标签：#p

OpenAI shares new results on long-standing open problems in mathematics and theoretical computer science, including advances in geometry, cryptography, and complexity.

The impact will kick up a plume of debris so high, it’ll likely be visible through some telescopes. Astronomers will be watching.

OpenAI has reportedly found evidence of additional agent misbehavior as it looks into the incident that occurred with Hugging Face.

Work your tasks. Bill your clients with confidence. Discussion | Link

The company appears to have built new laptops and a 2-in-1 for the Googlebook initiative.

Also has big plans beyond the TM-B. The startup mostly refers to itself as a "vehicle" company, and has plans to make four-wheel pedal-assist cargo vehicles for Amazon.

AI tools have democratized the opportunity to build, shortening the timelines of success and enabling more young people to start successful companies without stepping foot inside a Big Tech company.

There's a discussion running on Product Hunt right now about where an AI agent should stop and hand a decision back to a person. The framing that stuck with me: "can this be undone?" is the wrong gate. It over-fires on things nobody cares about, like writing a log line, and under-fires on the ones that actually hurt. A mass email. A migration you can only roll back with downtime. The proposed replacement is reach. Not "is this safe" but "how far does this go if I'm wrong." And the sharpest point in that thread is that the agent is the worst possible judge of its own reach, because it doesn't know there are 50,000 people on the list. I've been building a browser with an agent in it, and the browser case makes that concrete in a way the terminal case doesn't. A coding agent's blast radius is usually one person: you, reading a diff. A browser agent doesn't start there. It inherits every session you're already signed into. The reach of a click isn't a property of the agent's plan, it's a property of the cookie jar it's holding. The same "click the blue button" step is harmless on a docs site and irreversible on a payments dashboard, and nothing in the agent's own summary distinguishes them. So I stopped trying to make the agent classify risk. Here's what I do instead, with the caveat that this is alpha and I've been wrong about it before. Some things never reach the model. Credential fields are filtered out of the page snapshot before the agent sees it. That means password inputs, and anything with cc-number , cc-csc , cc-exp , or one-time-code autocomplete semantics. A fill targeting a password field refuses outright. The agent cannot misjudge the reach of a control it was never shown, and that's a stronger guarantee than any classifier, because it doesn't depend on getting a judgment right. The model's judgment is a floor, never a ceiling. For everything that does reach it, the agent can say "this needs approval" and be believed. It cannot say "this is routine" and be

Hi Dev.to community! 👋 As an aspiring technical writer and a Computer Science student, I've been working hard on building a series of deep-dive articles about AI, Python, and software concepts. I just published a guide on Natural Language Processing (NLP) over on my Hashnode blog, featuring text preprocessing pipelines and a Python code example using spaCy! I would love for you to check it out and share your feedback—especially if you have tips on how I can improve my technical explanations: 👉 [ https://hilda-biende.hashnode.dev/natural-language-processing-nlp-explained-how-computers-understand-human-language ] Looking forward to connecting with fellow devs and writers here!

Kubernetes Interviews Are Broken When Trivia Matters More Than Real Skill Kubernetes interviews often fail when they test whether a candidate can recall obscure implementation details instead of showing how that person diagnoses failures, reasons through tradeoffs, and learns under pressure. Certifications can prove useful baseline knowledge, but neither a certificate nor a perfect whiteboard answer reliably proves that someone can operate a production cluster. The frustration becomes obvious when an interview demands a kernel level explanation of what happens when traffic reaches an ingress controller in a Cilium based, proxyless setup, while the actual role may involve changing a CPU request from 500m to 550m. The contrast is funny because it feels painfully familiar. Candidates prepare for architecture, networking, controllers, scheduling, and troubleshooting, then get judged on a detail they could verify in seconds during real work. That does not mean deep technical knowledge is useless. Some roles genuinely require it. The problem begins when interview difficulty becomes disconnected from job difficulty, and when memorization is treated as a shortcut for measuring engineering judgment. Why Kubernetes interview questions feel disconnected from the job The strongest complaint in the discussion was not that Kubernetes is too difficult. It was that many interview questions appear designed to establish superiority rather than measure readiness for the role. One example captured the problem perfectly: the interview asks for a detailed explanation of kernel behavior, ingress traffic, Cilium, eBPF, and proxyless networking. The work itself turns out to be a minor resource adjustment. That gap creates distrust because candidates are being filtered through a standard that the daily job may never require. A technical interview should reflect the decisions the engineer will actually make. If the job involves operating clusters, useful questions might examine how the candid

