标签：#t

Every time a course batch completes, you have a list of students who need certificates. The manual way: open Canva, duplicate the template, change the name, export, repeat — for every single student. If you have 10 students, that's annoying. If you have 200, that's a full afternoon. The better way A single n8n workflow that: Reads student names from Google Sheets Calls the RenderPix batch API Gets back 200 certificate images Emails each student their certificate Total time: ~2.5 minutes. Total manual work: zero. What you'll need A RenderPix account (free tier works for testing, Starter plan for production) n8n (self-hosted or cloud) n8n-nodes-renderpix community node A Google Sheet with student data Install the n8n node: npm install n8n-nodes-renderpix Or search "RenderPix" in n8n's community node panel. Step 1 — Design your certificate template Write your certificate in plain HTML. Here's a clean starting point: <div style= "width:1200px;height:850px;background:white; display:flex;flex-direction:column;align-items:center; justify-content:center;border:20px solid #0f172a; font-family:Georgia,serif;padding:60px;box-sizing:border-box" > <div style= "font-size:16px;letter-spacing:5px;color:#64748b; text-transform:uppercase;margin-bottom:24px" > Certificate of Completion </div> <div style= "width:80px;height:2px;background:#22d3ee;margin-bottom:32px" ></div> <div style= "font-size:52px;font-weight:700;color:#0f172a;margin-bottom:16px" > {{name}} </div> <div style= "font-size:18px;color:#475569;text-align:center;max-width:600px" > has successfully completed </div> <div style= "font-size:28px;font-weight:600;color:#1e293b;margin:16px 0 40px" > {{course}} </div> <div style= "font-size:14px;color:#94a3b8" > {{date}} </div> </div> Notice the {{name}} , {{course}} , {{date}} placeholders — RenderPix replaces these at render time. Step 2 — Set up Google Sheets Create a sheet with these columns: name course date Jane Smith Advanced n8n Automation June 2026 John Doe Advanced n8n

I run a web design agency and there is already way too much stuff to deal with every day. Hosting client websites, maintaining them, building new sites, replying to clients, fixing random issues, handling support, doing outreach. Once you start managing a lot of company websites it quickly becomes overwhelming. That’s why I never wanted cold calling to become my main way of getting clients. I know cold calling can work, but I personally hate doing it. It drains my energy and takes up so much time. Sitting there making calls all day was never the kind of business I wanted to build. So instead I focused on email automation. The reason it works so well for me is because I can set everything up once and let interested businesses reply instead of spending my whole day chasing people. But I also don’t do the typical outreach where agencies send generic messages saying “your website is outdated” or “you need a redesign.” I use a tool called Swokei where I upload lists of company websites and it analyzes them for actual problems like speed, SEO, mobile responsiveness, layout issues, and design problems. Then it automatically creates personalized outreach emails based on those issues. That’s what helped me stand out because the emails actually feel relevant to the business instead of sounding copied and pasted. The reply rates became way better once I stopped sending generic outreach. Now I spend most of my time building websites, working with clients, and scaling the agency instead of letting outreach take over my entire day. submitted by /u/Murky_Explanation_73 [link] [留言]

Ten weeks ago I did the thing every "grow your open source project" guide tells you to do. I carved a few small, self-contained tasks out of my backlog, labeled them good first issue , wrote crisp descriptions, and waited for contributors to roll in. They didn't roll in. The issues just sat there. This morning, one of them finally got picked up. A first-time contributor opened a clean PR against my MCP server: a smoke-test suite, no new dependencies, green across the whole Node CI matrix. Exactly the contribution the label was advertising for. And then my own repository spent the next twenty minutes trying to stop it from getting merged. Not with anything dramatic. With three quiet, individually-reasonable "best practice" gates that, stacked together, form a gauntlet aimed squarely at the one person you spent ten weeks trying to attract. I want to walk through each gate, because almost everything written about contributors is about attracting them, and almost nothing is about the last hundred feet — the silent friction between a willing PR and a merged commit. The advice is only half the story "Add good first issues and contributors will come" is true in the same way "build it and they will come" is true: technically, eventually, for a small subset, with survivorship bias baked in. My good first issue opened on March 31. The PR that closed it merged on June 8. That's sixty-nine days of a clearly-labeled, beginner-friendly task sitting untouched. I'm not complaining about the wait — that part is normal. I'm pointing out that the advice stops exactly where the interesting problem starts. Because the bottleneck was never finding someone willing. When someone willing finally showed up, the friction was entirely on my side of the fence. Gate 1: the CI that silently refuses to run GitHub Actions does not run workflows on pull requests from first-time contributors until a maintainer approves the run. This is a sane anti-abuse measure — fork PRs can run arbitrary code in yo

