标签：#product

I have a problem with my social media feed: there are some people whose content I find really valuable, but on the other hand, there is too much trivial content, so I waste too much time watching low-value videos... BAD DEAL!!! So, let’s solve this issue using AI automation. We can solve this issue by using Telegram as our own social media platform and using automation to make our own feed, far from the algorithms of social media platforms. Choose the people whose content you find really valuable. Use AI automation to monitor them whenever they publish a new video. Once a new video is published, AI sends it to a Telegram bot where you can download it. The person who gave me this idea is Abo Ziad (the Egyptian version of Ali Abdaal), and he is one of my favorite YouTubers. Personally, I think you can add some entertaining channels to make it more balanced. I’ll try this solution for one month, and if you’re interested, I’ll share my experience with you, whether it succeeds or fails. In the end, it’s up to you. Tell us in the comments if you found the general idea useful or not, and whether AI automation is the best solution for this issue.

💬 Following up on the story about the release of Qwen3.8-Max , I finally tried it on real-world tasks. Specifically, for building AI consultants for text channels (messengers) in my favorite programming language — Go . Spoiler: it’s really good, especially for such a low price per 1M tokens ! 😍 As a result, I built 2 demo Telegram bots, where GPT-4.1-mini acts as the brains 👇 1️⃣ A bot for qualifying a customer and booking a car repair appointment , which asks for details about the vehicle and the issue, answers questions about service pricing, and schedules a convenient visit time. 2️⃣ A bot for calculating kitchen pricing for furniture companies , which уточняет kitchen parameters through guiding questions, calculates the cost, sends the final estimate, and books the client at the company office for a detailed design session. Before implementation, of course, I wrote a detailed spec for each of these bots and connected MCP Context7. I also had to make 1–2 corrective prompts for code style and some business-logic details... but otherwise, Qwen3.8-Max worked fully autonomously in the engineering loop (questioning itself at every stage and adjusting its own reasoning and code). Token usage (input + output) totaled ~12.8 million , across about 400 API requests to the Chinese model. That’s seriously impressive! For comparison, I ran the same task through DeepSeek V4 Flash Latest: with similar output results, it used over 15 million tokens. By the way, the whole development process was done in the next-gen AI IDE Kodik , by our local guys — ArchiTech AI . Highly recommend downloading and trying it. Not an Ad! I’ve been using it for over a month now, and it’s truly a very high-quality product, especially in the era of account bans from Anthropic and OpenAI 😏 ...and soon, a local model called Qwen3.8-27b is also expected to drop, which Alibaba has promised to release any day now... that’s definitely something that can make the big AI model vendors nervous! 😉 And if you ne

When Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 arrived, I expected my coding agents to become noticeably better. Instead, some of my workflows felt worse. The agents seemed more eager, less predictable, and occasionally “dumber” than before. Naturally, I blamed the new models. Very scientific of me. Maybe it was a skill issue Then I watched Andrej Karpathy’s interview on the No Priors podcast. One idea stuck with me: when an agent fails, the capability may already exist. The problem could be how we instruct it, what memory we provide, or how we arrange the workflow. That made me question something I had mostly ignored: Were my custom skills still compatible with the newer models? I gave my agent this prompt: Can you audit our custom skills against the current models? Flag stale prompts, conflicting instructions, outdated assumptions, and anything that should be simplified or removed. Then test each skill on a representative task and propose the smallest updates needed. The audit found instructions written around the behavior of older models. Some were redundant. Some were no longer necessary. Others pushed the newer models too hard and caused them to overdo tasks. After cleaning those up and testing the skills again, the results felt noticeably better. The official guidance supports this This was not proof that every disappointing result is caused by an outdated prompt. Models can still regress, behave inconsistently, or introduce genuine breaking changes. But both Anthropic and OpenAI recommend recalibrating instructions during model migrations. Anthropic’s Claude Opus 5 documentation says the model now verifies its work without being told. It specifically recommends removing verification instructions carried over from earlier models because they can cause over-verification. OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 guidance recommends removing repeated instructions, simplifying tool descriptions, and running the same evaluations after each change. In OpenAI’s internal coding-agent evaluations, leaner sys

Nearly a decade after its debut, Samsung’s Galaxy Fold finally comes into its own.

With automatic mapping, Spot Mode functionality, and smart AI cameras, the TerraMow V1000 is the complete package.

Ensuring your cat stays hydrated is one of the best ways to keep your pet healthy. The right pet water fountain can help.

