标签：#p

TL;DR — Fitz LiveViews is a real-time UI framework for Fitz , a compiled, gradually-typed language where HTTP, WebSockets, auth, and an ORM are part of the syntax. You write single-file components ( .fitzv ) with state / event / <template> , and the server renders HTML, diffs it, and patches the browser over a WebSocket — no JavaScript build step, no client framework . The same .fitzv can also compile to WebAssembly for offline, zero-round-trip widgets. There's a live component gallery, a course, and a full flagship app (an admin panel with auth + Postgres + Docker) already built with it. Repo : github.com/Thegreekman76/fitz-liveviews · Docs : thegreekman76.github.io/fitz-liveviews This is the first post in the FitzLiveViews series. I'll start with the pitch and the setup; the following posts build things. The problem Building a modern web UI usually means two languages, two type systems, and a build pipeline: a backend (Python / Node / Go) plus a frontend framework (React / Vue / Svelte) plus its toolchain (Vite / Webpack / Babel). You duplicate your types across the wire, you keep two mental models in sync, and node_modules grows a personality of its own. Phoenix LiveView (Elixir) showed there's another way: render on the server, push diffs over a WebSocket, and let the browser stay dumb. No client framework, no API to hand-write, no JSON serialization dance. Fitz LiveViews brings that model to Fitz — and adds a twist: the same component can also compile to WebAssembly when you want purely client-side, offline interactivity. What Fitz LiveViews looks like A component is a single .fitzv file — state, event handlers, and a template, like Vue or Svelte: component Counter { state { count : Int = 0 } event increment () { count = count + 1 } event decrement () { count = count - 1 } event reset () { count = 0 } < template > < div id = " counter-app " > < p > Count : { count } < /p > < button @ click = " increment " >+ 1 < /button > < button @ click = " decrement " >- 1 <

TL;DR — Fitz LiveViews es un framework de UI en tiempo real para Fitz , un lenguaje compilado y de tipado gradual donde HTTP, WebSockets, auth y un ORM son parte de la sintaxis. Escribís componentes de un solo archivo ( .fitzv ) con state / event / <template> , y el servidor renderiza HTML, lo diffea y parchea el browser por WebSocket — sin paso de build de JavaScript, sin framework de cliente . El mismo .fitzv puede además compilar a WebAssembly para widgets offline sin round-trip. Ya hay una galería de componentes en vivo, un curso, y una app flagship completa (un panel de administración con auth + Postgres + Docker) construida con esto. Repo : github.com/Thegreekman76/fitz-liveviews · Docs : thegreekman76.github.io/fitz-liveviews Este es el primer post de la serie FitzLiveViews . Arranco con el pitch y el setup; los siguientes construyen cosas. El problema Armar una UI web moderna normalmente implica dos lenguajes, dos sistemas de tipos, y un pipeline de build: un backend (Python / Node / Go) más un framework de frontend (React / Vue / Svelte) más su toolchain (Vite / Webpack / Babel). Duplicás tus tipos de un lado al otro del cable, mantenés dos modelos mentales en sync, y node_modules desarrolla personalidad propia. Phoenix LiveView (Elixir) mostró que hay otra forma: renderizar en el servidor, empujar diffs por WebSocket, y dejar que el browser quede tonto. Sin framework de cliente, sin API que escribir a mano, sin la danza de serializar JSON. Fitz LiveViews trae ese modelo a Fitz — y suma una vuelta de tuerca: el mismo componente puede además compilar a WebAssembly cuando querés interactividad puramente client-side y offline. Cómo se ve Fitz LiveViews Un componente es un solo archivo .fitzv — state, event handlers y template, como Vue o Svelte: component Counter { state { count : Int = 0 } event increment () { count = count + 1 } event decrement () { count = count - 1 } event reset () { count = 0 } < template > < div id = " counter-app " > < p > Count : { cou

