标签：#t

Google’s first new smart speaker in six years is here and once again leads its competitors—now with paywalled features.

AI has made it easier to produce working software. That part is real. It can write code, draft documents, research a topic, scaffold a prototype, and debug a problem faster than most teams can finish writing a decent ticket. But faster building doesn't automatically mean better product decisions. That's the part I keep coming back to. For decades, software teams optimized around delivery. Requirements, design, development, QA, release. Waterfall softened into Agile. Agile grew into DevOps. The practices changed, but the assumption underneath stayed pretty stable: building software is expensive, so plan carefully before you start. That made sense because, for a long time, it was true. Now that assumption is breaking. AI is doing to software what calculators did to accounting. It isn't eliminating the job. It's moving the job up a level. The syntax, boilerplate, first draft, and some of the debugging are getting offloaded. The work doesn't disappear. The bottleneck moves. Learning is still expensive Here's what didn't get cheaper: understanding what people actually need getting stakeholders aligned deciding what evidence would change your mind putting something real in front of users reading the signal without fooling yourself The old question was: Can we build it fast enough? The new question is: Do we understand the problem well enough? That sounds like a small shift, but it changes the work. It changes what strong engineers spend time on. It changes what product people need from engineering. It changes how teams should define "done." If the code ships but nobody learns anything, did the team actually move forward? Sometimes yes. Often no. Users don't know until they can touch it People are not great at specifying requirements up front. Not because they're difficult. Because they're human. Most of us don't know how we feel about something until we can react to a version of it. A mockup. A prototype. A rough slice. A real workflow with sharp edges. So the fastest pat

Most TypeScript tutorials teach you the language. This article teaches you how to use it. There's a difference. The language has hundreds of features. A real project uses maybe twenty of them regularly, and about eight of them make up the difference between TypeScript that fights you and TypeScript that helps you. These are those eight. Each one comes from a pattern I've seen repeatedly in real codebases: first as an antipattern, then as a realization, then as a habit. The goal isn't to show off advanced type gymnastics. It's to show you the specific things that make your code safer, more readable, and less painful to maintain. TL;DR Most TypeScript pain comes from fighting the type system instead of working with it, any , manual casting, and loose types are the usual culprits. A small set of features, discriminated unions, utility types, satisfies , as const , generics, solve the majority of real-world typing problems. The best TypeScript isn't the most complex. It's the most precise. Table of Contents Tip 1: Use Discriminated Unions Instead of Optional Fields Tip 2: Stop Writing Types Twice with Utility Types Tip 3: Use satisfies to Validate Without Losing Inference Tip 4: Use as const for Literal Types That Don't Drift Tip 5: Write Type Guards Instead of Casting Tip 6: Use Generics to Write Functions Once Tip 7: Use ReturnType and Parameters to Stay in Sync Tip 8: Use unknown Instead of any for External Data Honorable Mentions Final Thoughts Tip 1: Use Discriminated Unions Instead of Optional Fields This is the tip that changes how you model data in TypeScript. Once you see it, you'll spot the antipattern everywhere. The antipattern // ❌ A type that tries to represent multiple states with optional fields interface ApiResponse { data ?: User error ?: string isLoading : boolean } The problem: this type allows impossible states. Nothing stops you from having both data and error set at the same time, or neither set, or isLoading: false with no data and no error . The

Long-running workflows look simple when you first build them. Something happens. A few systems exchange data. Everything completes. Done. At least that's the expectation. Reality is very different. The biggest thing I underestimated was time. Not execution time. Elapsed time. Because once workflows start running for hours, days, or continuously, strange things start happening. APIs become temporarily unavailable Data changes halfway through the process Retries arrive much later than expected Someone manually updates a record Another system processes things in a different order Nothing is broken. But everything is slightly different from when the workflow started. Early on, I assumed workflows were transactions. Start. Execute. Finish. Now I think of them as conversations between systems. And conversations can get interrupted. Another thing I underestimated: State changes. You might start processing an order that is "pending". Ten minutes later, another system marks it as "cancelled". An hour later, a retry comes in from an earlier step. If your workflow only thinks about data, weird things happen. Because the world has changed while the process was still running. Long-running workflows also expose assumptions you didn't know you made. Like: this API will always respond quickly data will arrive in order users won't modify records manually retries will happen immediately Those assumptions survive in testing. Production removes them quickly. One thing that changed how I build these systems: I stopped asking: "Will this workflow finish?" And started asking: "What state will the world be in when it finishes?" Because those are two very different questions. Most problems in long-running systems aren't caused by one big failure. They're caused by lots of small changes happening while the workflow is still alive. And if you don't account for that, eventually the workflow finishes successfully and still produces the wrong outcome. This is something we think about constantly

