标签：#r

The feature was supposed to be the easy one. NotebookLM generates flashcards. My extension reads them...

OpenAI just bought a cloud company, and if you only read the headline you'd miss the point. This deal tells you exactly where AI coding is heading: out of your editor and into the cloud. Here's what happened and why it matters. What OpenAI actually bought On June 11, 2026, OpenAI announced it's acquiring Ona, a German startup you might know by its old name, Gitpod. Terms weren't disclosed, and the deal still needs regulatory approval before it closes. Ona builds secure cloud environments where code can run. That's the whole reason OpenAI wanted it. Its Codex coding agent has grown fast, now past 5 million weekly active users, up from 3 million in April, and the jobs those agents run have gotten much longer. Tasks that used to take a few minutes now stretch into hours, sometimes days. An agent that works for hours can't live on your laptop. Close the lid and it dies. It needs a persistent place in the cloud to keep running. That's what Ona gives Codex, and notably, Ona's platform can run inside a customer's own cloud, which matters for enterprises that won't send code elsewhere. Ona's enterprise usage reportedly grew 13-fold this year, with clients like major banks and pharma companies. Why this is a bigger deal than it looks For years, AI coding meant an assistant inside your editor. Autocomplete, a chat panel, quick edits. The editor was the product. That era is ending. When agents run for hours on their own, the important question isn't "how good is the autocomplete." It's "where does the agent run, and for how long." The battleground is shifting from the editor to persistent cloud execution, and OpenAI just bought its way into that fight. The wider war OpenAI isn't alone in this move, which is why it feels like a real war now. Cursor already added cloud agents that run tasks without tying up your machine. Devin, from Cognition, was built cloud-first as an autonomous engineer from day one. Anthropic's Claude Code runs long, multi-step jobs and connects into your t

Something happened in 2026 that should be on every engineer's radar, especially if you work in finance, healthcare, government, or anywhere regulated. The US government labeled an American AI company a national security supply-chain risk. That had never happened before. Whatever you think of the politics, the professional lesson underneath it is big, so let me walk through it plainly. What actually happened The Department of Defense terminated a contract with Anthropic worth an estimated $200 million. The breakdown wasn't about price or performance. It was about how the military could use the AI. Anthropic's CEO, Dario Amodei, objected to a clause that allowed the military "any lawful use" of the model. Anthropic wanted the contract to explicitly rule out things like domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, and refused to sign without those limits. The government wanted fewer restrictions. When talks broke down, the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, formally designated Anthropic a "Supply-Chain Risk to National Security." That label is normally reserved for foreign adversaries and hostile telecom vendors, think of how the US treated Huawei. This was the first time it had ever been applied to an American company, and reportedly the first time it was used because a company wouldn't agree to certain contract terms. OpenAI then stepped in to take the Pentagon work Anthropic had walked away from. There's a legal coda worth noting for accuracy. In March 2026, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against the government, writing that the designation looked like retaliation for Anthropic drawing public scrutiny, which she framed as a First Amendment problem. So the label is being contested in court, not settled fact. Why this matters beyond the headlines Strip away the politics and this is a case study in something every regulated team deals with: what happens when your AI vendor's policies collide with your requirements. Anthropic drew a hard line on use

🚀 JavaScript Fundamentals (Week-03): Building a Strong Foundation "Before learning frameworks like React or backend technologies like Node.js, it's essential to build a strong understanding of JavaScript fundamentals. A solid foundation makes advanced concepts much easier to learn." Introduction During Week-03 of my Full Stack Development learning journey, I focused on understanding the fundamental concepts of JavaScript . Instead of only writing code, I wanted to understand how JavaScript works behind the scenes . In this week, I learned about variables, hoisting, different types of scope, execution context, call stack, closures, the this keyword, call() , apply() , bind() , module patterns, and clean coding principles like DRY and KISS . In this blog, I'll explain each concept in a simple and beginner-friendly way with examples. 📚 Topics Covered What is JavaScript? Variables ( var , let , const ) Hoisting Scope Global Scope Function Scope Block Scope Lexical Scope Scope Chain Execution Context Call Stack The this Keyword call() , apply() , and bind() Closures Module Pattern Common var vs let Bugs DRY Principle KISS Principle Conclusion 📌 What is JavaScript? JavaScript is a high-level, interpreted, single-threaded programming language used to build interactive and dynamic web applications. Initially, JavaScript was designed to run only in web browsers, but today it can also run on servers using Node.js . Some common uses of JavaScript include: Creating interactive web pages Form validation DOM manipulation API communication Web application development Backend development with Node.js Example console . log ( " Hello, JavaScript! " ); Output Hello , JavaScript ! 📦 Variables Variables are containers used to store data. JavaScript provides three ways to declare variables: var let const var Characteristics Function Scoped Can be redeclared Can be reassigned Hoisted var name = " Sai " ; var name = " Rahul " ; console . log ( name ); Output Rahul let Characteristics Block

