标签：#product

Introduction It's been a few years now since generative AI worked its way into everyday life. AI has made life more convenient for a lot of people, but at the same time, I've been seeing more and more talk about its downsides. The one I come across most often lately is the idea that using AI has a negative effect on how well you retain and understand things. For example, something like this: you split people into a group that solves a problem using AI and a group that solves it without, and when you check on them again after some time has passed, the group that used AI remembers less about it. This is something I can relate to. Or rather — I can't say for sure, but compared to how I was before AI, I've been handing whole tasks over to it more often, and I feel like I retain less and learn less by thinking things through. I build things up piece by piece less than I used to. Instead, more and more, it's AI laying the groundwork for my ideas and my work. I Was Handing Over the Wrong Things So is AI entirely to blame? I don't think so — I think it's a matter of how you use it and how you approach it. Looking back at my own usage, the problem was less about AI itself and more about what I was handing over to it. Take coming up with ideas. Throw it at AI and you'll get plenty of plausible-sounding ones. But I've come to feel that some subjects suit this and some don't, especially anything involving my own opinion or taste. For those, thinking it through myself from the start usually gets me to the finish line faster, and leaves me more satisfied with the result. When I hand the initial idea over to AI instead, what comes back often feels detached, like it belongs to someone else, and a little thin. On the other hand, there's work where the rough shape is already there but it isn't finished yet. Smoothing off the rough edges of that kind of thing is where I think AI is good. Pointing out gaps and typos, offering a different way to phrase something, cross-checking against

Lessons from building 24hours.lk and its companion mobile suite, the 24 Eco System Building an application is easy when everything is predictable. The database is clean. The API works. The user follows the expected flow. The server has enough resources. Nothing changes. Real enterprise applications are nothing like that. While working on 24hours.lk and the 24 Eco System mobile applications, I started to understand the difference between building something that works and building something that can survive in a real production environment. The most valuable part of the experience wasn't creating screens — it was dealing with everything that happens behind them. It Started Looking Like a Normal Application At first, an application can look deceptively simple: a user opens the app, authenticates, views some data, submits something. The backend processes the request. The database stores it. Done. But that simple flow hides a much larger engineering problem: What happens if two requests arrive at exactly the same time? What happens if the database becomes slow? What happens if the mobile app is running an older API version? What happens if a user closes the app halfway through an operation? What happens when thousands of records need to be retrieved? What happens when one service goes down but the rest of the ecosystem keeps running? That's where enterprise development really begins. 1. The Architecture Becomes More Important Than the Feature One of the biggest mindset changes I experienced was realizing that a feature is never really isolated. A new feature can touch mobile UI → API → authentication → business logic → database → storage → notifications → infrastructure, all at once — and changing one part can unexpectedly affect another. Because of that, I had to think about things like: Separation of concerns API contracts Service boundaries Database relationships Reusable business logic Error propagation Authentication flows Backward compatibility Deployment strategy

The standard objection to writing the design down is that it is what you give up in exchange for speed. Early-stage companies are meant to be the place where you skip it: no specifications, no plans, just build the thing and find out. Documentation is treated as a tax that mature organisations can afford and small ones cannot. I have worked the other way round, and I want to make the argument properly rather than just assert it. At Cendra , across a twelve-month tenure as one of two founding engineers, the work produced 255 design specifications, 207 implementation plans and 17 production runbooks. Over the same period: 377 production releases coordinated across four repositories, and 482 merge commits across those repositories (an all-merges count, broader than the frontend-only first-parent integration figure on the Cendra page), across 239 active development days. That release figure works out at roughly one every twenty-two hours. All of those figures are tenure-scoped, and self-measured against private repositories while I held authorised access to them, which is a caveat I will come back to. But the shape is the point: the documents and the shipping happened together, at the same time, by the same person. What I am not claiming I cannot prove the specifications caused the cadence. There is no control group. It is entirely possible to imagine a version of that year with no documents and more releases, and I have no way to rule it out. What I can do is describe precisely what the artefacts removed from the critical path, and let you judge whether that is worth the hours. The mechanism matters more than the correlation, because the mechanism is the part that transfers to your codebase rather than mine. The specification is a comprehension test I administer to myself The honest reason I write a design down before building it is not communication. It is that writing it is how I find out whether I actually understand the problem. There is a specific and reliable exp