Most agent tooling is still built around a single conversation: one agent, one task, one terminal, one stream to babysit. Fine for small tasks, bad for real engineering work. Herdr is interesting because it treats that as the default shape of the work. The simplest way to describe it is: Herdr is tmux for coding agents. More precisely, it is an agent multiplexer that runs inside your existing terminal. It gives each agent a real PTY, keeps processes alive where the work is happening, shows agent state, and exposes a CLI plus a local socket API. That distinction matters. Herdr is not another desktop agent app. It is a binary you run where the code and terminals live: a server, a Mac Mini, a VM, a dev machine under your desk. Close the laptop, detach, ssh back later, reattach, even from a phone. The work did not die because your terminal window did. The throughput problem Coding agents changed the cost of starting work. I can ask one agent to explore a bug, another to write a failing test, another to draft a migration plan. The bottleneck is supervision. The problem is that normal terminals do not understand supervision. tmux and Zellij give you persistence and panes, but they do not know whether an agent is blocked, working, done, idle, or just sitting there after printing a question three screens ago. Desktop apps often understand the agent state better, but then the workflow is stuck to the machine with the GUI. Worktree orchestrators can coordinate parallel tasks, but they usually want to own the workflow. Herdr sits in a useful middle: terminal model, plus agent awareness. The performance multiplier is not magic. It comes from four practical properties: Multiple agents run in real PTYs, each with its own shell, logs, prompts, and process state. Herdr rolls up semantic state, so you can see which agents are blocked, working, done, or idle. The server owns the panes, so sessions survive client detach, laptop sleep, and terminal death. The CLI and socket API let scr

Solution architect, 17 years in. From March 2026 to July 2026 I was the only hands-on developer on the identity and single-sign-on layer for a Gulf country's national port community system — the platform that fronts its ports and logistics sector. It's live in production. I want to be precise about "sole," because it matters: other people committed to both repos — CI, automation tests, a few fixes, downstream integration work. I authored ~80% of backend commits and ~70% of frontend. Nobody else did hands-on feature development on the core system. That's the honest version. **Volume, straight from `git log --numstat`:** * 602 commits, ~184,000 lines changed across 1,423 files * Backend: 383 Java files / ~21k LOC, 19 controllers, 83 REST endpoints * Frontend: 152 TS/HTML files / ~15.3k LOC, 62 Angular components * 6 external integrations, each with a real *and* a mock adapter * 4 environments, 2 independent penetration tests remediated My own written estimate to leadership in April, before any of this was contentious: 3–4 engineers over 3 months. ## Architecture Hexagonal (ports and adapters) + CQRS. The domain package has **zero Spring or JPA imports** — greppable, returns nothing. That's the actual test of whether hexagonal is a design decision or a buzzword, and most codebases claiming it fail that check. domain/ Pure domain — models, value objects, events, ports. No framework imports. application/ Use cases — Commands (writes) and Queries (reads), DTOs, assemblers. dataprovider/ Adapters — JPA entities, Spring Data repos, SOAP clients. web/ Inbound adapter — controllers, DTOs, mappers, JWT filter, SAML handler. Every feature is a paired `XxxCommand`/`XxxCommandImpl` (transactional writes) and `XxxQuery`/`XxxQueryImpl` (read-only). Every external dependency sits behind a port with a real and a mock adapter selected by Spring profile — which meant QA and UAT ran full end-to-end flows without depending on government systems being up. They frequently weren't. One JPA

I drafted this post years ago but didn’t finish it until now. The concept I write about has shaped the way I design software more than anything else, and I believe every software engineer should be introduced to it early in their career. P.S. I don’t want the title to come across as clickbait: the post is about ADT. submitted by /u/alex35mil [link] [留言]

These natural, organic mattresses are eco-friendly alternatives to conventional models and just as comfortable.

Autonomous vehicle giant disturbs residents' sleep.

In a world of plasticky water filter pitchers, I tested three new-generation stainless steel filter systems.

