标签：#r

Originally published at blog.whynext.app . It started as an ordinary cleanup problem. Users upload media files (recordings and images) through presigned URLs. The server issues an upload URL, the client uploads straight to S3, then calls a commit API to say "register this key as a real asset." The problem is what happens when someone gets a presign but never commits. The app crashes, the network drops, the user leaves the screen, and the bucket is left with an object that isn't registered anywhere. I wanted a lifecycle rule to clean these up, but there was no way to write one. Committed and uncommitted objects were mixed under the same prefix, so any rule that says "delete old things" would delete real assets too. A daily upload quota kept the pile from growing fast, but the fact remained: there was no path to reclaim the space. The design: what isn't committed lives in tmp The backbone of the fix is key namespace separation. presign issues a temporary key under the tmp/ prefix. When commit passes validation (existence check via HEAD, Content-Type, size limit), it promotes the object to its final key with CopyObject and deletes the tmp original. Objects whose commit never arrives stay in tmp/ , and a lifecycle rule expires them after 7 days. Now the lifecycle rule only has to look at tmp/ . Real assets are outside its blast radius from the start. The clients didn't need to change. I read all three upload flows to confirm this: every one of them uses the key returned in the commit response for its follow-up calls, so the server can change the key shape without them noticing. Commits for old-format keys already in flight at deploy time still go through the existing path. One trap here. This bucket has versioning enabled. On a versioned bucket, expiration doesn't delete an object. It only adds a delete marker, and the original bytes stay behind as a noncurrent version. Without a paired noncurrent_version_expiration (1 day), the cleanup runs and not a single byte is rec

By the end of this article, you'll know: what Kimi K3 actually is, the architecture, the scale, and what changed from the K2 family how to run it today, free in the browser, through the API, or wired into Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, and RooCode which exact model ID and settings unlock the full 1 million token context how K3 stacks up on price and benchmarks against DeepSeek V4, Qwen3.7 Max, GLM-5.2, and its own sibling K2.7 Code whether switching today makes sense, or whether you should wait Kimi K3 just dropped, and Moonshot means business Moonshot AI released Kimi K3 on July 16, 2026, timed just ahead of the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai. The Beijing lab, backed by Alibaba, has spent the past 18 months watching DeepSeek erode its market position. K3 is the comeback attempt, and the early numbers back it up. The headline result: K3 debuted at number one on Arena.ai's Frontend Code Arena with a score of 1,679, ahead of Claude Fable 5 at 1,631 and GPT-5.6 Sol at 1,618. Its predecessor, K2.6, sat 18th on that same board. That's a 17 spot jump in one release, and it's independently measured, not a number Moonshot invented itself. This isn't Moonshot's first time in Western production stacks either. Cursor built its Composer 2 model starting from a Kimi K2.5 base. DoorDash's CTO has said the company routes lower level work to Kimi K2.6. Thinking Machines used K2.5 to help generate early post-training data for Inkling, its own model released just a day before K3. So when a new Kimi flagship lands, it lands somewhere developers already have skin in the game. For developers, the practical story matters more than the leaderboard. K3 is open weight, speaks the OpenAI SDK, and drops into tools you already use. It's also, for the first time in Kimi's history, priced like a frontier model instead of a budget one. That changes the calculus on when it's actually worth reaching for. What Kimi K3 actually is K3 is a sparse Mixture-of-Experts model with 2.8 tr

AI coding agents have dramatically shortened the distance between an idea and working software. They can inspect a project, create files, run commands, write tests, and help diagnose failures. What they have not eliminated is judgment. A polished screen is not proof that data survives a reload. A passing unit test is not proof that keyboard users can complete the core task. A successful deployment is not proof that the intended commit reached production. This is why I use proof gates : observable conditions that must be satisfied before a product claim becomes stronger. A proof gate is not a meeting, a long document, or an excuse to slow down. It is a compact question: What evidence would let another person verify that this claim is true? Here are five gates that separate a persuasive AI demo from a small MVP you can responsibly ship. Gate 1: Prove One Valuable User Loop AI makes feature generation cheap, which makes uncontrolled scope especially dangerous. Before requesting code, define one primary user in one specific situation. Then describe: Their observable before-state The smallest useful action they can take The immediate result The reason they might return This becomes the product’s core loop. For example, “build a productivity platform” is too broad. A more testable loop might be: A freelancer remembers a useful client outcome. They record the outcome and supporting evidence. The record appears in a searchable library. They can retrieve it later for a proposal or review. The gate is not passed because a form exists. It is passed when a new user can complete the entire loop and explain what changed without coaching. Write a Not Today list alongside the required capabilities. Authentication, dashboards, collaboration, billing, and AI-generated summaries may all be reasonable later. They should not compete with proof of the first useful loop. The goal is not the fewest possible features. It is the smallest complete behavior that tests whether the product creat

