标签：#p

This handheld device combines red light therapy, microcurrents, sonic vibration, warmth, and a serum to support healthy hair growth.

The obsession with centralizing heavy compute on backend servers is a massive bottleneck for both cost and latency. In 2026, as more applications move to the edge, developers are realizing that the user's browser is an incredibly powerful, untapped compute engine. Recently, I challenged myself to build a free live chess game analyzer for my developer utility suite, CipherKit. The traditional architecture for this requires passing FEN strings to a dedicated backend cluster running the Stockfish engine, which introduces network latency and scales operational costs linearly. I wanted to achieve a 100% client-side, zero-latency experience. Here is how I offloaded the heavy lifting entirely to the browser edge. The Architecture: WASM + Web Workers Running a heavy calculation engine directly in JavaScript instantly blocks the main UI thread. To achieve a flawless 60fps UI, I completely decoupled the state from the computation. The UI Thread: Handles strict DOM rendering, board states, and piece animations. The Worker Thread: Instantiates the Stockfish engine via WebAssembly within the browser's memory. When a live game update occurs, the main thread fires a simple FEN payload via worker.postMessage() . The Worker processes the deep-line evaluations (Depth 20+) asynchronously in the background. It then streams the evaluation lines back to the main thread without causing a single micro-freeze. The Result By treating the browser as the edge compute layer, the tool achieves: Zero Server Latency: Bypassing API rate limits and network bottlenecks. $0 Infrastructure Cost: Heavy compute is crowd-sourced to the user's local device. Absolute Privacy: Sensitive payloads never leave the browser. If you want to see this local asynchronous thread management in action, you can test the live analyzer (and inspect the network tab) here: 👉 CipherKit Live Chess Analyzer Are you offloading heavy computations to the client side in your current projects, or are you still relying on traditional

AI Agents Are the Best Thing to Happen to Network Administration Since SDN A single API key, an AI agent, and a router behind a double-NAT in Southeast Asia. What happened next changed how I think about network management. I manage UniFi routers spread throughout the ASEAN region — some for friends, some for relatives, one for a charity. They're in different cities, different ISPs, different levels of network hostility. Most sit behind carrier-grade NAT. A few are in places where the government firewall blocks VPN protocols at the transport layer. UniFi's own management interface has always been good. The web dashboard, accessible through Ubiquiti's cloud, gives me visibility into every site: device health, client lists, traffic stats, WiFi experience scores. It's one of the reasons I chose UniFi in the first place — the centralized GUI just works. But the GUI is still a GUI. It's clicks and menus and dropdowns. It's fast for one site, manageable for three, and tedious at ten. For anything beyond what Ubiquiti built into the interface, you'd need to write your own tooling. I never bothered, because I'm not a developer, and the built-in dashboard was good enough. Then AI agents arrived, and suddenly the calculation changed. The Discovery I knew UniFi had an API. I'd heard about it in passing — some REST endpoints for the controller, vaguely documented, probably read-only. I never looked into it seriously because what was I going to do with it? Write a Python script to poll client counts? Build a custom dashboard? Without a team of developers, an API is just a locked door. But when I started working with an AI agent, I gave it my UniFi cloud API key on a whim. I figured it could pull basic stats — the stuff from the Site Manager API at api.ui.com/v1 . Read-only. Dashboard-level. Useful as context for answering questions. Then the agent discovered something I'd completely missed: the Cloud Connector API . I owe this discovery in large part to the Art of WiFi PHP client

