标签：#p

Record talking videos without manual scrolling Discussion | Link

A Mac native and beautiful terminal emulator Discussion | Link

Hi HN, I built an open-source Java SDK for building Model Context Protocol servers: https://github.com/6000fish/mcp-java It is intended for Java developers who want to expose tools, resources, or prompts to MCP-compatible agents without implementing the protocol plumbing from scratch. The project includes: Core MCP server SDK stdio transport SSE transport Java API and annotation-based tool registration Spring Boot starter 5-minute quick-start example Copyable custom server template Ready-to-use MySQL and Redis MCP servers The SDK is available on Maven Central: <dependency> <groupId> io.github.6000fish </groupId> <artifactId> mcp-sdk </artifactId> <version> 0.1.1 </version> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId> io.github.6000fish </groupId> <artifactId> mcp-spring-boot-starter </artifactId> <version> 0.1.1 </version> </dependency> The MySQL and Redis servers are local stdio MCP servers, because database/cache connectors are usually safer to run inside the user's own environment instead of exposing credentials to a hosted remote endpoint. GitHub: https://github.com/6000fish/mcp-java Release: https://github.com/6000fish/mcp-java/releases/tag/v0.1.1 Feedback is welcome.

The Budget You Approved Isn't the Budget You'll Pay You approved $180K for a senior AI engineer. Eighteen months later, you've spent $282K and you're still not sure the hire is working out. This isn't unusual. It's the rule. Companies hiring AI engineers for the first time routinely underestimate total cost by 40–60%. Here's a breakdown of where that gap comes from — and why most founders don't see it until it's too late. The 56% Gap: Where It Comes From 1. Recruiting Costs Are Higher Than You Think (~12–18% of first-year salary) AI engineer recruiting isn't like standard software recruiting. Specialized headhunters charge 20–25% of first-year salary. Even if you find someone through your network, you'll spend founder or VP time on 15–30 hours of interviewing, plus take-home evals that the best candidates increasingly decline. If you use a staffing firm, add the markup. If you DIY it, add the opportunity cost. Typical recruiting overhead: $22,000–$40,000 per hire 2. Onboarding Takes Longer for AI Roles (~2–3 months of ramp) An AI engineer hired to build production agent systems isn't productive on day 1. They need to understand your domain, your data, your existing architecture, and your risk tolerance for AI-generated outputs. The ramp is real — most teams see 60–90 days before meaningful output. At $180K salary, two months of ramp is $30,000 in salary with limited ROI. Add engineering time for mentoring (typically 20% of a senior engineer's time during ramp), and you're adding another $15,000–$20,000. Ramp cost: $30,000–$50,000 3. Infrastructure Spend Scales With Experiments AI engineers experiment. That's the job. Every experiment has a GPU bill, an API bill, and a storage bill. Early-stage teams routinely see $3,000–$8,000/month in AI infrastructure spend once they've hired their first AI engineer — much of it from exploratory work that doesn't ship. Over a year: $36,000–$96,000 in infra costs that weren't in the original headcount budget 4. Tooling and Data Cos

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

Unlike humanoid robots designed around a fixed form — think Boston Dynamics — Theker's machines are built to be reconfigured.

The world's first MCP dating app inside Claude. Discussion | Link

On-device voice dictation. No cloud, no account. Discussion | Link

The new round values the physical AI startup that aims to automate heavy engineering and drug design at $41 billion.

The generative features in iOS 27’s new Photos app will add fake pixels to some of your shots, but Apple’s Jon McCormack says the company isn’t using AI “for the sake of AI.”