Everyone's writing specs for AI now. We hand the model a markdown file, tell it what we want, and hope it builds the right thing. It mostly works — until it doesn't. Markdown has quietly become the spec language. People reach for it as the DSL for their AI-driven workflows — headings, bullet lists, the odd table — and treat that loose structure as if it were a contract. The thing is, it isn't a DSL. It's markdown. It's prose formatting with no grammar to enforce, no structure you can execute, no shared vocabulary, and no way to tell whether the spec and the code still agree. You're leaning on a document format to do a job it was never built for, and you hit the limit the moment you want the spec to actually mean something a machine can check. Before you go down that road, I want to make a small, slightly absurd suggestion. Eat a cucumber. What I actually mean Gherkin is the plain-text language behind Cucumber , a tool that's been around for years in the behavior-driven development (BDD) world. It looks like this: Feature : User login Scenario : Successful login with valid credentials Given a registered user "ada@example.com" When she logs in with the correct password Then she should land on her dashboard And she should see a welcome message Scenario : Rejected login with wrong password Given a registered user "ada@example.com" When she logs in with an incorrect password Then she should see an "invalid credentials" error And she should remain on the login page That's it. Feature , Scenario , Given / When / Then . Structured enough that a machine can parse it, loose enough that a product manager can write it. The gap it bridges Most specs live at one of two extremes. On one end you have written specs : docs, tickets, markdown files. Readable by anyone, but inert. Nothing checks whether they're still true. They rot the moment the code moves on. On the other end you have tests : precise, executable, always honest — but written in code, illegible to half the people who a

Let's shine a spotlight on the open-source ecosystem. What are the best OSS products launched this year from your perspective? Dropping here are some of my favorite, most inspiring product launches so far, in no particular order. 5 awesome open-source products launched on Product Hunt in 2026 OpenClaw Launched last February on Product Hunt, the AI that "actually does things" is the fastest ever growing project on GitHub with 300k+ stars and 70k+ forks. It created a new category, enabling 50+ related products like moltbook (acquired by Meta) and KiloClaw - both ranked #1 Product of the Day. Kilo Code First launched last year, the open-source agentic engineering platform (19k+ GitHub stars) launched a code reviewer and a new VS Code extension this year. Both ranked #1 Product of the Day and #1 Product of the Week. InsForge The backend platform launched 2.0, hit 10k GitHub stars, ranked #1 Product of the Day, #3 Product of the Week, and joined YC. The Product Hunt effect? Tailgrids The 3.0 release of this React UI library ranked #1 Product of the Day. Ghost The latest project by @haydenbleasel , maker of next-forge , Kibo UI , and Ultracite , just cracked Product Hunt again, ranked #1 Product of the Day. Wrapping up Over to you! What are the best open-source products launched on Product Hunt in 2026 from your perspective? More awesome dev-first product launches in this repository for inspiration. Launched 42+ dev-first products on Product Hunt. AMA. fmerian fmerian fmerian Follow Feb 23 '25 Launched 42+ dev-first products on Product Hunt. AMA. # discuss # startup # marketing 1 reaction Comments Add Comment 5 min read

title: Your AI Agent Should Not Be Locked to One LLM Provider published: false description: Why serious AI agents need a provider-agnostic architecture, model routing, fallback, and a unified API gateway. tags: ai, llm, agents, architecture Your AI Agent Should Not Be Locked to One LLM Provider Most AI agent prototypes start the same way. You pick one model provider. You install one SDK. You write a few prompts. You add tool calling. You build a demo. It works. Until it does not. The moment you want to try another model, reduce cost, add fallback, improve latency, or support different task types, your simple agent starts turning into a messy collection of provider-specific logic. That is when you realize something important: A real AI agent should not be locked to one LLM provider. If you are building a personal AI agent, coding assistant, research assistant, internal workflow agent, or AI-native product, the model should be replaceable infrastructure — not a hardcoded dependency. The Problem with Single-Provider Agents A simple agent architecture often looks like this: CopyUser ↓ Agent ↓ One LLM Provider ↓ Response This is fine for a proof of concept. But real-world agent systems need more flexibility. Different tasks often need different models: Task Better Model Strategy Quick summarization Fast, low-cost model Complex coding Strong coding model Long document analysis Long-context model Reasoning-heavy planning Reasoning model Multilingual writing Model strong in that language Background automation Cheap and reliable model Production fallback Backup provider If your agent is deeply coupled to one provider, every optimization becomes harder. You cannot easily answer questions like: What happens if the provider is down? What if latency spikes? What if another model is cheaper for simple tasks? What if a new model is better for coding? What if a user wants Claude for writing but GPT for structured reasoning? What if you want to route Chinese tasks to a different mod

I build serious SaaS with my +20yr XP web & product. For my last SaaS I implemented Paddle as payment service because their baseline looked cool : Sell globally. Grow without the complexity. ⚠️ My apply was rejected after only 3min with 0 explanation... lol. Following a review of your account information, we are unable to complete the verification of your account. As a result, we cannot approve your application to use Paddle. Due to our internal security policies, we are unable to provide additional specifics or engage in further correspondence regarding this result. Paddle is not a serious service . I removed it from my tools list.