TL;DR: Pest PHP can test the structure of your code, not just its behavior. Write your team rules as architecture tests and CI enforces them on every commit. One such test caught a multi-tenant data leak that a human review had missed. We had a rule. Every model holding tenant-specific data must use our BelongsToTenant trait. That trait adds the global scope that keeps one clinic from seeing another clinic's data. The rule was in onboarding. It was in the code review checklist. Everyone knew it. A developer joined the team. Three weeks in they added a new model and forgot the trait. The reviewer was focused on the business logic, which was genuinely well written, and did not notice the missing trait. The model shipped. For two days one clinic could see fragments of another clinic's data in one specific report. A support ticket caught it. Our tests did not. That was the day architecture tests went into the project. What an Architecture Test Is Most tests check behavior. Given this input the function returns that output. An architecture test checks structure instead. It asserts things about how the code is organized rather than what it computes. Pest has an arch function for exactly this. // tests/Architecture/ArchTest.php arch ( 'tenant models must use the BelongsToTenant trait' ) -> expect ( 'App\Models' ) -> toUseTrait ( 'App\Traits\BelongsToTenant' ) -> ignoring ( 'App\Models\SystemSetting' ); arch ( 'controllers may not touch the DB facade directly' ) -> expect ( 'App\Http\Controllers' ) -> not -> toUse ( 'Illuminate\Support\Facades\DB' ); arch ( 'services may not depend on the HTTP request' ) -> expect ( 'App\Services' ) -> not -> toUse ( 'Illuminate\Http\Request' ); arch ( 'no env calls outside config files' ) -> expect ( 'App' ) -> not -> toUse ( 'env' ); These run in CI on every commit. Break a rule and the build fails with a message naming the rule and the file that broke it. The Tests That Earned Their Keep The tenant trait test caught four more models over

Microsoft Agent Framework is built for production multi-agent systems, which is exactly why its LLM bill can grow faster than expected. If you are running workflows with retries, handoffs, tools, and checkpoints, the easiest savings do not come from prompting harder — they come from adding a gateway layer under the framework. I built Lynkr, so obvious founder disclosure: this article uses Lynkr as the gateway example. I’ll keep it practical and focus on where the cost actually shows up in Microsoft Agent Framework workloads. Why this is a real Microsoft Agent Framework problem The current Microsoft Agent Framework README positions it as a production-grade framework for Python and .NET, with: multi-agent workflows sequential, concurrent, handoff, and group collaboration patterns middleware observability provider flexibility checkpointing and human-in-the-loop flows That is exactly the kind of stack where token usage grows quietly. A single prompt-response app is easy to reason about. A production workflow is not. Once you add routing, retries, multiple agents, MCP tools, and long-lived execution state, the same context starts getting resent over and over. That creates four predictable cost leaks. Where the spend comes from in Microsoft Agent Framework workloads 1. Repeated shared context across agents Multi-agent systems reuse a lot of the same context: task instructions tool definitions previous messages workflow state grounding context Even when the framework orchestrates cleanly, the model provider still sees repeated input tokens. 2. Tool-heavy steps explode prompt size Once agents start using tools, responses stop looking like simple chat. You get: search results file reads JSON blobs browser outputs execution traces Those payloads are often much larger than the user’s actual request. 3. Every task does not need the same model A workflow step that says “classify this,” “summarize these logs,” or “extract the next action” does not need the same model as “resolve

The old-fashioned drip coffee maker has come a long way. These impressive machines can turn your barista into a stranger.

submitted by /u/PGurskis [link] [留言]