Your GitOps Hub Will Become the Bottleneck Long Before Cluster Count Tells You GitOps hub bottlenecks are usually predicted more accurately by watched object volume, reconcile queue depth, and controller memory growth than by cluster count alone. Large-scale testing described in the discussion showed Argo CD application controllers hitting out-of-memory failures around 15,000 to 20,000 cached objects per hub, while sharding and tuning delayed the limit without removing the underlying memory cost. The most important lesson was uncomfortable because it challenged the usual instinct to keep tuning the existing platform. At very large scale, architecture mattered more than configuration. Hydrated manifests helped. More replicas helped. Dynamic sharding helped. None of them changed the fact that a centralized reconciliation model still had to hold and process a huge amount of state. The testing was not presented as a universal benchmark or as proof that one tool always beats another. It was a record of one setup, built through dozens of iterations over several months, and the failures were as valuable as the successful runs. That is exactly why the results matter. They show where teams should look before the hub becomes the thing taking the fleet down. Cluster count is the wrong first metric A fleet with 1,000 tiny clusters may place less pressure on a GitOps control plane than a much smaller fleet containing thousands of applications and deeply expanded resource trees. The number of managed clusters is visible and easy to report, but it does not describe the controller’s actual workload. The more useful mental model is objects over clusters. Each application contributes desired state, live state, cached trees, reconciliation work, and queue activity. A cluster that runs a few small addons may be cheap to manage. Another cluster with many applications and large manifest sets may consume far more memory and reconciliation time. That means two fleets with the same cluster

Someone in Cuba or Iran can keep installing APKs with no new restrictions, but devs will suffer.

What I wanted I'm building a system where all my daily records live in Notion, so I can point an AI at it and get feedback. Goals, tasks, daily logs, finances — those are all manual entry, and that's fine. But one day it hit me that weight would be nice to sync automatically. The requirements were simple: Every morning, my weight and body fat percentage get appended to a Notion database as one row No manual typing That's it. My scale is a Withings Body Smart. The design I picked first This one: Scale → vendor app → Apple Health → iOS Shortcut → Notion API I chose Apple Health as the hub for these reasons: It doesn't depend on the scale model. As long as the data lands in Health, the same implementation works for any vendor. No server required. A time-based Shortcuts automation handles it end to end — no always-on machine, no cron. Free. No extra subscription. Extensible later. Anything that's already in Health — steps, sleep, heart rate — could be added the same way (if I ever wanted to). Generic, zero cost, extensible. The design looked sound to me. Implementation Here's what the Shortcut looks like: 1. Find Health Samples [Weight] latest, limit 1 2. Get Details of Health Sample [Value] → variable Kg 3. Get Details of Health Sample [Start Date] → variable SampleDate 4. Format Date yyyy-MM-dd → variable Ymd 5. If Ymd == today 6. Text ← build the JSON 7. Get Contents of URL ← POST to the Notion API Step 5 matters. Without it, on a day you don't step on the scale, yesterday's weight gets appended under today's date . Here's the JSON built in step 6: { "parent" : { "database_id" : "xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx" }, "properties" : { "Date" : { "title" : [ { "text" : { "content" : "@@YMD@@" } } ] }, "Measured" : { "date" : { "start" : "@@YMD@@" } }, "Weight kg" : { "number" : @@KG@@ }, "Body fat %" : { "number" : @@FAT@@ } } } (My real database uses Japanese property names. What matters is that they match your database exactly.) I write this as a plain string in a