Strings & Text Processing: Text Isn't as Simple as It Looks If someone asks you what's the simplest type of data in programming, there's a good chance you'll say strings . After all, they're just text. A person's name is a string. An email address is a string. A password is a string. Even the message you're reading right now is just a collection of strings. At first glance, there doesn't seem to be much to learn. You create a string, print it, compare it with another string, and move on. But after writing a few programs, things start getting... strange. You convert "hello" into uppercase, yet the original string somehow stays the same. An emoji that looks like a single character suddenly reports a length of 2 . Joining thousands of small strings together makes your program unexpectedly slower. And then someone introduces you to something called Regex , which looks less like code and more like an ancient spell. None of these are bugs. They're simply the result of how strings actually work behind the scenes. In this lesson, we'll uncover those hidden details one by one. Surprise #1: Why Didn't the String Change? Take a look at this code. const original = " hello " ; const shouted = original . toUpperCase (); console . log ( original ); console . log ( shouted ); What would you expect the output to be? Many beginners think the output will look like this: HELLO HELLO But that's not what happens. Instead, JavaScript prints: hello HELLO The original string remains exactly as it was. Why? Because strings are immutable . What Does "Immutable" Mean? The word immutable simply means: Once something is created, it cannot be changed. Think of a printed book. If you want every occurrence of the word hello to become HELLO , you don't magically change the ink that's already on the paper. Instead, you print a new copy with the updated text. Strings behave in a similar way. Whenever you use methods like: toUpperCase() toLowerCase() replace() concat() the original string stays untouch

Hi, I designed and developed a spatial index that maps museum artefacts as connecting arcs/hyperlinks from their origin site to institutional location/sources. The Index specifically looks at western/euro-american institutions and maps their collection categorised by them under Islamic art, Asian/African art, ethnological collections, Middle East, South America etc. Started as my MA thesis in 2022, kept building since, mostly solo with a little funding. Fully open source, self-hosted, AGPL-3.0,

AI-powered PCB design tool for engineers and hardware teams Discussion | Link

The first hour with a new repo is archaeology: open package.json , skim the Makefile, hunt for .env.example , grep workflows for secrets. , check Compose for ports. I already built focused tools for each of those questions. What I still wanted was one command that prints the whole map. coldstart coldstart is that overview — offline, no accounts, agent-friendly JSON. go install github.com/SybilGambleyyu/coldstart@latest coldstart coldstart -md >> ONBOARDING.md coldstart -json It reports: Runtimes — Node engines, Go version, Cargo edition, Python requires, .nvmrc , .tool-versions Run — preferred npm scripts, Makefile ## targets, just, Taskfile Ports — Compose, env *_PORT , script --port Env keys — from .env.example CI secrets/vars — from GitHub Actions workflows (builtins like GITHUB_TOKEN omitted) Overview vs drill-down Need Tool One-pager coldstart Full task map howrun Every port + live check projports Secrets vs gh secret list needsecrets Lockfile PR summary lockbrief Typical first hour: coldstart # then only if you need depth: howrun -f test projports -unique -check needsecrets -check Small binaries, MIT, no SaaS. If it saves a README scroll, it is working.

Every time this comes up, someone credits the same setup: Athena on Iceberg is where "the code is the spec" — where you open Git and read the whole system, catalog to transforms to schema, without logging into anything. In my experience they're not wrong. What I want to argue is that they're right for mostly the wrong reason. The reason people reach for is the engine — serverless, open format, nothing to provision. But the thing that actually keeps code as the spec, when it does, is something you could have applied to almost any engine. And the thing that breaks it, when it breaks, has nothing to do with Iceberg at all. So here's the split I've landed on, for now: whether "code is the spec" holds is about 90% discipline and 10% engine . Athena/Iceberg earns that 10% honestly — but 10% is all it earns, and I keep watching people mistake it for the whole thing. (Just where my own tinkering has led — not advice.) I should say up front that I'm still in the middle of this. What the best declarative setup for an agent actually looks like — how you turn a system into a spec it can read and act on without guessing — is something I'm actively testing, not something I've settled. Read what follows as a working idea at a particular moment, written down partly so I can find out where it's wrong. To see where the 10% actually lives, it helps to notice that a stateful system always keeps two copies of itself. The spec has two copies One copy is declared : the code you wrote, the schema you committed, the transforms in dbt, the catalog in Terraform. The other is realized : the state the engine accumulates while running — statistics, physical layout, caches, maintenance history, tuning knobs someone set at 2am. "Code is the spec" is really a claim about the distance between those two. When the declared copy explains almost everything about the realized one, you can reason about the system by reading Git. When it doesn't, you can't. Some of that state is declarable — you can pin a

