标签：#t

The Problem Sports scoring sounds simple. One team scores a point, the number goes up, everyone sees it. But when you build it as a web application that needs to work on courtside tablets, spectator phones, and wall mounted displays simultaneously, with voice commands and tap controls, the architecture becomes more interesting. The project was Scoring AI, a voice enabled match scoring application for sports courts. Players start a match, share a link, and control the scoreboard from any device. The backend handles real time state synchronization, optimistic locking, idempotent score updates, rate limiting, and WebSocket broadcasting. The team was small. Me and a coworker who handled the CI/CD side. We were at the same level, both full stack, and we designed the system together. He focused on the deployment pipeline and infrastructure automation. I focused on the application layer, the real time system, and the frontend. But the architecture decisions were shared. This article covers the technical decisions we made and how patterns from previous projects influenced them. Why DynamoDB for Live Matches The match scoring data is different from the business data around it. A match lasts about an hour, gets updated frequently, and needs to be read by many viewers at once. After the match is complete, it is archived and rarely accessed. I had seen what happens when you put high frequency state updates into a relational database on a previous project. Row locks, contention, connection pool exhaustion. For Scoring AI, we used DynamoDB for the live match state and PostgreSQL for everything else. The hot path needed fast writes, optimistic locking, and automatic cleanup of abandoned matches. DynamoDB provides all of these. The version field on each match record acts as an optimistic lock. Every score update is a conditional write that checks the version has not changed. The cold path uses PostgreSQL through Kysely for user profiles, subscriptions, pricing plans, payment histor

Smalltalk has excellent live environments, but managing the different VMs, images, and installers for Pharo, Cuis, Squeak, Glamorous Toolkit, GNU Smalltalk, etc. is painful. I made st — a lightweight shell-based CLI that gives one consistent interface: st pharo install && st pharo run st gt install , st cuis install , etc. Basic package search/install and eval support where available Works on Linux/macOS/Windows (WSL) Repo: https://github.com/hernanmd/st Happy to answer questions, take feedback, or hear what other Smalltalk pain points you'd like addressed. Contributions welcome (especially adding new dialects)!

WordPress major version upgrades (5.x → 6.x, and eventually 6.x → 7.x) are a different animal from minor releases. Minor releases (like 6.4.1 → 6.4.2) are mostly bug fixes with low compatibility risk. Majors land API deprecations, raised PHP minimum requirements, and core block replacements all at once — and those things hit operations hard. The " just hit Update in the admin and patch whatever breaks " workflow can survive on a single personal site, but it tends to fall apart under multi-site maintenance — simultaneous failures across sites overwhelm root-cause triage. This post collects the things worth verifying before you run a major upgrade, as a seven-item checklist . 1. Has the minimum PHP version been raised? Major WordPress releases sometimes raise the minimum supported PHP version (6.6 lifted it to PHP 7.2.24, and a future 7.0 will very likely require PHP 8.x). What matters operationally isn't just the server's PHP version and WordPress's stated minimum — it's the intersection with the PHP versions your plugins and themes actually run on . You can usually upgrade your server's PHP, but older themes and plugins not running on new PHP isn't rare. A subtle failure mode here: traps like PHP 8.2+ deprecated warnings leaking into older WP-CLI JSON output , where nothing visibly errors but your operational tooling silently breaks. Before upgrading, run wp plugin list --format=json on the production PHP environment and verify you're getting clean JSON. That one check catches a lot of post-upgrade pain. 2. Audit "Tested up to" for every plugin Each plugin's readme.txt carries a Tested up to: X.X line — the developer's declaration of the highest WordPress version they've actually tested against . It's the first signal for major-upgrade compatibility audits. WP-CLI gives you the inventory in one shot: wp plugin list --fields = name,version,update_version,update --format = table Plugins where "Tested up to" is old AND no updates in the last year deserve scrutiny. Acti

The funding discussions point to investor interest in applying AI to make breakthroughs in life sciences.