Everything looked perfect. I had mcporter 0.7.3 configured with the Exa MCP server: mcporter list exa # ✅ exa (2 tools) — "Search the web for any topic..." Healthy. Ready. Then I made the first real call: mcporter call "exa.web_search_exa(query: \" ollama cloud models\ ", numResults: 5)" JSON parse error at position 1. Every. Single. Time. I tried every quoting trick known to PowerShell: Backslash escaping --% stop-parsing operator cmd /c wrapper Single-quoted outer strings Same error. The shell was eating my quotes before mcporter ever saw them. This is the full story of how I debugged it, verified on Windows PowerShell 5.1 on July 31, 2026. Chapter 1: The Root Cause - PowerShell 5.1's Dirty Secret PowerShell 5.1 strips ALL embedded double-quotes at the native-argument boundary when passing args to external programs. There is no $PSNativeCommandArgumentPassing in 5.1. That is a PowerShell 7.3+ feature. So this: mcporter call --args '{"query":"test"}' Literally becomes this before Node.js even starts: { query:test } The JSON is destroyed. No shell-level trick can fix it. Stop fighting the shell. Chapter 2: The Hero - A 10-Line Node.js Spawn Wrapper The fix is to bypass the shell entirely with spawn(..., { shell: false }) . Node passes a real argv array, no re-quoting happens. Create mcporter_exa.js : // mcporter_exa.js - The hero const { spawn } = require ( ' node:child_process ' ); const args = process . argv . slice ( 2 ); // --tool <tool> <base64Json> mode, or default web_search_exa const tool = args [ 0 ] === ' --tool ' ? args [ 1 ] : ' exa.web_search_exa ' ; const payload = args [ 0 ] === ' --tool ' ? args [ 2 ] : JSON . stringify ({ query : args [ 0 ], numResults : Number ( args [ 1 ] || 5 ) }); const child = spawn ( process . execPath , [ require . resolve ( ' mcporter/dist/cli.js ' ), ' call ' , tool , ' --args ' , payload ], { shell : false , stdio : ' inherit ' }); child . on ( ' exit ' , ( code ) => process . exit ( code ?? 0 )); Usage: # Web search - que

Reddit advances lawsuit accusing Perplexity AI of conspiring with web scraper.

Most dev-to content about longevity comes from people who scaled one product for a decade. My version of 18 years is different: 235+ separate small projects, each with a different client, budget, and expectation. That produces a completely different set of lessons. Every project restarts the trust clock. In a startup, trust compounds — the team, the codebase, the client relationship all carry forward. In agency work for small businesses, you start from zero credibility on every single engagement. The client has no idea if you're competent until you prove it, usually within the first draft. That reality shaped how we scope: front-load a visible win early, even a small one, rather than saving the "impressive part" for the end. Most client requests aren't really about the website. "Can we change the homepage headline" is often actually "I'm nervous this won't generate leads" or "my business partner didn't like it." Treating every request as a literal design brief instead of what it's actually about leads to a lot of pointless revision cycles. Asking one clarifying question — "what's this in response to?" — before touching the page has cut our revision count more than any process change. Consistency beats innovation for this client base. A small business owner doesn't want a novel UX pattern. They want their site to look like the successful competitor's site, load fast, and not embarrass them. Chasing design trends for this audience is optimizing for the wrong judge — they're not evaluating craft, they're evaluating "does this look like it'll work." The real skill is saying no to the wrong project, not saying yes to more of them. Early on I took every lead. Now the highest-leverage thing I do is a 10-minute pre-call that filters out projects where the client's expectations and budget don't match — before either of us spends real time on it. That single filter has done more for margin than any pricing change. None of this shows up in a portfolio. But if you're a develope

India's app market generated a record $345 million in Q2.

Turn any website into LLM-ready Markdown Discussion | Link

Had the hacks used conventional methods, someone would likely go to prison.

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