Plus: The FBI eyes AI-powered tech to detect future crimes, Russia charges Telegram’s founder, xAI sues to stop a state’s “nudification” ban, and the Democrats learn a lesson about getting scammed.

Job hunting is exhausting. Between tweaking resumes, updating portfolios, and filling out endless...

On Dreo’s summer flash sale from August 1 to 3, a great misting fan and an even better air fryer are at the lowest prices we’ve seen them.

A removable chip lets hackers inspect their badge—and keep using it after Defcon.

If you've ever tried to turn a modern web page into a PDF programmatically, you've probably hit the wall: the file comes out blank, half-empty, or frozen on a loading spinner. The page looks perfect in the browser, so what gives? The answer is timing. Most PDF approaches grab the HTML before the JavaScript has rendered the content. On a server-rendered page that's fine — the markup is already there. On a React/Vue/Angular app, the server sends an near-empty shell and the browser builds the DOM afterward. Capture too early and you save the shell. Here's how to do it properly. Why the naive approaches fail wkhtmltopdf is the classic Google answer. It's fast and it's been around forever, but it uses an ancient WebKit build with effectively no modern JavaScript support. For a static page it's fine. For anything client-rendered, it captures the empty state. Browser window.print() / Ctrl+P works because it is a real browser — but it's manual, single-page, and impossible to automate cleanly at scale. Hitting the raw HTML with an HTTP client (axios/fetch then pipe to a PDF lib) has the same fatal flaw as wkhtmltopdf : no JS execution, no rendered content. What you actually need is a real browser engine that runs the page's JavaScript, waits for it to settle, and then prints. That's Puppeteer. The Puppeteer approach Puppeteer drives a headless Chromium. It executes the page exactly like a normal Chrome tab, so whatever renders on screen is what you capture. const puppeteer = require ( ' puppeteer ' ); async function pageToPdf ( url , outPath ) { const browser = await puppeteer . launch ({ args : [ ' --no-sandbox ' , ' --disable-setuid-sandbox ' ], // needed in most containers }); const page = await browser . newPage (); await page . goto ( url , { waitUntil : ' networkidle0 ' , timeout : 60000 }); await page . pdf ({ path : outPath , format : ' A4 ' , printBackground : true , // otherwise CSS backgrounds/colors are dropped margin : { top : ' 20px ' , bottom : ' 20px ' , left

How AI Is Transforming Software Development Workflows in 2026 By 2026, AI has moved far beyond autocomplete and boilerplate generation. It has become an integral, intelligent partner in the entire software development lifecycle. From writing initial architecture to diagnosing production incidents, AI agents are embedded into the fabric of modern engineering workflows. This transformation is not just about speed—it's a fundamental shift in the way developers think, collaborate, and deliver software. The Rise of AI-Native Development Environments The days of classic IDEs with a chat sidebar bolted on are behind us. In 2026, AI-native development environments are the norm. These IDEs are built around context-aware AI models that understand not just the syntax but the semantic intent of the codebase. Tools like Cursor and Windsurf have evolved into full-blown autonomous agents that can navigate large codebases, propose cross-file refactors, and even execute multi-step changes with minimal supervision. Consider a common task: adding a new payment gateway. In a traditional workflow, a developer would manually trace API routes, update database schemas, and write integration tests. In 2026, the developer simply describes the requirement in natural language. The AI agent explores the existing adapter patterns, creates the new integration, updates configuration files, and runs the test suite. The developer reviews the diff, tweaks edge cases, and signs off. This paradigm shift has accelerated feature delivery by an order of magnitude. Intelligent Automated Testing and Debugging Testing has always been a critical yet time-consuming part of development. AI in 2026 has revolutionised this domain. Instead of writing every test case manually, developers use AI to generate exhaustive test suites that cover edge cases, security vulnerabilities, and performance bottlenecks. The AI analyses the code's control flow, historical bug data, and production logs to generate tests that would