Every founder who's launched a product knows the drill. You've built something you're proud of. You're ready to share it with the world. And then you discover you need to submit it to Product Hunt, BetaList, Peerlist, and about fifty other directories if you want any chance of getting noticed. So you open your first submission form. You copy your tagline from your notes app. You paste it. You upload your logo. You fill in your description. Then you open the next directory. And you do it all again. And again. And again. After my last launch, I calculated that I'd spent nearly twelve hours just on directory submissions. Twelve hours of copying the same tagline, pasting the same description, uploading the same screenshots. It was mind-numbing work that pulled me away from the things that actually mattered, like talking to users and iterating on feedback. I knew there had to be a better way. That's why I built AutoSubmit.to. It's a simple idea: save your launch information once, and let it autofill everywhere you need to submit. The problem with product launches isn't the strategy or the timing or even the product itself. It's the operational overhead. Most founders underestimate how tedious the submission process becomes when you're trying to maximize visibility. Each directory has slightly different fields. Some want a short description, others want a long one. Some ask for your Twitter handle, others want your LinkedIn. Some require specific image dimensions. This variability means you can't just copy and paste blindly. You need to adjust your content for each platform, which adds cognitive load to an already repetitive task. By the tenth submission, you're making mistakes. By the twentieth, you're wondering if any of this is even worth it. AutoSubmit.to approaches this problem with a two-part system that's designed to be both simple and powerful. First, you create a launch profile on the platform. This is your single source of truth. You enter your product name, tag

Every time your bot merges a two-hour-old release into main, you are trusting a stranger's freshly published tarball to be the same one everyone else is looking at. Sometimes that release is a real bugfix. Sometimes it is a maintainer who fat-fingered a token, or an attacker who did not, and either way your CI cheerfully rebases against it before anyone had a chance to notice. On 2026-07-14, GitHub added a pause. Not a big one. But a real one. The actual change Dependabot version updates now sit on their hands for three days after a package is published. According to the GitHub Changelog, a release has to have been available on its registry for at least that long before Dependabot will open a version-update pull request against your repository. The cooldown is on by default and requires no configuration. It applies across every ecosystem Dependabot supports on github.com, and GitHub Enterprise Server picks it up in GHES 3.23. Security updates are exempt. If a fix for a known vulnerability lands, Dependabot will still open the PR the moment it can, because a three-day delay on the patch defeats the entire point of shipping the patch. That single carve-out is the whole design. Why three days is doing so much work Three days is not enough time to audit a package. Nobody is pretending otherwise. What three days is enough for is someone else to notice. Most malicious releases that end up on a public registry get pulled quickly once security researchers, downstream maintainers, or the registry's own scanners spot the pattern. The typosquats, the hijacked accounts, the crypto miners buried in a postinstall script: they all rely on being pulled into build automation before the pattern is visible. Dependabot's old default was to be that automation. Its new default is to let the pattern show up first. You can read this change as GitHub quietly admitting that "always up to date" was the wrong marketing promise for a supply-chain tool. The knob, and what shifted about it Cooldo

How a distributed, event-sourced issue tracker built with developer ergonomics in mind may have a role to play in the next generation of agentic workflows Vision drift Harness engineering has recently popularized the idea of containing architectural drift in agentic workflows. What might be missing in the discussion is a similar issue on a higher level - vision drift . By vision drift I mean that the implementation no longer drifts only from the architecture - it drifts from the original product intent. And it seems like the risk may be obscured by restricted tooling. As long as the project management tools only present a snapshot rather than a traceable story, there is an increased risk of undetected drift. Drift is detected via specification audits over time. However, while code history easily can be traversed via Git, issue tracking essentially lacks this capability. Issue trackers tend to be excellent at answering the question “what is going on right now?”, but fail at answering the question “how did our work in this area evolve last month?” or “what went on this time last year?”, or “how did we get from there to there?”. Workflow audits When I set off to build Epiq, this was not a concern on my radar. Agentic coding was something I had heard distant rumors of, and in fact I was just pursuing the ideal developer experience . This pursuit did however lead me down a path of unorthodox architecture, which in turn resulted in an issue tracker with some uncommon properties. One of these is the ability to inspect historical state by time-traveling, and replay sequences. I have not yet encountered another issue tracker with these capabilities. Initially I thought of it as a gimmick feature. Imagine the wow-factor of replaying the entire sprint in a retro, visualizing the past 2 weeks as a short movie. I thought it would help out with reflection of how much (or little) work had been accomplished. Not until I set out to do my own first fully agent-implemented feature did