6 months ago I was a final year CS student with no real projects and no clear path into tech. So I built one. Not just a project. A full platform. Here's everything inside Rohith Builds — completely free, forever. What's Inside 1. 100 Structured Lessons (Python → AI) Not random tutorials. A structured path: Day 1-20: Python basics Day 21-40: Backend & APIs Day 41-60: SQL & Databases Day 61-80: AI & LLMs Day 81-100: AI Agents & Launch Every lesson uses Indian examples. Zomato orders. Cricket scores. IRCTC bookings. Aadhaar validation. Because most tutorials use pizza and baseball. We use what we actually know. 2. Rohi — AI Tutor Stuck on a concept? Ask Rohi. he's powered by Groq LLM, understands Indian context, and is available 24/7. No waiting for a mentor to reply. No expensive bootcamp. Just ask and learn. 3. Jobs Board — Updated Daily This took the longest to build. An autonomous scraper that: → Queries LinkedIn Guest API → Searches Naukri via AOL gateway → Finds Indeed listings → Sends each to Groq AI for analysis → Filters only junior/fresher roles → Checks freshness (last 4 days only) → Removes duplicates automatically → Inserts into PostgreSQL Result: 53+ curated jobs. Updated daily. Filter by: Python, Backend, AI, Frontend Filter by: 2025, 2026, 2027 graduates No more scrolling through senior roles pretending to be junior. 4. 220+ Prompt Vault Every prompt I've used to: Debug faster Write better code Prepare for interviews Build projects Copy. Use. Customize. 5. Improve Any Prompt (Free Tool) Paste any AI prompt. Get an optimized version instantly. No signup needed. The Tech Stack Built with: Python + Flask PostgreSQL (Neon) Groq API (Llama-3.3-70b) Render deployment SQLAlchemy + psycopg2 No React. No Next.js. No hype stack. Just Python and PostgreSQL doing real work. Why I Made It Free Because every resource that helped me was either: Paywalled after lesson 3 In English accent I had to rewind Using examples I couldn't relate to Assuming I had a MacBook and

For months, the most interesting model at Anthropic was one we could not use. Mythos was the internal system the company said was too capable to release, the one that found software vulnerabilities at a level that tripped its own safety thresholds. On June 9, 2026, that tier went public for the first time, as Claude Fable 5. Opus 4.8, the model anchoring production coding agents, suddenly had a successor that's a full capability class above it. This raises two questions for anyone running coding agents. The practical one is whether you should move your fleet from Opus 4.8 to Fable 5. The bigger one is whether a Mythos-class model, the tier Anthropic held back as too capable to ship, lives up to what the name promised. This article answers both, and the numbers tell a more interesting story than the announcement did. We ran both models through the same evaluation, close to 1000 shared scenarios scored twice each, once with no skill supplied and once with the relevant skill in context. The short answer, as of mid-2026, is that Opus 4.8 is still the better value for most agent fleets, and the gap between the Mythos hype and the measured reality is the real story in the data. A Mythos-class model is a tier of Claude that sits above the Opus class in capability . It reaches a threshold Anthropic considers high-risk, particularly at discovering and exploiting software vulnerabilities. Fable 5 and Mythos 5 are the same underlying model with the same capabilities. What separates them is the safeguards: Fable 5 is the public version that ships with safety classifiers, while Mythos 5, restricted to approved partners, runs without them. What the industry expected from a Mythos-class model Before launch, the speculation was not subtle. Across Reddit, X, and a run of explainer posts, Mythos was framed as the model that would change how agents work, not just how well they answer. The recurring predictions clustered around four capabilities: Restructuring a large codebase in one c

Extends an earlier model-selection benchmark to three model families (Japanese / Western / Chinese) on a Japanese RAG task. Repo + raw results: https://github.com/elvisyao007/eval-driven-llm/tree/main/reports/model-selection-v2 An earlier post benchmarked local models for a Japanese RAG task and settled on selecting by constraint rather than raw capability. This post widens the field to three families — Japanese-tuned, Western open, and Chinese — and the result forces a distinction that matters more than any single score: model capability and deployment eligibility are two different questions, and conflating them is how people get model selection wrong. Same Japanese RAG task, same judge protocol, same discriminating golden set (oracle 87.5%, only 11% of questions answered by all models — it actually separates the field). hit@5, 8B class unless noted: Model Family hit@5 Swallow-8B Japanese-tuned ~0.53 Nemotron-9B-JP Japanese-tuned ~0.62 ELYZA-JP-8B Japanese-tuned ~0.40 deepseek-r1-8b Chinese ~0.51 Llama-3.1-8B Western ~0.22 Mistral-7B Western ~0.18 gemma4-31b Western (31B) ~0.62 Three things fall out of this, and they don't all point the same direction. 1. At 8B, Japanese fine-tuning is decisive — and generic Western models just aren't competitive The Western 8B models cratered: Llama-3.1-8B at 0.22, Mistral-7B at 0.18, against a Japanese-tuned average around 0.52. That's not a small gap; it's the difference between usable and not. This answers a question people sometimes ask skeptically — why do Japanese-specific models exist when Llama is right there? At the 8B scale, on a Japanese retrieval-grounded task, a generic Western model without Japanese fine-tuning is not in the running. The Japanese tuning is doing decisive work. One honest qualifier on the table: gemma4-31b (0.62) is the one Western model that holds up — but it's 31B, not 8B. It earns its score with 4× the parameters, not with Japanese optimization. So read the table in two tiers: within the 8B class,