Provisioning a tenant-scoped email identity for your SaaS is one POST: curl --request POST \ --url "https://api.us.nylas.com/v3/connect/custom" \ --header "Authorization: Bearer <NYLAS_API_KEY>" \ --header "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{ "provider": "nylas", "workspace_id": "<WORKSPACE_ID>", "settings": { "email": "scheduling@customer-a.com" } }' No OAuth dance, no refresh token — just an address on a registered domain. The response comes back already valid: { "request_id" : "5967ca40-a2d8-4ee0-a0e0-6f18ace39a90" , "data" : { "id" : "b1c2d3e4-5678-4abc-9def-0123456789ab" , "provider" : "nylas" , "grant_status" : "valid" , "email" : "scheduling@customer-a.com" , "scope" : [], "created_at" : 1742932766 } } The data.id is a grant_id that works with every existing Nylas endpoint, and the account is live immediately. That's the primitive behind a multi-tenant pattern worth knowing: one Agent Account per customer, on each customer's own verified domain, all managed from a single application. (Agent Accounts are in beta, so the surface may shift before GA.) The architecture in one paragraph Your app runs scheduling@customer-a.com , scheduling@customer-b.com , and so on — same code path, different identities. Each account has its own policy, its own send quota, and its own sender reputation. A single application can manage accounts across an unlimited number of registered domains, so tenant count is a billing question, not an architectural one. Customer A's deliverability problems stay Customer A's; nothing they do contaminates Customer B's mail. Domains: register once, mint accounts forever The provisioning docs lay out two domain strategies you can mix freely in one application: Strategy Address format Setup Trial domain alias@<your-application>.nylas.email None — instant Your own domain alias@yourdomain.com MX + TXT records at the DNS provider For the per-customer pattern, each tenant brings their domain. You register it once per organization (picking the US

What does your automation do when the login flow it's driving sends a six-digit code instead of a confirmation link? For most teams the honest answer is "a human goes and checks a shared inbox," which is a strange bottleneck to leave in the middle of an otherwise fully automated pipeline. There's a cleaner shape: the agent owns the mailbox the code lands in. With a Nylas Agent Account — a hosted mailbox controlled entirely through the API, currently in beta — the OTP email arrives, a webhook fires, your handler extracts the code, and whatever orchestrates the login gets it back. No human, no inbox-checking Slack message, no screen-scraping Gmail. Step one: make sure it's the right email A message.created webhook fires on every inbound message, so the first job is filtering down to the one that actually carries the code. The recipe uses two signals together — sender domain and a subject heuristic: app . post ( " /webhooks/otp " , async ( req , res ) => { res . status ( 200 ). end (); const event = req . body ; if ( event . type !== " message.created " ) return ; const msg = event . data . object ; if ( msg . grant_id !== AGENT_GRANT_ID ) return ; const sender = msg . from ?.[ 0 ]?. email ?? "" ; const subject = msg . subject ?? "" ; const senderMatches = sender . endsWith ( " @no-reply.example.com " ); const subjectLooksRight = /code|verif|one. ? time|passcode/i . test ( subject ); if ( ! senderMatches || ! subjectLooksRight ) return ; await handleOtp ( msg . id ); }); Neither check alone is enough. Sender-only matching trips on welcome emails from the same domain; subject-only matching trips on anything that mentions "verification." Regex first, LLM second Most OTP emails follow one of a few shapes: a standalone 4–8 digit number, or a code after a label like "Your code is:". Three patterns, tried in order from most to least specific, cover the vast majority of services: const patterns = [ / (?: code|passcode|one [\s - ]? time )[^\d]{0,20}(\d{4,8}) /i , // "Your code

Two CI workers kick off at the same moment. Both sign up a test user, both poll the shared QA Gmail account for "the" verification email, and worker #7 grabs the message that belonged to worker #12. The test passes. The wrong test. You spend an afternoon staring at a green build that should've been red. Shared inboxes are the single biggest source of flakiness in email-dependent E2E tests, and every workaround — catch-all forwarding rules, label rules scoped per PR, OAuth tokens living on the runner — adds another moving part that breaks on its own schedule. The fix is structural: every test gets its own address, on infrastructure your suite provisions and destroys. One wildcard, infinite addresses The E2E email testing recipe sets this up with one CLI command: nylas inbound create e2e You get back an inbox ID and a wildcard pattern shaped like e2e-*@yourapp.nylas.email . From there, each test mints a unique address under the wildcard — e2e-<uuid>@yourapp.nylas.email — and there's nothing to provision per address. You don't pay or configure per address either; the wildcard is just a convention, so burn UUIDs freely. Mail flows through MX records hosted on the Nylas side, which means zero DNS work in your own zone (the tradeoff: addresses live under *.nylas.email ). The Playwright fixture is two pieces — an address minter and a poller: export const test = base . extend < Fixtures > ({ testEmail : async ({}, use ) => { await use ( `e2e- ${ randomUUID ()} @yourapp.nylas.email` ); }, pollInbox : async ({ testEmail }, use ) => { const poll = async ( timeoutMs = 30 _000 ) => { const deadline = Date . now () + timeoutMs ; while ( Date . now () < deadline ) { const out = execSync ( `nylas inbound messages ${ process . env . INBOX_ID } --json --limit 50` , ). toString (); const match = JSON . parse ( out ). find (( m ) => m . to . some (( t ) => t . email === testEmail ), ); if ( match ) return match ; await new Promise (( r ) => setTimeout ( r , 1500 )); } throw new Error (