Why Pipelock Is an Egress Agent Firewall, Not an Inbound WAF The question behind the word firewall Security teams hear "firewall" and picture something inbound. A firewall, WAF, or IPS sits in front of a service. Traffic comes from the outside world toward the protected app. The control inspects requests before they reach the app and blocks malicious payloads at the door. That is outside-in protection. It fits web applications, where many attacks have recognizable request shapes: SQL injection, cross-site scripting, known exploit signatures, or malformed protocol behavior. The web server is the thing being attacked, and the attacker sends requests into it. AI agents invert that model. The agent is not only a server receiving input. It reads external content, calls tools, sends HTTP requests, invokes MCP servers, and runs with credentials. The dangerous event is rarely that a hostile packet reached the agent. The dangerous event is that the agent got talked into doing something with outbound effects. That is why Pipelock is built as an egress agent firewall, not a WAF-style inbound firewall. Why inbound filtering is the wrong primary model Prompt injection does not behave like a structured malware packet. It is natural-language instruction sitting in places the agent is supposed to read: a web page, a ticket, a search result, a tool response, an MCP server reply, or a user message. The channel is legitimate. The syntax is often normal. The attack is semantic and context-dependent. Solving that by filtering every input before it reaches the agent turns into an enumeration problem. You write patterns for "ignore previous instructions," then the attacker rephrases. You block one formatting trick, then the instruction is split across paragraphs, hidden in quoted text, encoded, or dressed up as policy text. Known phrases are worth catching, and Pipelock catches known injection markers in content it mediates, but input filtering cannot be the center of the security model.

The Hidden Cost of Manual IAM Review Most teams don't track how long they spend reviewing IAM policies. When I started measuring it on my own team, the numbers were worse than I expected. A thorough manual review of one IAM policy takes 10 to 15 minutes. Not a quick scan. A real review: read every statement, trace every cross-account trust, verify every condition key, check for privilege escalation paths, confirm the resource ARNs match what you think they should. At 4 engineers touching IAM once a week, that's 4 hours a month. 48 hours a year of senior engineers reading JSON documents. And that's the optimistic case. Add a security incident. Add an audit. Add the emergency Friday-afternoon policy change that needs review before deploy. The real number is higher. What manual review misses The problem isn't just the time. It's that humans are bad at repetitive structured-data review, especially under time pressure. Here are the things I've seen slip through manual IAM reviews on production systems: iam:PassRole with no condition. This is the big one. PassRole lets a principal pass a role to a service — and if there's no iam:PassedToService condition, that role can be passed to any service that accepts roles. Including services the attacker controls. The reviewer saw the action, mentally categorized it as "role stuff," and moved on. It was statement 47 of 52 — the reviewer had already been reading policies for 40 minutes. Wildcard resource with sensitive actions. s3:* on Resource: "*" is obvious. s3:GetObject on "arn:aws:s3:::*-backup/*" with a wildcard in the bucket name — that's subtle. The reviewer reads it as "restricted to backup buckets" and moves on. But the wildcard means any bucket ending in -backup , including ones in other accounts if cross-account access is configured. Missing aws:SourceArn on Lambda invocation permissions. When you grant another service permission to invoke your Lambda function, you need aws:SourceArn to prevent the confused deputy

"Increasingly in our world, it gets harder and harder to know what is real," Lorde said onstage.

While most fitness trackers are losing the screens to keep the price low, the CMF by Nothing Watch 3 Pro is a bit different. The budget-friendly smartwatch with a 1.43-inch OLED display is even cheaper than usual at Amazon, where it costs $69 in every color (the price fluctuates between $79 and $99). Some notable […]

The device is weirdly described as involving "mechanical elements that can move on their own" and the Bloomberg report includes the detail that the device is designed to "feel like a companion and become a physical manifestation of OpenAI’s ChatGPT."