Almost everything written about proactive AI is about the generating half. How the system notices a pattern, how it phrases the insight, which model reads the calendar. That half is not the hard part. The hard part is the decision immediately after: having noticed something true, do you say it? A proactive assistant has an asymmetric cost function. Surfacing something useful earns a little trust. Interrupting at the wrong moment loses a great deal, and users do not give a second chance to a notification stream they have already learned to ignore. Once attention has been trained away from a channel, it does not come back. So the interesting engineering sits on the restraint side, and it is systematically the side that gets built last. I know that because on the first notification system I owned, I built it last. The design that does not work The common shape is: generate candidate insights, score them, and filter against a threshold. It fails in two specific ways. The threshold is a single scalar standing in for many unrelated reasons to stay quiet. "Not this person", "not at three in the morning", "not in the first week", "not again, they have dismissed this three times" and "not today, the budget is spent" are different rules with different owners and different failure modes. Compressing them into one number means none of them can be reasoned about, and tuning any one of them moves all the others. And nothing records why anything was suppressed. A threshold returns false. The suppression behaviour — the most important behaviour in the product — becomes the one part of the system that generates no data, and therefore the one part that cannot be improved. Two questions, two places The design I settled on in LILA separates the questions completely. Is this worth saying at all is a reasoning problem. It depends on the content, the evidence behind it, and whether the observation is one a product should be making. It has nothing to do with the time of day. Should it be s

The Home Depot Labor Day sale goes hard on grills and tools. Here are our recommendations on what to buy—and what to ignore.

Fala galera, Tudo beleza? Bom, acho que não é novidade para ninguém que IA no desenvolvimento de software já passou daquela fase de simplesmente completar uma linha de código ou criar um método pra gente. Hoje temos ferramentas que conseguem analisar projetos, criar arquivos, escrever testes, ajudar em refatorações e até participar de tarefas bem maiores dentro de uma Solution. Sendo nosso Copiloto, NUNCA O PILOTO (sim no futuro esse vai aparecer tbm) E claro... junto com isso começaram as comparações. Nesse artigo vou comparar 2 que gosto muito de usar no dia a dia, sim eu uso gemini e copilot. Mas tudo ao seu tempo, comparar diversos serviços diferentes sem usar bastante nunca foi meu foco então prefiro falar de algo que eu to usando mesmo, por isso demorei tanto pra escrever. Codex ou Claude Code? Qual é melhor para trabalhar com .NET? Nas minhas experiências (sim na EU, EU USANDO, EUUUUUU.. digo isso porque é normal você falar, mas eu uso como... eu to falando EUUUUU. como ponto de partida para quem principalmente ta querendo entender dos dois e usa pouco ou nunca usou) utilizando os dois, principalmente dentro do ecossistema .NET, percebi que a resposta não é tão simples. E antes que isso vire uma guerra de torcida organizada ( ou do seu politico de estimação) nos comentários: não acho que exista um vencedor absoluto aqui . Não , não tem.... Na verdade, eles possuem formas diferentes de trabalhar e, dependendo do problema que estou tentando resolver, acabo preferindo um ou outro. Então bora bater um papo sobre isso? Primeiro: eles trabalham de formas bem diferentes Uma das primeiras coisas que percebi utilizando as duas ferramentas no contexto de dev é que, apesar de ambas terem o mesmo objetivo — ajudar no desenvolvimento — a forma como chegam até a solução me parece diferente. Codex No meu uso, o Codex me passa uma sensação muito mais de controle sobre o que está acontecendo . Você consegue trabalhar de uma forma mais estruturada, analisar o que será alterado