Many independent service businesses already use WhatsApp to confirm appointments. The missing piece is often a small, clear landing page that answers the obvious questions before the first message: what is offered, how much it costs, and what a visitor should do next. I built a dependency-free Spanish booking-page pattern around that handoff. The booking flow A useful booking page does not need a heavy scheduling stack to start doing its job. Its core flow can be simple: Show a small set of services with understandable prices and durations. Put a clear call to action on every relevant section. Open WhatsApp with enough context that the owner does not have to ask the same first question again. Keep the page fast and editable. The key implementation detail is generating the WhatsApp link from a service-specific message: const phone = " 56900000000 " ; document . querySelectorAll ( " .whatsapp-link " ). forEach (( link ) => { const message = link . dataset . message ; if ( message ) { link . href = `https://wa.me/ ${ phone } ?text= ${ encodeURIComponent ( message )} ` ; } }); That lets a CTA such as “Reserve a hair ritual” arrive as a message like “Hola, quiero reservar el Ritual de cabello.” It is a small interaction, but it removes friction for both the customer and the business. Design choices that help Mobile-first layout: appointment links are frequently opened from a phone. Visible prices and durations: clearer expectations usually mean better-quality enquiries. Short FAQs: rescheduling, location, and confirmation are common blockers. Semantic HTML: headings, buttons, and disclosure details work without a framework. No fake live contact details: the phone number, copy, price, and social links are clearly marked for replacement. Live demo You can inspect the working beauty-studio demo here: WhatsApp Booking Landing Kit — Interactive Demo Editable bundle I also made the complete editable source available as a paid digital kit. It now includes three standalone Spani

There are both cheaper and more powerful entry-level gaming laptops out there, but the Alienware 15 walks that tightrope between price and quality.

Two months ago, I was given access to a codebase with an unfamiliar language and framework. I felt a...

Every couple of weeks I need a twenty-line program. Find what's bloating a build agent's disk, dedupe a CSV, hash-check a folder. For fifteen years the honest answer to "which language?" was not C# — by the time I'd done mkdir , dotnet new console , and named yet another throwaway csproj, the moment had passed. So those little jobs went to bash or Python, and I grumbled quietly every time. .NET 10 removed the ritual. You write one .cs file and run it. I'd been meaning to check how well this actually holds up for real scripts, so this week I did — nothing fancy, one Linux container and a stopwatch. One file, no project Here's biggest.cs , a small utility that lists the largest files under a directory. The whole program is this one file — no csproj anywhere: # !/ usr / bin / env dotnet # : package Humanizer @ 3.0 . 10 using Humanizer ; var root = args . Length > 0 ? args [ 0 ] : "." ; var top = args . Length > 1 && int . TryParse ( args [ 1 ], out var n ) ? n : 10 ; var files = new DirectoryInfo ( root ) . EnumerateFiles ( "*" , new EnumerationOptions { RecurseSubdirectories = true , IgnoreInaccessible = true , AttributesToSkip = FileAttributes . ReparsePoint }) . OrderByDescending ( f => f . Length ) . Take ( top ) . ToList (); foreach ( var f in files ) { var size = f . Length . Bytes (). Humanize ( "#.#" ); var age = ( DateTime . UtcNow - f . LastWriteTimeUtc ). Humanize (); Console . WriteLine ( $" { size , 10 } { f . FullName } (modified { age } ago)" ); } Two lines are new. #:package Humanizer@3.0.10 is a NuGet reference written as a directive, right in the source. The shebang we'll get to in a minute. Everything else is the C# you already write, top-level statements and all. $ dotnet run biggest.cs -- ~/.dotnet 5 Top 5 files under /root/.dotnet: 37.6 MB .../FSharp.Compiler.Service.dll (modified 46 seconds ago) 18.7 MB .../Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.dll (modified 46 seconds ago) 18.7 MB .../Roslyn/bincore/Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.dll (modified 45 seconds