Dario Amodei Is Right. But He Is Missing the Hard Part. Dario Amodei said the first billion-dollar company with one employee would appear in 2026. He put 70-80% probability on it. I am not building a billion-dollar company. But I am running something that does the work of several teams: 86 containers, 24 databases, 240 cron jobs, two servers, one person. Amodei is right that this is now possible. The tools exist. The costs dropped. A full AI stack costs me between $3,000 and $12,000 per year. The equivalent in human headcount would run $80,000 to $120,000 per month. But the headline version of the "one-person company" story skips the hard part. It sounds like you hire an AI, fire your team, and go make money. That is not what happened for me. What actually happened was eighteen months of building a system that makes "one person" sustainable at 3 AM when something breaks and nobody is awake to fix it. Here is what that system looks like in practice. The Stack Is Not the System Most people stop at the stack. They pick Claude or GPT, wire up a few automations, and call it an AI-powered business. That works until the first thing breaks in a way the model did not anticipate. The stack I run includes SaaS apps for golf clubs, a school management platform, an auth provider, a CRM, a community platform, and several tools for my own operations. Each of these runs in Docker containers managed by Coolify, spread across two Hetzner servers in Germany. That part is table stakes. Any competent developer can set up containers. The system is what sits on top. It is what makes the difference between "one person with a lot of tools" and "one person running a business that actually works." Guard Rules: The Thing That Catches What You Miss I wrote about this in detail in Runs Without Me : the biggest risk in a one-person setup is not that the AI does something wrong. It is that you do not notice until hours or days later. My setup uses 177 guard files that intercept operations before t

Hello Guys!!! I am Kuldeep Gade. A final-year Computer Engineering student with a specialization in Cybersecurity. Currently, I am working on home lab automation so that it will help to encounter alerts (false positives). For practice, I have created a controlled environment for performing attacks and detecting them, such that the outside doesn't get affected. Working on projects which will enhance my cybersecurity skills. But I wasn't that obsessed with cybersecurity from the starting. I am a person who experimented with lots of domains by myself. When I was in the first year, I completed Full-Stack in MERN. For 1–1.5 years, I did that, but after some time, AI got so much power that within 3–4 months of the launch, they were able to create such stunning websites that needed a team of skilled people. And I thought it could be useless to go deep into MERN more, because if AI can do such things within months, then what is going to happen at the time of my graduation? And that's the reason I tried other things. So I realised that it could be better to gain the fundamental knowledge in the core of Domains that will automatcally get to implementation level with the help of the AI tools. So I started to learn Data Science and Machine Learning. Soon, I realised that I cannot keep up with it. Then I started with cybersecurity. And currently, I am going deep into it. As a result, I got my answer, and now I am a bit focused towards the cybersecurity domain. It was a tremendous feeling about knowing the root of the system on which we are working. How to troubleshoot the errors and problems. And I am loving it now. Gaining experience in this field is not just learning and watching tutorials. We have to perform hands-on practice. We have to learn by doing things, breaking systems, understanding workflows, rebuilding them. I am going to share my experience in the field as we go in upcoming blogs. Recently, I started my new goal to "read the books". And did some research on books.

Originally published on hexisteme notes . I keep my operating judgment in small, versioned files — one file per decision, each with a status, a list of what it supersedes, and a change history. It's a lightweight way to stop re-litigating the same argument every few weeks: write the judgment down once, and the next time the situation comes up, read the file instead of re-deriving the answer from scratch. Most of the time this works exactly as intended — a rule gets written, a rule gets proven wrong, a newer rule replaces it, done. This is the story of the one time that didn't happen, and why "didn't happen" doesn't look like an error. It looks like a rule sitting there, marked active, doing precisely what it was told to do. The gate One of my rules governed how to use a panel of eight simulated reviewers I sometimes convene for open-ended judgment calls — different personas critiquing the same plan from different angles. The panel's response includes, among other things, an "internal consistency" score: roughly, how much the eight answers agree with each other. Early on I wrote a gate around that number: if internal consistency comes back under 70%, don't adopt the panel's conclusion on its own. Low agreement, the reasoning went, meant the panel hadn't converged on anything trustworthy. The supersession, with receipts The gate lasted exactly as long as it took to hit a counterexample. I ran the panel on an architecture question and got back a response at 21% internal consistency — a reject, by the gate's own arithmetic. Except when I actually read the eight answers instead of just their agreement score, three of them were pointing at things I hadn't considered at all: a missing measurement step behind a database-performance claim, a conflation of a plan's stated purpose with its surface description, and one persona's terse near-empty answer that turned out to be a legitimate signal — a comment that the question itself wasn't well-formed for consensus, not a dodge. A