Cloud technology is evolving faster than ever. From containers and Kubernetes to serverless platforms, infrastructure as code, observability, and AI-powered developer tools, there is always something new to explore. As a cloud enthusiast, I’ve learned that keeping up with technology isn’t about learning everything. It’s about staying curious, understanding the fundamentals, and continuously experimenting. ☁️ Exploring Modern Infrastructure Modern infrastructure has changed the way we build and operate software. Tools like: Docker for containerization Kubernetes for orchestration Terraform for infrastructure as code GitHub Actions for automation Prometheus and Grafana for observability Cloud platforms for scalable infrastructure have become an important part of the modern developer toolkit. But tools are only part of the journey. Understanding why we use them is just as important as knowing how to use them. 🛠️ Learning by Building One of my favorite ways to learn is by building small projects. Instead of only reading documentation or watching tutorials, I try to turn concepts into something practical: Learn it → Build it → Break it → Fix it → Understand it Breaking things is often where the best learning happens. A failed deployment, a misconfigured container, or a broken CI/CD pipeline can teach lessons that a tutorial sometimes can't. 🚀 What's Next? The cloud ecosystem is moving toward more automation, platform engineering, AI-assisted development, and increasingly intelligent infrastructure. That makes this an exciting time to be learning. There will always be another tool, another framework, or another platform to discover. And that's the fun part. Stay curious. Keep building. Keep breaking things. Keep learning. ☁️🚀 This is just the beginning of my journey into cloud, infrastructure, developer tools, and modern technology. More experiments and lessons coming soon.

In the fast-paced world of software development, every second counts. Seamless tool interaction is not just a convenience; it's the bedrock of high developer productivity . Even seemingly minor hitches, like a non-functional 'copy link' button, can subtly erode efficiency, leading to frustration and lost time. A recent GitHub Community discussion highlighted just such an issue, where a user reported that the 'Copy link' button in Pull Requests (PRs) was consistently failing, specifically when using the Arc browser on macOS. This isn't merely about a broken button; it's a window into the complex interplay between browsers, web APIs, and the essential tools we rely on daily. The Reported Problem: A Month-Long Frustration The original post by vovapyc detailed a persistent problem: the 'Copy link' button in GitHub PRs had been broken for at least a month. The user specified their setup: Arc browser, MacBook Pro M1 Pro, and macOS 26.2. For dev teams, product managers, and delivery leads, a recurring point of friction like this, preventing a quick share of a PR link, represents a tangible drag on workflow. Imagine the cumulative time lost across a team if every developer had to manually copy URLs from the address bar multiple times a day. GitHub's automated response, while a standard and necessary part of their feedback loop, acknowledged the feedback and assured the user that their input would be reviewed. However, it didn't immediately offer a solution or explanation for the bug, leaving the user, and potentially others experiencing similar issues, in limbo. Diagram illustrating the three gates: Secure Context, Document Focus, and User Permission, that must be passed for the Clipboard API to function.## The Expert Insight: It's Likely the Browser, Not GitHub The true insight, and the crux of this discussion, arrived from hoangperry . Their comprehensive breakdown suggested that the issue was almost certainly browser-specific rather than a core GitHub bug. This distincti

The decision between a free hosted AI coding server and a self-hosted stack is rarely about price. It is about three measurable variables: token burn per task, latency tolerance, and privacy surface. Teams that compare sticker prices pick wrong. Teams that measure these variables pick right most of the time. This guide provides a decision table, a token budget script, and a one-week audit workflow. The framework applies to any free AI coding tier. The examples use MonkeyCode, an open-source AI coding assistant whose free tier includes model access and a hosted server with a 10M token allowance at the time of writing. Quotas and model availability change, so verify the current limits before relying on them. Disclosure: This article was prepared as part of MonkeyCode's product outreach. Why Sticker Price Is the Wrong Variable Free sounds better than paid. It is not always cheaper. A free server that burns 40,000 tokens on a task a local model handles in 8,000 tokens costs more in time, context, and rework. The real unit of comparison is tokens per completed task, not dollars per month. Self-hosting has the same trap. A GPU that already sits in the office looks free. Add power, cooling, maintenance, and the engineer who keeps the stack alive, and the hourly cost becomes visible. The comparison needs one model that accounts for both sides. The Three Variables That Decide Token burn per task Refactors and test generation consume more tokens than single-file edits. The number varies by model, context length, and repository size. Most teams never measure it. That is the first mistake. A 10M allowance sounds large until a monorepo context window eats a meaningful slice of it on every request. Latency tolerance Interactive coding needs fast first-token time. Batch tasks like code review or documentation generation tolerate seconds of delay. A free hosted server usually sits between the two. Teams that treat all tasks as interactive overestimate latency risk. Teams that treat

The success of a program linking zoos across the US has created social media stars and generated a wave of interest in how to protect the endangered great apes in the wild.