Chinese AI Models Are 10-30x Cheaper Than GPT-5.5. Here's How to Actually Use Them. I almost paid $300/month for what costs $15 Last month I was building an internal code review tool. My initial stack: GPT-5.5 for analysis, Claude Opus for refactoring suggestions, Gemini for documentation. Estimated cost: $280-320/month for our team's usage. Then I ran the same tasks through Chinese models. Same quality for our use cases. Actual cost: $14.70/month. This isn't a "Chinese models are catching up" story. They already caught up. The problem is that most Western developers don't know how to access them legally, reliably, and without getting scammed by gray-market resellers. The six models you should know These are production-ready, API-available models with English documentation and international payment support. Prices verified 2026-08-01 from official pages and Artificial Analysis. Model Best For Input (¥/1M) Output (¥/1M) vs GPT-5.5 DeepSeek V4-Flash Batch processing, simple tasks ¥0.559 ¥1.117 ~50x cheaper DeepSeek V4-Pro Coding, reasoning ¥1.806 ¥3.612 ~28x cheaper GLM-5.2 Complex reasoning, agentic tasks ¥6.09 ¥18.90 ~8x cheaper Kimi K3 Long context (1M tokens), coding ¥12.60 ¥63.00 ~5x cheaper Qwen3.7-Max Chinese/English mixed, general ¥10.50 ¥31.50 ~6x cheaper MiniMax M3 Cost-sensitive production ¥1.26 ¥5.04 ~25x cheaper Exchange rate: 1 USD ≈ 6.76 CNY. GPT-5.5 pricing: $5 input / $30 output per 1M tokens (Artificial Analysis). But are they actually good? Yes. Here's the evidence, not marketing: GLM-5.2 ranks #5 globally on aitier.net (2026-06-19), tied with GPT-5.5 (high) and Gemini 3.5 Flash (high), above Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview. Kimi K2.6 beat Claude and GPT-5.5 in a public coding challenge (thinkpol.ca, HN 380 points). Simon Willison ran GLM-4.5 Air on a 2.5-year-old laptop and built a playable game (HN 577 points). Artificial Analysis cross-provider benchmarks show the same model can vary 5-10x in throughput depending on provider. Kimi K3: 35 t/s official dire

Most multi-agent demos are impressive for five minutes and useless for five hours. After months of building Task Hounds — an open-source, local multi-agent development workspace — here are the design decisions that actually mattered. The setup Task Hounds runs three agents in a loop around one project: A Manager that understands context, maintains the plan, and assigns exactly one concrete task per cycle A Worker that implements the task and files a structured report: files changed, test results, known issues A Reviewer that inspects the result for bugs, UX problems, and risks — before the Manager decides what happens next A human writes a Directive (the mission), and can inject thoughts or new tasks mid-run. Everything — plans, todos, reports, feedback, live agent streams — persists in local SQLite and renders in a real-time dashboard. Lesson 1: One task at a time beats parallel everything My first instinct was parallel workers. It demoed great and shipped nothing: agents stepped on each other's files and the Manager couldn't attribute failures. Serializing to one task per loop looks slower and finishes dramatically more work. Lesson 2: Give the human a write-protected anchor Goal drift is the silent killer of long loops. Around loop 10, the plan subtly stops resembling what you asked for. Our fix: the Human Directive is copied into every session and the loop is forbidden from editing it. Only a human can change the mission. Drift now shows up as visible divergence from a fixed anchor instead of quiet mutation. Lesson 3: Structured handoffs, not chat history Passing conversation history between agents fails in two ways: it blows the context window, and it lets downstream agents anchor on upstream reasoning noise. Every hop in Task Hounds is a fixed document: the Manager's memory is an explicit JSON handoff read once per loop; the Worker's output is a fixed report schema. If the machine-readable todo JSON is invalid, the loop repairs it before any work is released.