Originally published at boldpilot.club Most startup launches fail not because the product is wrong, but because the planning collapses under its own ambiguity. A solid launch plan template for startups gives you a structure that converts vague intentions — "we'll do some PR, post on social, maybe a Product Hunt thing" — into sequenced tasks with owners and deadlines. If you're building something and your launch plan currently lives as a notes app dump or a half-filled Notion page with seventeen unticked checkboxes, that's the problem this article addresses directly. A usable launch template has five core components: a pre-launch timeline, a channel priority stack, a messaging framework, a metrics baseline, and a post-launch review cadence. Everything else is optional decoration. Why Most Launch Plan Templates Get Abandoned The templates people download from Google — the ones with seventeen tabs and color-coded Gantt charts — get opened once and then quietly archived. I've seen this happen with teams that had more than enough time and resources. The issue is that those templates are designed to look thorough, not to be used under the actual pressure of a launch week. According to CB Insights, 35% of startup failures cite "no market need" as the primary cause, but the second and third most common reasons — running out of cash and not having the right team — are both downstream of poor planning and sequencing. A launch plan that nobody opens doesn't prevent any of those outcomes. The templates that do get used share one quality: they're shallow enough to skim at 11pm the night before a deadline. One page if possible. Two at most. If your template requires a tutorial to operate, it's already failed. I'd push back on the common advice to "start with goals." Goals are fine, but most founders already know what they want — signups, revenue, waitlist growth. What they're missing is the sequencing. Start with the constraint instead: what's your actual launch date, and what ab

Every OP Stack chain we've covered — Base, Unichain, Zora — has a sequencer: one privileged party that orders transactions, and the thing you're implicitly trusting for liveness and fair ordering. Taiko doesn't have one. It's a based rollup : Ethereum's own validators propose Taiko's blocks as part of normal L1 block production. That single architectural choice cascades into everything a developer cares about — liveness, finality, MEV, and reliability. And because Taiko is also a Type-1 zkEVM , your Ethereum tooling works with zero changes. Here's the map for chain ID 167000 . The essentials Taiko mainnet ( Alethia ) is chain ID 167000 , an EVM Layer 2 with: ETH as the gas token (18 decimals) — no separate gas token to source. ~12-second blocks , aligned with Ethereum's slot times — because block proposing rides on L1, the cadence follows L1. Type-1 zkEVM equivalence — the most Ethereum-equivalent zkEVM design. Contracts deploy bit-identically; opcode behavior is exact. Connecting is completely standard EVM: import { createPublicClient , http } from " viem " ; import { taiko } from " viem/chains " ; // chain ID 167000 const client = createPublicClient ({ chain : taiko , transport : http ( " https://rpc.swiftnodes.io/rpc/taiko?key=YOUR_API_KEY " ), }); await client . getBlockNumber (); // just works What "based" changes: no sequencer to trust — or to fail On a typical rollup, a sequencer receives your transactions, orders them, and produces L2 blocks ( what a sequencer does ). It's efficient, but it's also a single point of trust and a single point of failure — sequencer outages have taken major L2s offline for hours. A "based" rollup removes it entirely: Block proposing happens on Ethereum L1. Taiko blocks are proposed via L1 transactions, so Ethereum's proposers include them as part of normal block production. There is no separate Taiko sequencer. Liveness = Ethereum's liveness. As long as Ethereum is producing blocks, Taiko is producing blocks. There is no "the se