Macs are fantastic computers, but you’ll need one of these great displays to complete your work-from-home setup.

The "frequency healing" corner of the internet runs on faith. Apps ship MP3s labeled "40Hz gamma" and ask you to believe it. I'm a life scientist who builds web tools, and I couldn't ship that. So I built SereneSynth, a browser-based binaural beat and noise generator — and then I built a live spectrum analyzer into the page so anyone can audit the output in their own browser. This is the engineering write-up: the Web Audio graph, the FFT gotcha that almost made me publish wrong numbers, and how I cross-verified everything in Audacity. The honesty constraint first A binaural beat is not a tone in the air. Play 200 Hz into the left ear and 240 Hz into the right, and the listener's superior olivary complex computes the 40 Hz difference. A microphone — or a mono spectrum analyzer — will never show a 40 Hz peak. So the only honest thing a generator can prove is its carriers and its spectral slope. That is exactly what we measure. The synthesis graph Two sine oscillators, hard-panned with StereoPannerNode, summed into a master GainNode, tapped by an AnalyserNode before the destination — the analyzer observes exactly what the headphones receive. Settings that matter: fftSize 16384, smoothingTimeConstant 0.8. The FFT gotcha that almost made me ship garbage My first version used fftSize 1024: one fat bump near 220 Hz instead of two peaks. Bin width = 44100 / 1024 ≈ 43 Hz, and my carriers are 40 Hz apart — same bin, merged. At fftSize 16384 the bin width drops to ≈ 2.7 Hz and the carriers resolve as razor-sharp spikes at 200.0 and 240.0 Hz. Lesson: FFT size is the magnifying glass. If a "frequency proof" doesn't state its FFT size, ask. The widget renders a log axis (20–1000 Hz) because a linear axis wastes 90% of the canvas, and peak detection labels the top bins in the 100–500 Hz range live. Bit-exact, downloadable verification The page also renders 10-second stereo WAVs via OfflineAudioContext (16-bit PCM, 44.1 kHz): same graph, offline render, RIFF encode. No lossy compre

Most free online PDF tools work by uploading your document to a server, processing it there, and sending it back. For a lot of files that's fine. For a signed contract, a payslip, a medical form, or a scanned ID, it's the entire privacy problem: your document now lives on someone else's machine, subject to their logging, retention, and breach exposure. It doesn't have to work that way. A modern browser can split, merge, compress, sign, and even OCR a PDF without the file ever leaving your device — using libraries like pdf-lib , pdf.js , jsPDF and SheetJS that run entirely in JavaScript. How to tell an uploader from a client-side tool You don't have to trust a marketing claim. Two checks settle it: Watch the network. Open your browser's DevTools → Network tab, then run the tool on a file. If you see your file leave in a POST/PUT request, it uploaded. A client-side tool shows no upload of the document itself. Pull the plug. Load the page, then turn off Wi-Fi and try the tool again. A client-side tool keeps working offline. An uploader breaks the moment the network is gone. The honest tools pass both tests. If a site can't work offline, your file is going somewhere. The trade-offs, stated honestly Client-side processing isn't a free lunch, and any tool that pretends it is should make you suspicious: Memory. Very large PDFs are held in browser memory, so there's a ceiling a server wouldn't have. Speed. OCR in WebAssembly is slower than a server GPU. It's private, not fast. Fidelity. Converting PDF → Word transfers the text , not the layout — the same is true of every converter, but a client-side one can't hide it behind a server. Compression limits. A PDF shrinks by downsampling embedded images or rasterizing pages; a small or text-only PDF may not shrink at all, and rasterizing removes selectable text. We built 24 client-side PDF tools on exactly this principle and wrote down where each limit is, rather than papering over them. If you're evaluating any online PDF tool