Most "AI agent + email" tutorials start the same way: connect the agent to a human's inbox over OAuth, hope the token doesn't expire mid-run, and pray the agent never replies to the wrong thread on someone's behalf. There's a different model: give the agent its own email address. Nylas recently shipped Agent Accounts (currently in beta) — fully functional, Nylas-hosted mailboxes you create and control entirely through the API. Each one is a real name@company.com address that sends, receives, hosts calendar events, and RSVPs to invitations. To anyone interacting with it, it's indistinguishable from a human-operated account. I work on the docs at Nylas, so I've spent a lot of time with this API. Here's a tour of what it does and how to get a mailbox running in a few minutes. Why not just connect the agent to a human inbox? You can — that's what OAuth grants are for, and they're the right tool when the agent works on behalf of a person. But a lot of agent workflows want a first-class identity instead: System mailboxes ( sales@ , support@ , scheduling@ ) that your app owns end-to-end. No OAuth consent screen, no user offboarding breaking your integration. Ephemeral inboxes for test automation — provision a fresh address per run, sign up for a service, grab the OTP from the verification email, tear it down. Per-customer identities in multi-tenant apps: scheduling@customer-a.com , scheduling@customer-b.com , each with its own send quota and sender reputation, all in one Nylas application. A scheduling bot with its own calendar that proposes slots, sends invites, and shows up as a normal participant in Google Calendar, Microsoft 365, and Apple Calendar. The key design decision: an Agent Account is just another grant . It gets a grant_id that works with every existing Nylas endpoint — Messages, Drafts, Threads, Folders, Attachments, Calendars, Events, Webhooks. If you've already built against connected accounts, nothing new to learn. Create a mailbox with one API call Every

submitted by /u/PlaneSufficient2245 [link] [留言]

The post hit X at some point on June 10, the morning after Anthropic's biggest launch in years. I...

Ever stared at a physical examination report and felt like you were reading ancient hieroglyphics? "Elevated Serum Triglycerides"? "Hypoechoic nodule"? The immediate urge is to Google it, only to be convinced by WebMD that you have three days to live. In the world of AI Agents and Healthcare Automation , we can do better. Today, we are building an AI Physician Assistant using the AutoGPT protocol. This isn't just a chatbot; it’s an autonomous agent capable of parsing complex medical data, searching verified medical encyclopedias via SerpApi , and even cross-referencing hospital schedules to suggest the right department for a follow-up. By leveraging the OpenAI API and Pydantic for structured data validation, we are moving from "chatting" to "doing." If you're looking for more production-ready patterns or advanced AI implementation strategies in healthcare, definitely check out the deep-dive articles at * WellAlly Tech Blog * . The Architecture: How the Agent "Thinks" Unlike a standard LLM call, an autonomous agent operates in a loop: Perception -> Reasoning -> Action -> Observation . Here is how our AI Assistant handles a medical report: graph TD A[User Uploads Report/Text] --> B{Pydantic Parser} B -->|Structured Data| C[AutoGPT Agent Core] C --> D[Search Tool: SerpApi] D -->|Medical Context| C C --> E[Reasoning: Match Symptoms to Dept] E --> F[Tool: Hospital Schedule API] F -->|Availability| G[Final Recommendation & Appointment Plan] G --> H[User Notification] Prerequisites To follow this advanced tutorial, you’ll need: Python 3.10+ OpenAI API Key (GPT-4o recommended for reasoning) SerpApi Key (to search Google Scholar/Medical Databases) Pydantic for data modeling Step 1: Defining the Medical Schema (Pydantic) The biggest challenge in medical automation is data integrity . We cannot allow the AI to hallucinate vital signs. We use Pydantic to ensure the agent only proceeds if the data matches our schema. from pydantic import BaseModel , Field from typing import List