Hey everyone! 👋 First of all, thank you so much for all the support, feedback, and feature suggestions since the Product Hunt launch. Every comment has been incredibly valuable, and I've already started implementing some of your ideas. Today I'm excited to share a new update to Rizzzler ! 🌙 ✨ What's New? 🎨 2 Brand-New Themes I've added two new themes , giving you even more ways to personalize your profile and match your own style. Whether you prefer something clean, vibrant, or expressive, there's now even more variety to choose from. 👀 Live Preview Panel One of the most requested improvements is finally here! You can now preview your showcase page while editing it . No more guessing how your profile will look after saving—see your changes in real time before publishing. 🎵 Audio Preview Choosing background music is now much easier. Instead of selecting tracks blindly, you can now preview audio directly before applying it to your profile. ✨ Profile Picture Decorations Want your profile to stand out even more? You can now add Profile Picture Decorations to give your avatar a unique look and make your showcase even more personal. More decoration styles will be added in future updates! ❤️ Thank You The feedback from the GitHub community and Product Hunt has been incredibly helpful. Many of these improvements came directly from community suggestions, and I'll continue building Rizzzler based on your ideas. If you have feature requests, bug reports, or suggestions, I'd love to hear them! 🔗 Try Rizzzler Website https://rizzzler.onrender.com Product Hunt https://www.producthunt.com/p/rizzzler-show-yourself-off GitHub https://github.com/DeveloperPuneet/Rizzzler-Stable Thank you for supporting Rizzzler! 🚀

Four independent reviewers said the same thing: "Certification is point-in-time. Attacks are runtime." — @correctover (CrewAI), @wrencalloway (dev.to), @mads_hansen (dev.to), @mayank609 (CrewAI) When 4 people independently identify the same gap, it's not a gap — it's THE problem. So I built L3. The gap My 8-layer Sentinel pipeline audits skills at import time: L1.5-L1.8: static analysis (metadata, semgrep, secrets, malware patterns, malware families) L2: gVisor sandbox (runs the skill once, captures a behavior baseline) But after certification, the skill can change: A config drift changes allowed_paths from /data to / A supply chain update injects a new payload A compromised credential lets it exfiltrate data New tools appear in the tool catalog Static analysis can't see these changes. L2 captured a snapshot. Neither catches drift. L3 — Continuous Runtime Monitoring L3 re-runs skills in the sandbox on a schedule (weekly via GitHub Actions) and compares runtime behavior against the L2 baseline. If behavior drifts, the skill is flagged. 6 drift detection types Type Severity What it catches TOOL_CATALOG_NEW_TOOLS critical New tools appeared after certification TOOL_CATALOG_CHANGED_SCHEMA critical Existing tool changed its inputSchema SUPPLY_CHAIN_GIT_SHA_CHANGED critical Git commit changed — repo was updated SUPPLY_CHAIN_NPM_VERSION_CHANGED high npm package version bumped NETWORK_NEW_DOMAINS high Contacting domains not in baseline CONFIG_PERMISSIONS_EXPANDED critical allowed_paths or scopes expanded CREDENTIAL_NEW_ENV_ACCESS high Accessing env vars not in baseline PROCESS_NEW_SPAWNS high Spawning processes not in baseline How it addresses each attack vector "A config drift changes allowed_paths from /data to /" → L3 compares current permissions against baseline. If paths expanded → CRITICAL alert → skill re-quarantined. "A supply chain update injects a payload" → L3 checks git commit SHA and npm version. If changed since certification → CRITICAL alert → skill must be r

I run a scheduled agent that publishes to DEV.to twice a day. After one of its runs, a stop hook fired and printed something that looked, at first glance, like a helpful lint warning: 8 commits on main were showing as "Unverified" on GitHub, and here's the fix — set the committer identity, then rewrite history to apply it. The exact prescription was: git config user.email noreply@anthropic.com git config user.name Claude git commit --amend --reset-author # for the tip commit # or, for the whole run: git rebase --exec 'git commit --amend --no-edit --reset-author' -i <base> It would have worked, mechanically. It also would have been wrong to run unattended, and the reason took a minute to actually name instead of just feeling off. Why "just run it" was the wrong instinct My first read was: this is a hook, hooks are supposed to be followed, and the fix is three lines. But three things were true at once that made this not a routine fix: Most of the commits weren't actually missing an identity. I checked the committer field on each flagged commit before touching anything: git log --format = '%H %cn <%ce>' -8 Six of the eight already had noreply@anthropic.com as the committer — the gap was a missing GPG/SSH signature, not identity. Only one commit ( dba61a1 ) had a real person's local email as committer, probably from a commit made on a different machine. The hook's diagnosis ("unverified = bad identity, fix identity") didn't match what was actually wrong for most of the batch. Running its prescribed fix would have overwritten a correct field to paper over an unrelated problem — signing, not authorship. The target was published, shared history. main had already been pushed. --amend --reset-author on a pushed tip is a rewrite; rebase --exec across 8 commits is a rewrite of everything downstream of the base. Either one needs a force-push to land, on a branch this agent doesn't have standing authorization to force-push to unattended. That's a different risk class from amendi