Three weeks ago, one of the teams we work with had a checkout outage. The root cause a malformed...

Microsoft announced the general availability of Microsoft Discovery, its Azure-based platform for deploying autonomous AI agent teams in scientific R&D. The platform powered the development of Majorana 2, a topological quantum chip with 1,000x reliability improvement and 20-second qubit lifetimes. Microsoft now targets a scalable quantum computer by 2029, halving its original timeline. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

Introduction People keep telling me TanStack Start is kind of a big deal, and I wanted to...

Much is new about this month’s upcoming FIFA World Cup tournament, which will be held in the US, Canada, and Mexico. It hosts more teams than ever before. It’s the first to occur in three different host countries. And, like predecessor cups for over half a century, it will employ a soccer ball with a…

Not talking about which one sounds smarter. talking about which one you’d actually rely on when the answer genuinely matters to you. which one and why? submitted by /u/aiprotivity_ [link] [留言]

One canvas for every image asset you need Discussion | Link

Today, June 8th, InfoQ celebrates 20 years. This is not a comprehensive history, but a deliberately selective look at the technologies and practices InfoQ identified early, where they sit on the adoption curve in 2026, and how that curve may evolve over the next five to ten years. By InfoQ

Automating labor is not going to move billions of tonnes of earth required to mine increasingly degraded ore grades of critical industrial minerals. People need to stop with this 'abundance' gaslighting. Without breakthroughs in material science, there will be no 'abundance'. Just mass resource inflation as people start consuming more because robots can manufacture anywhere. AI based automation is surfacing the real bottlenecks that there is no getting around. Stop pretending this will all be magically solved. It won't be solved until it's solved. And so far, despite all these trillions being invested, we haven't seen any breakthroughs. Hopium is not a solution. submitted by /u/kaggleqrdl [link] [留言]

Microsoft announced Logic Apps Automation at Build 2026, a new SKU at auto.azure.com packaging workflows, AI agents, knowledge services, and model access into a managed SaaS experience. Agents integrate via agent-loop orchestration, Foundry agents, and managed sandbox. Knowledge as a Service provides a fully managed RAG pipeline. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

HashiCorp has released Terraform 1.15, introducing dynamic module sources, a formal deprecation mechanism for variables and outputs, a new inline type conversion function, type constraints for output blocks, and native Windows ARM64 support. The release addresses several long-standing requests from the Terraform community. By Matt Saunders

Rocicorp has released Zero 1.0, a stable version of its sync engine after two years of development. This update introduces a schema change hook for Supabase and includes bug fixes. Zero operates by pairing a client library with a read-only Postgres cache. Community feedback highlights positive developer experience but raises concerns about production readiness and existing limitations. By Daniel Curtis

PM at a mid-size startup here. Didn’t really notice how bad it got until this week. My workflow now: Claude for ideation ChatGPT for rewriting specs Cursor for implementation Perplexity for research Notion AI for docs Atoms AI for larger tasks None of these tools actually replaced my work. They just redistributed it. I’m still the one dragging context between all of them. Yesterday I literally caught myself pasting the exact same requirement into 4 different tools and thinking… this can’t be how it’s supposed to work. I don’t even think any single tool is bad. It just feels like we hired 6 smart interns and completely forgot to get a manager. submitted by /u/billa01_i [link] [留言]

You know the ways AI is regularly talked about—how much can it really do? How much will it cost? Environment? Bubble? We get that. But the Electronic Frontier Foundation wants to have a different conversation about AI. EFF's background on AI is deep. In 2017, we launched a detailed project to Measure the Progress of AI Research , encouraging machine learning researchers to give us feedback and contribute to the effort . That project was archived for lack of bandwidth, staffing, and the complexity and time required. But just five years later and the "progress of AI" is a global concern/topic, and everyone, including EFF, is thinking about it. Here's how *we* think about it, from the perspective of protecting civil liberties AND innovation. What do you think, and what are we missing? This is our summary: AI technologies are affecting our civil liberties as never before. Ensuring that AI serves people, not power, starts with cutting through the hype. AI technologies are not magic wands—they are general-purpose tools. If we want to regulate those technologies to reduce harms without shutting down benefits, we have to focus on who uses AI, what products they use, and how they use them. Where we see potential benefits, like improving weather forecasting, facilitating medical research, identifying systemic bias, or fostering accessibility, we work to ensure those benefits can be realized. Where we see potential harms, we consider the practical and legal tools we already have, like pressure campaigns, privacy lawsuits, and transparency measures. If we need new tools, we should create protections tailored to the actual problem – not just to the latest outrage. For example, if policymakers are worried about AI accelerating systemic privacy violations, they should enact real and comprehensive privacy legislation that covers all corporate surveillance and data use, and close the data broker loophole to limit government surveillance. And to keep the window open for a better futu