Give your AI agent a real phone number in 10 seconds Discussion | Link

The Agentic Coding Revolution: How I Learned to Stop Typing and Start Delegating Or: what happens when your IDE becomes less of a text editor and more of a teammate. Remember when "AI-assisted coding" meant autocomplete suggestions that guessed your variable names? Those days are gone. Somewhere along the way, the tools stopped suggesting and started doing . They read your repo, run your tests, open pull requests, and sometimes fix bugs you didn't even know existed. Welcome to the era of agentic coding — and if you haven't restructured your workflow around it yet, this post is your crash course. What Actually Changed? The shift from code assistant to coding agent comes down to one capability: autonomy . A traditional assistant waits for your keystrokes. An agent receives a goal and figures out the rest. Dimension Code Assistant Coding Agent Trigger Your keystroke A stated objective Scope Single line or block Entire task, across files Feedback loop None Reads test output, retries, iterates Tool use Suggestion only Shell, browser, git, package managers Ownership You write, it suggests It drafts, you review The mental model that helped me most: stop thinking of the agent as an autocomplete and start thinking of it as a junior developer with access to your codebase. You wouldn't hand a junior engineer an undocumented task with no acceptance criteria. So why hand it to an agent? The Prompting Gap Is the New Debugging Here's the uncomfortable truth I discovered after a few months of daily agentic workflows: agents don't fail because they're dumb. They fail because our instructions are vague. Consider these two requests: ❌ Bad: "Make the app faster" ✅ Good: "Reduce p95 latency of the /search endpoint (currently 1.2s) to under 300ms. Focus on the database query layer first. Keep existing API contracts unchanged. Add a benchmark comparing before/after." The second version has a measurable goal, a constraint boundary, a starting hypothesis, and a definition of done. Agents th

Originally published on my Substack . I'm a Microsoft MVP based in Japan, writing in English about the AI agent systems I actually run in production. AI tools have multiplied. So have agents, skills, and automation scripts. And yet, somehow, my hands are never free. I wake up, open a dashboard, check notifications, go look at the logs for a failed job, and think, "wait, where was that process even running?" Every time I add one more automation, I add one more place I have to go check. That was me, up until last year. The cause was clear: I kept thinking about what to have AI do, and never once designed where I myself would touch things. So I rewrote my policy down to one line. There are only two things a human does: throw tasks into one place, and have conversations in one place. No other entry points get added. 🤖✍️ This article was co-written with AI — an AI agent (Claude Code) generated the draft automatically based on real collaborative work with Ebisuda, who then reviewed and revised it before publishing. In this series, I share the systems I've actually built using AI as case studies — including both the ones that worked and the ones that failed. What I Set Out to Build What I set out to build wasn't a specific tool or a specific agent. It was the design of the surface humans touch. The rule I settled on was just two lines. The only human entry points are Todoist (for dropping in things to do) and Discord (for conversation) Everything else gets pushed to the AI and scheduler side This is the opposite of "let's have AI do a ton of work." When people try to maximize what AI can do, they end up adding more tools. More tools means more settings screens, more places logs pile up, more places you have to go check "how's it doing now." Left unchecked, the number of automated processes and the number of places a human has to go look both grow together. So the thing I needed to decide first wasn't the scope of AI's work — it was the footprint on the human side. If you f

This affordable electric BMX delighted my entire family, even if its range, ride comfort, and actual BMX abilities are limited.

New fonts, better customization, and a whole new layout all make it worth dusting off your Instapaper account.

These are the Apple Watch accessories I recommend adding to your setup.

Auk’s Mini 2 improves on the original model with better lights, a sleeker design, and fun new colors.

We’ve been testing bands since the first Apple Watch launched in 2015. From silicone sports straps to leather bands, I’ve rounded up the best for every occasion.