Modern teams expect software to update instantly. Nobody wants to refresh a page every few seconds to see whether a task has moved from "In Progress" to "Done." Applications like Trello, Jira, and Linear have trained users to expect real-time collaboration. In this tutorial, we'll build a simplified real-time Kanban board using React, TypeScript, and WebSockets. Along the way, we'll cover project structure, state management, optimistic UI updates, and handling concurrent changes from multiple users. What We're Building Our application will support: Creating tasks Drag-and-drop task movement Real-time synchronization between users Optimistic updates Type-safe frontend architecture Tech Stack Frontend React TypeScript Vite React DnD Zustand Backend Node.js Express Socket.IO Database PostgreSQL Why WebSockets Instead of Polling? Many developers start with polling: setInterval (() => { fetch ( " /tasks " ); }, 5000 ); This works, but it's inefficient. Problems include: Unnecessary network requests Delayed updates Increased server load Poor user experience WebSockets maintain a persistent connection between client and server. Instead of asking: "Any updates yet?" the server simply says: "Here's an update." The result is lower latency and fewer network requests. Project Structure A scalable React project should avoid putting everything into a single components folder. Here's a structure that works well: src/ ├── api/ ├── components/ ├── features/ │ ├── board/ │ ├── columns/ │ └── tasks/ ├── hooks/ ├── store/ ├── services/ ├── types/ └── utils/ This feature-based organization scales much better than organizing solely by file type. Setting Up React Create the project: npm create vite@latest kanban-board cd kanban-board npm install Install dependencies: npm install zustand socket.io-client react-dnd react-dnd-html5-backend Defining Task Types Type safety becomes increasingly valuable as applications grow. export interface Task { id : string ; title : string ; description : s

On June 9, 2026 (US time), two big announcements landed on the same day. At the keynote of Datadog's annual event DASH 2026 in New York, the Bits AI family expanded significantly: Detection, Investigation, Remediation, Infrastructure, Code, Release, Testing, Data Analysis, Chat, Memories, and Evals. Counting by agent, that is more than ten, with over 100 new features announced together. The full picture is laid out in the keynote roundup. https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/dash-2026-new-feature-roundup-keynote/ The same day, AWS announced FinOps Agent as a public preview. It bundles four data sources, Cost Explorer, Cost Anomaly Detection, Cost Optimization Hub, and Compute Optimizer, and delivers automated cost-anomaly investigation, natural-language cost questions, periodic cost reports, and aggregated optimization opportunities straight into Slack and Jira. The details are in the AWS blog. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws-cloud-financial-management/aws-finops-agent-is-now-public-preview/ AWS DevOps Agent had already gone GA in March, handling incident response. With FinOps Agent now added, AWS-built standard agents line up across the main operational domains. That said, DevOps Agent also covers multicloud and on-premises environments, so its scope differs from FinOps Agent, which targets AWS cost data. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/mt/announcing-general-availability-of-aws-devops-agent/ On the surface, this looks like two separate stories: Datadog the monitoring platform, AWS the cloud provider. But read the two announcements side by side, and you see both reaching for the same territory, Ops, through different entrances. Line up their features and most of them overlap, so a surface spec comparison won't show the difference. This article sorts out the same-day releases by the two companies' positioning, asks what these very similar agent lineups are actually fighting over, and goes as far as the axes for telling them apart and the predictions that follow. This is writ

Today on Uncanny Valley, we take an early look at the SpaceX IPO and why you might find yourself among the investors without even realizing it.