Old and forgotten "shims" Microsoft failed to revoke have made Secure Boot bypasses simple.

Citizens must now spend 21 days in a third country before they are allowed to come home.

The restrictions, which can be turned off, will include a crackdown on “addictive” app features and will be in addition to a total ban on children under 16 accessing platforms like TikTok and YouTube.

The Google Cloud Workbench Notebooks extension for VS Code is a new tool that enables developers to connect their local IDE directly to managed Jupyter notebook environments on Google Cloud. By Sergio De Simone

Last year my team had to pick a coding agent, and I volunteered to run the evaluation. I felt good about it. I pulled up the public benchmark scores, lined up the contenders, took the one at the top, and told everyone we had a winner. Then we actually pointed it at our repo. It did not blow up dramatically. It just kept being slightly wrong in ways that ate our time. It wrote diffs our reviewers would not approve. It renamed a function and broke three files it had never opened. The tests it ran passed, and the repo was still broken. I had confidently recommended a tool based on a number that turned out to say almost nothing about our situation. That was embarrassing enough that I went and figured out why. It took a few weeks of reading and a couple more bad calls before I landed on something that works. This is that, written plainly, and I hope it saves you the meeting where you have to walk your recommendation back. Why the benchmark score lied to me The score was not fake. It was just measuring somebody else's code. Once I looked properly, four gaps explained the whole thing: The agent might have already seen the answers. The problems in these public benchmarks are old. Models were very likely trained on the actual fixes used to grade them. So the score partly measures memory, not problem-solving. The setup is nothing like real work. A benchmark gives the agent a clean repo, one clear issue, and one command to run the tests. My engineers give it a half-open editor, a messy branch, a Slack thread, and a reviewer comment. Completely different job. Our codebase has its own habits. Our internal libraries, our wrappers, our test style, the imports we ban. No benchmark knows any of that, so an agent can write textbook-perfect code that our reviewers still reject on sight. The bar for passing is way lower. A benchmark passes a patch if the broken test now passes. My team passes a patch if it does that, and does not break unrelated tests, does not reformat the whole file,

One weekend I wrote an LLM eval framework in about two hundred lines of Python. It demoed beautifully. I felt clever. Six months later that same framework was a mess. Three different judge models with three different parsing hacks. A test dataset nobody had touched since November. A CI gate that kept failing because a vendor nudged their model, not because anyone broke a prompt. And the second engineer on rotation asking me, fairly, "how does this even work?" The framework did not fail. The eighty percent of the work the weekend tutorial skipped is what failed. That gap is the whole story, and this is what I would tell myself before starting again. The one line I wish someone had told me: build the rubric, buy the runner Here is the split that took me six months to see. Some parts of an eval setup are yours and only yours. The rubric that decides what "good" means for your product. The dataset built from your real failures. The rules for when a change is bad enough to block a release. Nobody else can write these, because they encode your domain. The rest is the same at every company. The thing that calls the judge model, parses its answer, retries, and caches. The machinery to run thousands of checks in parallel. The plumbing that scores live traffic. The system that groups failing calls together. Every team rebuilds these, hits the same bugs, and gains nothing by writing them twice. So build the first list. Do not hand-build the second. I rebuilt the second, and it cost me most of a year. Two questions I now ask about every single piece Before writing any part of this, I ask two things: Is it specific to me, or generic? A rubric for my domain is specific and worth owning. A retry-and-cache loop around a model call is generic. Everyone writes the same one. Does it compound, or does it rot? A dataset that grows from real production failures compounds. A year in, it is a regression suite no competitor can copy. A hand-built tracing layer rots. The moment a vendor chan

A number of social media posts claim that GPT-5.6 Sol deleted files and data without warning. OpenAI had basically disclosed the problem in June.

It seems some people take issue with one billionaire family overseeing a third of the US' entertainment media.