I built the pipeline that publishes this site's content in versioned code instead of n8n. Not a philosophical stance against no-code tools, a practical call, and one specific bug is why I still think it was the right one. Why code, not a canvas Four reasons drove it, in order of how much they actually mattered: Review parity. Every change to how a post gets approved or published goes through the same PR review as the rest of the site. A workflow-canvas change doesn't get that by default. Headless operation. Claude Code drives the queue directly, no GUI dashboard sitting between the agent and the task. Existing infrastructure. A Telegram bot already handled approvals; there was no gap a workflow tool needed to fill. One fewer service. Every extra tool in the stack is something else to patch and keep secure. Skipping it was the cheap option, not just the principled one. The bug that proved it On July 20, 2026, a scheduled post silently failed. The Buffer API adapter treated an error response as a normal one, never checked the status, so the X post never actually went out while the pipeline marked it published. Nothing threw, nothing alerted, the queue just quietly lied about what had shipped. I found it the way you'd expect: read buffer.py , saw exactly where the status check was missing, fixed one line. Cheap once you can see it. That's the part I can't picture happening the same way in a workflow canvas. I genuinely don't have a mental model for debugging that failure mode there, a canvas doesn't hand you the same thing a stack trace and git blame hand you in code. You'd be reading node configuration and hoping the tool's own logging caught the edge case, instead of reading the exact line that skipped a check. What this is actually about It isn't code versus no-code as a philosophy. It's about legibility when automation is wrong in a way that doesn't throw an error. A silent-fail bug is the worst kind, because nothing tells you to go look. The only thing that saved

An iOS teleprompter app controlled by your voice Discussion | Link

A background noise removal workflow is easy to describe and much harder to make trustworthy. The superficial version is: upload a file, run processing, download the result. The harder version is product design: what does a person need to know before committing to a result, paying for an export, or spending a limited processing allowance? A preview-first workflow answers that question by making uncertainty a first-class part of the system. Instead of asking people to trust a long-running operation, it gives them a bounded way to hear a representative outcome before they choose what happens next. This article lays out the design principles behind that approach for stored audio or video uploads. It is not a call-time or capture-time filter. The central workflow is: upload → compatibility check → preview → same segment before/after → export choice That sequence looks simple, but each boundary carries product and engineering consequences. Start with a decision, not a processing feature A preview should help a user make one specific decision: “Is this result useful enough for me to continue?” That framing prevents a common mistake: treating a preview as a small free version of the full product. A useful preview is not merely a shorter job. It needs to be comparable, understandable, and tied to the next action. For background noise removal, the most defensible comparison is a matched segment: The source and processed audio use the same time range. Playback controls make the comparison obvious. The user can choose whether to continue only after hearing that bounded example. If the before and after samples use different moments, the product is asking the user to infer too much. A quieter section in one clip can appear better even when the processing change was minor. Matching the segment removes that ambiguity and keeps the decision grounded in what the user actually heard. Put compatibility before expectation Compatibility belongs near the beginning of the workflow, before

Never miss a delivery. These WIRED-tested picks will help you keep tabs on your front door from anywhere.