Network Protocols Network protocols define how computers communicate over a network. Whether you're opening Instagram, sending a WhatsApp message, watching Netflix, or transferring money through a banking app, some protocol is working behind the scenes to make communication possible. Client-Server Model What is it? The Client-Server model is a communication architecture where: Client requests a service or data. Server processes the request and returns a response. Most modern applications follow this architecture. How Does It Work? Client ---------- Request ----------> Server Client <--------- Response ---------- Server The client always initiates communication, and the server listens for incoming requests. Real World Example Instagram When you open Instagram: Mobile app sends a request. Instagram servers process the request. Feed data is fetched from databases. Posts are returned to your phone. Instagram App | V Instagram Server | V Database Advantages Centralized control Easier security management Easy maintenance Easier data consistency Disadvantages Server can become a bottleneck Single point of failure if not replicated Interview One-Liner Client-Server architecture is a centralized model where clients request resources and servers provide them. Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Model What is it? In a Peer-to-Peer network, every machine can act as both: Client Server There is no central server controlling communication. How Does It Work? Peer A <------> Peer B ^ ^ | | V V Peer C <------> Peer D Each peer can directly share resources with others. Real World Example BitTorrent Instead of downloading a file from one server: User | +--> Peer 1 | +--> Peer 2 | +--> Peer 3 Different parts of the file are downloaded from multiple peers simultaneously. Blockchain Bitcoin and Ethereum networks operate using Peer-to-Peer communication. Advantages Highly scalable No central server cost Better fault tolerance Disadvantages Harder to manage Security challenges Data consistency issues Inter

I Built a Consistent Hashing Ring in Pure Python and Finally Understood How Cassandra Distributes Data I've been using Cassandra and Redis Cluster for years. I knew consistent hashing was "how they work." But I never truly got it until I built one myself from scratch, in pure Python, with zero dependencies. This post is about what I learned doing that. The Problem Consistent Hashing Solves Imagine you have 3 servers and 1 million keys. The naive approach: server = hash(key) % 3 . It works great until you add or remove a server. Change 3 to 4, and almost every key remaps to a different server. In a caching layer, that means near 100% cache miss. In a database, it means massive data movement. That's the problem consistent hashing solves. When you add or remove a node, only a fraction of keys move. Specifically, 1/n of the keys, where n is the number of nodes. Building the Ring The core idea: place both nodes and keys on a circular number line from 0 to 2^32 (or any large integer). To find which node owns a key, walk clockwise until you hit a node. Here's the minimal version: import hashlib import bisect class ConsistentHashRing : def __init__ ( self , replicas = 150 ): self . replicas = replicas self . ring = {} # hash -> node name self . sorted_keys = [] # sorted hash positions def _hash ( self , key : str ) -> int : return int ( hashlib . md5 ( key . encode ()). hexdigest (), 16 ) def add_node ( self , node : str ): for i in range ( self . replicas ): virtual_key = f " { node } :vnode: { i } " h = self . _hash ( virtual_key ) self . ring [ h ] = node bisect . insort ( self . sorted_keys , h ) def remove_node ( self , node : str ): for i in range ( self . replicas ): virtual_key = f " { node } :vnode: { i } " h = self . _hash ( virtual_key ) del self . ring [ h ] idx = bisect . bisect_left ( self . sorted_keys , h ) self . sorted_keys . pop ( idx ) def get_node ( self , key : str ) -> str : if not self . ring : raise ValueError ( " Ring is empty " ) h = self . _hash