A video-to-prompt tool looks simple from the outside: upload a clip, wait a moment, and copy the result. The hard part is not generating text. It is preserving enough of the source video's structure that the prompt remains useful when another model interprets it. I learned this while working on a small video analysis workflow. Early versions produced fluent paragraphs, but they often dropped a camera move, merged two events, or placed dialogue in the wrong shot. The output sounded good and still failed as a production prompt. The fix was to stop treating the result as one block of prose. Start with an intermediate representation I now treat the prompt as the last stage of a compiler. The video is first converted into a structured record, and only then rendered for a specific video model. A minimal record might look like this: { "duration_seconds" : 12.4 , "shots" : [ { "start" : 0.0 , "end" : 3.8 , "subject" : "a cyclist waiting at a red light" , "action" : "looks over the left shoulder" , "camera" : { "shot_size" : "medium" , "movement" : "slow push-in" , "angle" : "eye level" }, "dialogue" : null } ] } This structure is deliberately boring. That is useful. A typed record makes missing data visible and gives you something concrete to validate before you ask a language model to write polished prose. Normalize the input first Video files arrive with different frame rates, codecs, orientations, and audio layouts. Links from social platforms add another layer of inconsistency. If every downstream stage has to understand every input format, failures become difficult to reproduce. The ingestion stage should produce a canonical package: a timestamped frame stream at a known sampling rate a normalized audio track basic metadata such as duration, aspect ratio, and frame rate a stable internal time base Keep the original timestamps. Rounding everything to whole seconds is tempting, but it causes trouble in short clips where several actions happen in quick succession. Detect

I set out to deploy a fine-tuned LLM fully offline, on a mid-range Android phone, answering medical questions in Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, and Nigerian Pidgin. No internet connection required, because that's the reality for a lot of the people this was meant to help. The model worked. Getting there broke three times, in three completely different ways, and left me with one problem I still haven't solved. The setup I fine-tuned unsloth/Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct , Unsloth's 4-bit-optimized derivative of Meta's Llama 3.2 3B, in two stages: QLoRA supervised fine-tuning on a curated dataset of 3,917 medical question-answer pairs across the four languages, followed by direct preference optimization (DPO) to sharpen response quality. SFT converged to a loss of 1.099. DPO landed a reward margin of 18.40. Then I merged to 16-bit and tried to convert to GGUF, the format llama.cpp needs to run the model on-device. That's where things started breaking. Crash 1: the tokenizer that thought it was someone else First conversion attempt. Model loads. First inference call. Instant crash: terminating due to uncaught exception of type std::out_of_range: unordered_map::at: key not found Turns out the conversion had written tokenizer.ggml.model = "llama" into the GGUF file. That field tells the runtime which tokenizer code path to use, and "llama" routes to SentencePiece. Llama 3.2 doesn't use SentencePiece. It uses BPE. The runtime was trying to read BPE tokens through a SentencePiece parser, and predictably, it found nothing where it expected something. Fix: manually set the field to "gpt2" , which routes to the correct BPE path. Crash 2: the tokenizer that couldn't decide what it was Fixed crash 1, tried again. New failure, before the model even finished converting: TypeError: Llama 3 must be converted with BpeVocab followed, after the code's fallback path kicked in, by: ValueError: Cannot instantiate this tokenizer from a slow version This one took longer to trace. Unsloth's saved tokenizer_c

AWS has recently introduced CloudFormation express mode, a deployment option that can reduce infrastructure deployment times by marking stack operations complete once resource configuration is applied, rather than waiting for full resource stabilization. By Renato Losio

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

Everyone's talking about AI agents right now, but most tutorials stop at "call an LLM in a loop." If...

As developers, we use authorization libraries almost every day. Whether it's a web application, an API, or an internal tool, we often rely on packages that decide who can do what. But I realized I had never actually built one. So instead of using an existing library, I decided to build my own Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) library in Go using only the standard library. This project eventually became GateKeeper v1.0.0. Why I Built One As a beginner in backend development, I wanted to get exposure on how to make public APIs and how to make them work under the hood. It also made me fight my old syntax habits. Go has strict error handling, which I also learned. I built it because I wanted to understand the engineering decisions behind public libraries. Instead of watching another tutorial, I built it myself. Project Goals Before writing any code, I brainstorm the architecture in my mind. No external library used, only the standard Go library. Keeping the public APIs simple and easy to read for developers to use. Write tests for each and every function, no matter how small. These constraints forced me to think more carefully about the design instead of depending on external packages. The Core Model Engine ├── Users ├── Roles └── Permissions Relationships are straightforward: Users | V Roles | V Permissions A user can have multiple roles, and roles can have multiple permissions. Permissions describe access to a resource and an action. Designing The API One thing I learned the hard way is that API design matters more than the implementation itself. I wanted to keep the library easy to read even without documentation. The public API ended up looking something like this: CreateUser() CreateRole() CreatePermission() AssignRole() AssignPermission() Can() DeleteUser() DeleteRole() DeletePermission() RenameUser() RenameRole() I had to redesign the API many times before eventually coming up with the final one. The time spent fighting the design was worth it. It taught me API de