I've tried every productivity app out there. Notion, Obsidian, Todoist, Habitica, Day One - you name it. Every single one either wants my credit card, my email, or my data. Some want all three. So I built Lexis (lexisapp.xyz) - a free, local-first productivity suite that combines habits, notes, journal, tasks, documents, and an AI assistant into one app. No sign-up. No subscription. All data stays on your device. What is Lexis? Lexis is a web app (also available as a desktop Electron app) that bundles six productivity tools into one: Habits - Track daily habits with streaks, analytics, and a calendar view Notes - Rich text notes with full markdown support Journal - Daily journaling with mood tracking Tasks - Task management with priorities, due dates, and kanban-style organization Documents - Create and manage longer-form documents Noor - An AI assistant powered by three models (Ethos 4.7, Logos 4.5, Verse 4) that can chat, generate images, and help with your productivity data Everything runs in the browser. Your data is stored locally in IndexedDB. Nothing is sent to any server - not even us. Why Local-First? The local-first movement is about giving users ownership of their data. When your notes live in Notion's servers, you're at the mercy of their pricing, their uptime, and their privacy policies. With Lexis: Your data never leaves your device No account needed - just open the app and start using it Works offline - full functionality without internet (except AI features) GDPR compliant by design - we literally can't see your data because it never reaches our servers The AI Assistant (Noor) I wanted an AI that feels like it's yours, not a corporate chatbot. Noor is Lexis's built-in AI assistant with three models: Ethos 4.7 - the creative, conversational model Logos 4.5 - the analytical, precise model Verse 4 - the fast, efficient model Noor can chat with you about your tasks, habits, and notes. It can generate images. Voice dictation runs through your browser's bu

zarazhangrui/follow-builders is gaining attention for a simple reason: it focuses on the people building AI systems, not just the influencers discussing them. With 84 new stars today, the project is positioned as an AI builders digest that monitors notable creators across X and YouTube podcasts, then remixes their ideas into shorter, easier-to-scan summaries. That workflow addresses a real productivity problem. AI research and engineering conversations are scattered across long videos, fast-moving social feeds, and repeated announcements. A focused digest can reduce the time spent collecting links while preserving the practical signal: architectural decisions, implementation lessons, tools, and emerging patterns. A sensible first step is to inspect the repository locally before deciding how deeply it fits your workflow: git clone https://github.com/zarazhangrui/follow-builders.git cd follow-builders # Inspect the setup instructions and available scripts ls -la find . -maxdepth 2 -type f | sort | head -80 For an AI-assisted workflow, I would pair the project with a small review loop: Collect the generated digest. Extract claims, links, and mentioned tools. Open the original source before acting on important technical advice. Save durable findings in a project notes file or knowledge base. This keeps summaries useful without treating them as authoritative research. It also makes the tool a good companion for developers using Cursor or another AI IDE: the digest supplies discovery, while the IDE helps turn validated ideas into experiments and code. Before production use, watch for two trade-offs: Summary fidelity: compressed content can lose context, caveats, or disagreements from the original conversation. Source coverage: ranking “top builders” may introduce selection bias, so important perspectives can be missed. The strongest use case is not replacing primary sources. It is building a high-signal starting queue for developers who want to follow AI progress without

Hello, I'm Shrijith Venkatramana, and I'm building LiveReview — a blast-radius aware AI code review built for your business-critical systems. Star us to help devs discover the project, give it a try, and share your feedback to help improve the product. A modern LLM can contain hundreds of billions of parameters, run on extremely expensive accelerators, and still spend most of its inference time doing something that looks embarrassingly sequential: token 1 -> token 2 -> token 3 -> token 4 -> token 5 -> ... That is the awkward part of autoregressive generation. The model may process a whole prompt in parallel during the initial prefill, but once generation starts, the next token depends on the previous token. So generating 100 tokens looks conceptually like running the model 100 times. And for many serving workloads, that is exactly where the money goes. A family of techniques tries to break this bottleneck by asking a deceptively simple question: What if the model could predict several future tokens at once, then verify them in parallel? That idea leads to speculative decoding, Medusa-style multiple decoding heads, and the broader multi-token prediction approach used during training. The interesting part is that these are not merely "optimization tricks." They change the computational structure of decoding. This article develops that idea from first principles and then gets into the engineering details. 1. The problem: your GPU is doing an expensive sequential loop Consider ordinary autoregressive decoding. Given a prompt: The capital of France is the model predicts: Paris Then it feeds the new sequence back through the model: The capital of France is Paris and predicts the next token. Then again: The capital of France is Paris . and so on. Formally, the model factorizes the probability of a sequence as: P(x1, x2, ..., xT) = product over t of P(xt | x1, ..., x(t-1)) That conditional dependence is what makes language modeling so useful. It is also what makes decoding