An OpenAI-compatible base URL is supposed to make model switching boring: change the endpoint, keep the SDK, and move on. In real projects, the first run often fails with a 401 , 404 , 429 , or a model-not-found error. Here is the checklist I use before blaming the SDK. 1. Confirm the base URL includes the right API prefix Most OpenAI-compatible gateways expect a /v1 prefix: from openai import OpenAI client = OpenAI ( api_key = " YOUR_RELAY_KEY " , base_url = " https://api.wappkit.com/v1 " , ) If you use only the domain, some SDK calls may resolve to the wrong path. Check the provider's docs and copy the exact base URL format. 2. Make sure the key belongs to that gateway A common mistake is mixing keys: OpenAI key with relay base URL Relay key with OpenAI base URL Old test key from a disabled project Key copied with a leading or trailing space When you see 401 Unauthorized , print the first and last few characters of the key locally and compare it with the dashboard. Do not log the full key. 3. Check the model name from the live list Do not guess model names from memory. Gateway model names can change as upstream availability changes. Before using gpt-5.5 , gpt-5.4 , or a Claude Code model, check the current model list . Copy the model id exactly. resp = client . chat . completions . create ( model = " gpt-5.5 " , messages = [{ " role " : " user " , " content " : " Say hello in one sentence. " }], ) If the model name is wrong, you usually get 404 , model_not_found , or a gateway-specific validation error. 4. Test with the smallest possible request Before debugging your whole app, run one tiny request: resp = client . chat . completions . create ( model = " gpt-5.5 " , messages = [{ " role " : " user " , " content " : " ping " }], max_tokens = 20 , ) print ( resp . choices [ 0 ]. message . content ) If this works, the base URL, key, and model are probably fine. Your bug is likely in the app layer: streaming, tool calling, message format, proxy settings, or retry logi

Three days. Claude Fable 5 — Anthropic's most capable model ever shipped to the public, posting 95% on SWE-bench Verified — was live for exactly 72 hours before the US government issued an export control directive on June 12 that forced Anthropic to pull it globally. For everyone. Including US users. Including Anthropic employees who hold foreign passports. Here is what Fable 5 actually is, what the government directive says, what Anthropic says about it, and what developers building on Claude should do while this gets resolved. What Claude Fable 5 Is Anthropic launched Claude Fable 5 on June 9, 2026, alongside Claude Mythos 5, its restricted sibling for government-adjacent cybersecurity work. Fable 5 is the first publicly available model in Anthropic's new "Mythos-class" tier — a category above the previous frontier that Claude Opus 4.8 (released May 28) occupied. The benchmark gap is not close. Fable 5 posted 95.0% on SWE-bench Verified and 80.3% on SWE-bench Pro. The next best competitor on SWE-bench Pro is GPT-5.5, sitting at 58.6%. That is a 21.7-point gap — roughly twice the margin by which Claude Opus 4.8 led its generation. Across all eight coding benchmarks Anthropic published at launch, Fable 5 led with an average margin of 11.8 points: Benchmark Claude Fable 5 Next Best Gap | SWE-bench Verified | 95.0% | ~74% | +21 | | SWE-bench Pro | 80.3% | 58.6% (GPT-5.5) | +21.7 | | FrontierCode Diamond | leads | baseline | +23.6 | | HLE (no tools) | leads | baseline | +13.7 | | Terminal-Bench | leads | baseline | +4.6 | Beyond static benchmarks, Anthropic ran a long-horizon game-playing evaluation using Slay the Spire with persistent file-based memory. Fable 5 improved three times faster than Opus 4.8 as memory accumulated, and reached the final act three times as often. The large-context reasoning advantage — the same capability that powered the 8x engineering productivity multiplier at Anthropic — is structurally more pronounced in Fable 5 than in any previous publ

submitted by /u/Sushant098123 [link] [留言]