Você já fez um commit no repositório do trabalho e percebeu que estava com o seu e-mail pessoal? Ou o contrário? Esse é um dos erros mais comuns de quem usa Git com múltiplas contas no mesmo computador. Neste tutorial você vai aprender a configurar tudo corretamente, de uma vez, usando chaves SSH separadas e .gitconfig condicional — sem gambiarras. O problema Por padrão o Git usa uma configuração global: git config --global user.name "Seu Nome" git config --global user.email "seu@email.com" Isso significa que todos os repositórios no seu computador usam o mesmo usuário. Quando você tem contas separadas (ex: joao@empresa.com no GitLab da empresa e joao@gmail.com no GitLab pessoal), os commits vão sair com o e-mail errado. A solução profissional envolve duas partes: Chaves SSH separadas para cada conta .gitconfig condicional que aplica o usuário certo — e a chave SSH certa — por pasta Passo 1 — Gerar as chaves SSH Abra o terminal e gere uma chave para cada conta. Use nomes diferentes para não sobrescrever: # Chave para a conta pessoal ssh-keygen -t ed25519 -C "joao@gmail.com" -f ~/.ssh/id_ed25519_pessoal # Chave para a conta do trabalho ssh-keygen -t ed25519 -C "joao@empresa.com" -f ~/.ssh/id_ed25519_trabalho 💡 Por que ed25519 ? É o algoritmo mais moderno, mais seguro e recomendado pelo GitHub, GitLab e Bitbucket. Evite RSA a menos que seu servidor seja muito antigo. Ao final você terá quatro arquivos em ~/.ssh/ : id_ed25519_pessoal ← chave privada (nunca compartilhe) id_ed25519_pessoal.pub ← chave pública (você registra no GitLab) id_ed25519_trabalho id_ed25519_trabalho.pub Passo 2 — Registrar as chaves no GitLab Para cada conta: Copie o conteúdo da chave pública: # Pessoal cat ~/.ssh/id_ed25519_pessoal.pub # Trabalho cat ~/.ssh/id_ed25519_trabalho.pub Acesse Settings → SSH and GPG keys → New SSH key na conta correspondente e cole o conteúdo. Faça isso nas duas contas , cada uma com a sua respectiva chave pública. Passo 3 — Configurar o Git por pasta (o pulo do gato)

A new member has joined the fulgur family. fulgur-chart — a CLI that takes Chart.js v4-compatible JSON specs and renders deterministic SVG/PNG charts. No browser required. https://github.com/fulgur-rs/fulgur-chart Two things make it different: it doesn't spin up a browser, and for a fixed version, font, and rendering options, the same JSON input always produces byte-identical output. This post covers why I built it, a timing coincidence that made me feel like I was on the right track, and how to use it. Why I wanted graphs in PDFs fulgur and fulgur-chart are built around one idea: AI agents should be able to generate documents that look good . There are three steps to that argument. First, Markdown isn't expressive enough. For client-facing reports, plain Markdown often undersells otherwise strong content. Second, visual quality is persuasive. A well-formatted report lands differently than a wall of text. Third — and this is the one I keep coming back to — in many business workflows, PDF carries more institutional weight than a Markdown file or a transient web page . That authority has two dimensions. There's a cognitive one: PDFs read as "serious documents." Proposals, reports, invoices — the format itself signals credibility. And there's a technical one: PDF can support digital signatures, encryption, and archival profiles such as PDF/A. That's the ground flpdf covers, a pure-Rust PDF toolkit modeled on qpdf's workflow. So the goal is always PDF, not HTML, not a web page. That's what fulgur is for. And a polished report needs charts. But Markdown can't draw charts. Which brings me to a problem I already knew was coming: the Chart.js library requires JavaScript to run . fulgur has no browser and no JS runtime, so there was no path to running Chart.js directly. The design choice: no JS engine The obvious alternative was to embed a JavaScript runtime. I could either run Chart.js with a compatible Canvas implementation, or build a JavaScript renderer that consumes Cha

Modular, one of the most promising chip software startups of the AI era, heads for a multibillion-dollar exit.

The Jeff Bezos-backed startup finally revealed more pricing details for its debut EV, including a $29,950 starting price for the SUV variant, and boosted the base range to 205 miles.

Your company's permission-aware, proactive and agentic brain Discussion | Link

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. Introducing: the Engineering issue We can’t fix everything, but we can be ambitious. We can take on the challenge of making the world better through human ingenuity. That’s what the new…

The common cold comes for us all—often more than once a year. And there is no way to prevent it. The best you can do is take vitamin C and stay away from people with the sniffles. Now, the payment company Stripe, founded by brothers Patrick and John Collison, says it will fund a new…

The biggest Switch 2 exclusives so far have largely been about scale. Mario Kart World introduced a wide open continent to race across, Donkey Kong Bananza let you smash basically everything around you, and Pokopia brought an expansive Minecraft-style creative experience to the Pokémon universe. Star Fox is different. A remake of a Nintendo 64 […]

With its new pickup, Slate Auto is making a simple bet: price matters more than almost anything else. The company announced today that the American-made electric truck will start at $24,950, placing it squarely in the mid-$20,000 price range it had originally promised and making it the least expensive pickup truck and EV available today. […]

We now know the price of Slate Auto's affordable American-made electric truck, almost a year after the company warned it wouldn't hit its initial "under $20,000" target price. The no-frills pickup starts at $24,950 - matching the revised mid-$20,000 price range it promised last year, after the Trump administration announced it was putting an end […]

Launching with better specs than expected, the no-frills Bezos-backed electric pickup looks set to take on Ford’s Maverick—and be an EV truck you can afford and fix yourself.

The US government is reportedly asking Meta to share its AI models for review, in the midst of growing security and safety concerns over the technology.

AI is booming. New use cases are emerging each day. To capitalize on the technology’s potential, enterprises require data at scale. In many cases, though, the relevant information is blocked or unstructured, which limits its use by AI models. To understand this challenge, consider the foundation of the web itself. The web was not designed…

Dyson’s PencilWash cordless hard floor cleaner is on sale for $199.99 ($150 off) at Amazon. This is the lowest price yet for the powered wet mop that’s a cousin to the silly-sounding-but-awesome Dyson PencilVac Fluffycones vacuum. The PencilWash basically takes the sleek styling and design of the PencilVac and simplifies it into a single-purpose electric […]

Naomi Saphra discusses 5 rules governing language model behavior, breaking down why LLMs act like populations rather than individuals. She explains how tokenization creates strange semantic blind spots and highlights the mechanics of sycophancy, showing how models leverage subtle data associations to match user biases and demographics - even guessing political views based on favorite sports teams. By Naomi Saphra

Welcome to Walmart deals for folks who’d rather not shop at Amazon. These are the best gadget deals at Walmart this Prime Day.