude artifacts into native Windows applications in a single command. It worked on my machine, the demos looked great, and I was excited to share it. Then people started using it. That's when I realized the difference between building software and shipping software . The bugs only users can find Most of the problems weren't visible in a five-minute demo. Some applications worked perfectly. Others silently lost all of their data after being closed. Some builds succeeded exactly once. The second build failed unless the runtime cache was manually deleted. Everything looked correct... until someone actually tried using it. The rabbit hole What I thought would be a quick patch became a deep dive into things I'd never touched before. Over the course of v3 I ended up learning far more than I expected: Git branching and release workflows Semantic versioning GitHub Actions npm packaging npm pack Runtime integrity verification SHA-256 checksums Neutralino runtime management JavaScript debugging Integration testing None of those were part of the original project idea. Persistent storage finally works This was the biggest challenge. Artifacts using localStorage behaved differently depending on where they were running. Inside Claude everything worked. Inside the generated desktop application... not always. Tracking this down took far longer than writing the original feature. The result is that applications now persist their data correctly across launches without requiring any code changes. If your artifact uses localStorage , it should simply work. Runtime improvements The runtime layer also received a major overhaul. Version 3 now handles: automatic runtime downloads integrity verification cache recovery consecutive builds without manual cleanup Those aren't exciting features to demo, but they're exactly the kinds of improvements that make a tool feel dependable. Better testing I also spent a lot mo

Yesterday, backend-reviewer inspected pull requests with one model, read only the repository and public documentation, and stopped for human approval before proposing any change. Today it has exactly the same name. The model has changed, the system instructions have been rewritten, incident history is now available as a context source, memory persists between tasks, and database migration changes no longer require approval before they are proposed. The dashboard still shows the same team member. The engineer responsible for quality and risk is looking at a different agent. The identifier stayed. The behavior moved. That distinction is what NexFlow , an open specification for AI developer teams, is trying to make visible. The project does not currently provide a production runtime, a production CLI, or model-provider integrations. Its present job is narrower and, in my view, more important: give teams a language for reviewing agent changes before anything executes. A name answers the wrong question Agent names are useful to people. They distinguish a code reviewer from a documentation writer and establish a long-lived role inside the team. A name says very little about the configuration that produced a particular result. A model change can affect code quality, cost, latency, and the way uncertainty is handled. New instructions alter the order of analysis and the criteria for an acceptable answer. An additional source expands both available knowledge and the exposure surface. Memory carries the consequences of one task into another. A new permission changes more than output style: it changes what an error can damage. For audit purposes, “Which agent did the work?” is therefore incomplete. A second question matters just as much: which version of that agent's definition was active? In draft RFC-0004 , NexFlow separates stable agent identity from a versioned agent definition. Identity contains the role, description, and long-lived responsibility. The definition captures

How do you actually test an AI agent? Not "does it respond," but: does it route to the right tool, chain calls correctly, recover from failure, resist prompt injection, and stay within cost/latency budget? I spent weeks working through this on a running agent, and open-sourced the entire methodology — framework-agnostic , so it applies regardless of your language, runtime, or toolset. What's inside •⁠ ⁠ 61-source benchmark map — BFCL, GAIA, τ-bench, SWE-bench, WebArena, AgentDojo, LongMemEval and more, categorized by what they actually measure •⁠ ⁠ 58 universal test blocks across 7 tiers (L1–L4, Error Recovery, Multi-Turn, Security). Each block = a tool-agnostic capability definition + a concrete reference implementation •⁠ ⁠ Full OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications 2026 (ASI01–ASI10) mapped to 6 universal security test blocks •⁠ ⁠ Evaluation methodology — LLM-as-Judge biases, pass@k vs pass^k, trajectory vs end-state, observability (OpenTelemetry GenAI), automated red-teaming (garak, PyRIT, DeepTeam) •⁠ ⁠ Regulatory alignment — NIST AI RMF, MITRE ATLAS, EU AI Act, ISO/IEC 42001 How to use it Take Part II, replace the reference-implementation fields with your own agent's tool names and expected outputs. The universal capability definitions need no changes. Blank templates are included. PheronAgent (a macOS agent with 50+ native/MCP tools) is included as a real reference case study — but the methodology is the product, not the agent. No marketing narrative: ⁠ STORY.md ⁠ documents the real bugs, real test runs, and real corrections that shaped each version. Docs are CC BY 4.0, templates are MIT. Issues and PRs welcome. 👉 https://github.com/trgysvc/AgentTestMethodology

You've learned not to trust the first answer. So you read it carefully. You spot two problems. You fix them yourself, ship it, and move on. That's a reasonable way to work, and it's what separates an engineer who uses these tools well from one who copies and pastes. But there's a step you skipped. You never asked Claude to find the problems, and asking produces a different kind of output than reviewing does. 🔍 What actually happens Here's a specific case. You ask for an incremental load. You get something clean: a watermark column, a filter on records newer than the last run, an upsert into the target. You review it. You notice it assumes source records arrive in order, which yours don't, so you add a buffer window. You notice it doesn't handle the first run when the watermark is null, so you add a default. Two fixes, maybe fifteen minutes, and now it's correct. What you didn't find was the third problem: the upsert assumes a stable business key, and in your source system that key gets reassigned when records are merged. That one surfaces in production six weeks later as duplicate rows nobody can explain. You caught the problems you were looking for. You didn't catch the one you weren't. This is the normal outcome of self-review. You check against your own mental list of things that go wrong, and your list is good but finite. The problems that hurt are the ones outside it. 🧠 Why intermediates specifically miss this Beginners don't review AI output much at all, so this isn't their failure mode yet. Seniors have usually developed the habit after being caught out by something their own review missed. Intermediates sit in an awkward middle. They have learned, correctly, that AI output needs questioning. And they have concluded, understandably, that the questioning is entirely their job. That conclusion makes sense. Reviewing is what you do with a junior's pull request. It's what you do with your own code before you push. Review is a human activity performed on work some

Play live electronic music with your hands using your webcam Discussion | Link

Youtube for interactive content Discussion | Link

submitted by /u/CGM [link] [留言]

I wrote this after noticing a recurring pattern across interfaces, component systems, ECS, domain entities, and distributed systems: an object’s state, capabilities, and implementation can change while its identity remains stable. I’d be interested to hear how others model identity separately from representation and where this distinction stops being useful. submitted by /u/CoronatedOrange [link] [留言]

Turn anything on your Mac screen into clean Markdown Discussion | Link