When I first started exploring Machine Learning, I made the same mistake most beginners do — I jumped straight into neural networks and model training without really understanding the Python underneath. I'd copy code from tutorials, get it running, and have zero idea why it worked. Then I started going through a structured Python-for-ML curriculum — and everything changed. This post is a distillation of that journey. If you're a CS student or early-career developer who wants to work seriously in ML/AI, here's the complete Python foundation you need — with the why , not just the what . Why Python Specifically? (It's Not Just Hype) Python isn't the fastest language. C++ blows it out of the water on speed — and I've personally used C++ for packet-capture modules in one of my ML projects. But Python dominates ML for one reason: the ecosystem . NumPy, Pandas, PyTorch, TensorFlow, Scikit-learn, Hugging Face — all Python-first. You don't choose Python for ML. The field chose it for you. Stage 1: Python Basics — The Foundation You Can't Skip Before you touch any ML library, you need these locked in. Variables and Data Types Python is dynamically typed, which feels nice at first but will bite you during data preprocessing if you're not careful. # These are all valid — Python infers the type name = " Parth " score = 8.97 is_enrolled = True year = 2025 For ML, the types that matter most are int , float , bool , and str — and knowing when Python silently converts between them (type coercion) can save you hours of debugging. Loops and Conditions — Your Data Iteration Backbone grades = [ 8.5 , 7.9 , 9.1 , 6.8 , 8.97 ] for g in grades : if g >= 8.5 : print ( f " Distinction: { g } " ) elif g >= 7.0 : print ( f " First Class: { g } " ) else : print ( f " Pass: { g } " ) Simple? Yes. But this exact pattern — iterate over a collection, branch on conditions — is the mental model for 80% of data cleaning code you'll write later. Functions and Lambda Expressions Functions are how you st

Title: The agent economy added two rails and lost most of its volume this week. Nobody added settlement. Tags: mcp, ai, cryptocurrency, blockchain This is our weekly recap from building Hashlock in public. We try to read every agent-economy announcement of the week and ask one question of each: at the moment a trade actually clears, which layer finishes it? This week the answers lined up unusually neatly. The headline number: x402 is down 92% OKX Ventures published agent-payment data in June showing that x402 transaction volume has fallen roughly 92% from its November 2025 peak - from about $5.15M to $1.19M per month. Transaction count recovered (around 2.89M monthly), but the average transaction is now about $0.52. That is a category settling into micropayments, not a category absorbing real trade value. That is worth sitting with, because for most of the last year the narrative ran the other way: payment rails for agents were the story, and settlement was treated as a solved sub-problem of payment. The first hard volume number says the opposite. The rails are cooling. And yet the rails keep launching The same week, two more shipped: Mastercard Agent Pay - a way for agents to initiate card payments on a user's behalf. A Ripple XRPL agent kit - tooling for agents to move value over the XRP Ledger. Both are real, both are useful, and both do the same fundamental job: route a known asset from an agent to a seller. That is payment . It is also the layer that already has the most entrants, the most capital, and - per the x402 data - the softest demand relative to the hype. There is nothing wrong with a crowded payment layer. The point is narrower: launching more payment rails does not address the thing that is structurally missing. The map with a hole in it The most useful artifact of the week was OKX Ventures' framework for the agent economy. It describes three converging layers: Payment - x402 and similar (move value from agent to seller). Trust - ERC-8004 and agent r

Find, understand and fix security issues faster Discussion | Link

A cozy camera app for beautifully framed memories Discussion | Link

submitted by /u/agentvenom1 [link] [留言]