I kept paying a monthly subscription for a cloud coding assistant while a 16GB M4 Mac mini sat on my desk idling most of the day. So I ran the obvious experiment: can a 16GB Mac mini run a coding assistant entirely offline — no code leaving the machine, no subscription — and is it actually usable for real work? Short answer: yes, with one hard constraint (RAM) and one soft one (context length). This article is the written version of the video above, with every command, config file, and benchmark number so you can reproduce it. Table of contents Why bother running locally The hardware constraint nobody mentions Step 1: Install Ollama Step 2: Pick a model that fits in 16GB Step 3: Run and verify Step 4: Wire it into VS Code Step 5: Tune Ollama for a 16GB box Benchmarks What it does well, what it doesn't Should you cancel Copilot? Why bother running locally Three reasons, in the order that actually mattered to me: Privacy. Client code, internal repos, anything under NDA — none of it leaves the machine. This is the one thing a hosted assistant cannot offer you at any price tier. Cost. A coding assistant subscription is roughly $100–240/yr depending on tier. The Mac mini was already bought. Offline. Flights, bad hotel wifi, coffee shop dead zones. The assistant just works. The reason not to: raw capability. The frontier hosted models are better at large multi-file reasoning, and it isn't close. More on that below. The hardware constraint nobody mentions On Apple Silicon, the GPU and CPU share one pool of unified memory. A model has to fit in that pool alongside macOS, your browser, VS Code, and whatever containers you're running . On a 16GB machine, macOS + a normal dev environment eats 6–8GB before you've loaded anything. That leaves you roughly 7–9GB of realistic headroom for the model. This single number determines everything else, and it's why "just run the 30B model" advice from people on 64GB machines doesn't transfer. By default macOS allows the GPU to use about 7

You're on the highway, hands on the wheel, and a message comes in. Or at least it should come in. Instead your car stays silent, or the notification shows up ten minutes later at a red light, or it reads out a name but the body never appears. If this sounds familiar, you're not dealing with a broken phone. You're dealing with the fact that Android Auto surfaced notifications very differently from your lock screen — and a lot of small settings have to line up for a message to actually reach you while you drive. Here's the mental model, the usual culprits, and the exact fixes. I've split the fix-it steps into separate deep-dives at the end, because "my messages don't show in the car" can mean five different things. The mental model: it's a separate pipeline On your phone, a message notification lives in the shade like any other notification. In Android Auto it's a different surface. Android Auto only pulls in notifications from apps it recognizes as messaging apps , and it deliberately filters them down to something safe to glance at while driving. That filtering is the whole game. A notification that's perfectly fine on your lock screen can be dropped, delayed, or stripped of its text in the car because one of these conditions isn't met: the app is enabled for Android Auto (not every app is, by default), the app has notification access granted, the phone isn't in a mode that suppresses it (Do Not Disturb, Driving mode), the app isn't being killed by battery optimization in the background, and the message is actually a message Android Auto understands (some apps send "silent" or summary notifications that AA ignores). Notice none of these are "the app is broken." They're configuration. Which is good news — they're all fixable. The usual culprits, in order of how often they're the cause 1. The app isn't enabled in Android Auto. Android Auto shows notifications from a curated set of messaging apps. Open Android Auto → Settings → Notifications → Configure notifications,

Imagine this: You’re drafting a long email, writing a report, or responding to a wave of Slack messages. Instead of hunching over your keyboard and typing at 40 words per minute, you simply hold down Ctrl + Space , speak your thoughts at 150+ words per minute, and release the keys. Instantly, clean, perfectly punctuated, polished text appears right where your cursor is. Meet Vacanam — a free, 100% private, offline voice typing tool built for Windows 10 & 11. 😫 Why Most Voice Typing Tools Are Frustrating If you’ve ever tried built-in dictation tools or commercial transcription services, you’ve likely run into the same annoyances: They Send Your Voice to the Cloud : Many tools stream your microphone audio to remote servers. If you work with sensitive emails, client data, or private thoughts, that’s an immediate dealbreaker. They Require an Internet Connection : Try dictating on an airplane, during spotty Wi-Fi, or in a secure offline room — they simply refuse to work. Punctuation is a Headache : You have to awkwardly say things like "Hello comma how are you question mark" just to get a basic sentence right. Subscription Fatigue : Most good dictation apps charge $10 to $30 every single month. We built Vacanam (वचनम् — Sanskrit for Voice & Speech ) to fix all of this once and for all. 🌟 The Superpowers: What Makes Vacanam Different? 1. 🎙️ Works in Every Single Windows App Vacanam doesn’t trap you inside a special recording window. It works universally: Productivity & Docs : Microsoft Word, Google Docs, Notion, Obsidian, OneNote Communication : Slack, Microsoft Teams, WhatsApp Desktop, Discord, Outlook, Gmail Browsers & Editors : Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Notepad, VS Code, Terminals Just click into any text box, hold Ctrl + Space, speak, and let go. 2. 🪄 Automatic AI Polish (No More "Ums" or Missing Commas) When we talk, we hesitate, say "um" , repeat words, and forget punctuation. Vacanam features an optional Built-in AI Assistant that runs silently on your computer: Remov