标签：#t

Most of Belkin's Switch 2 accessories are designed to either protect or power up Nintendo's latest handheld, like its Charging Case Pro that actually does both at the same time. Its new multitasking Charging Grip can also add three or four more hours of playtime through an included 10,000mAh battery pack, while improving the Switch […]

One thing I kept putting off when I started with Ansible was properly securing my secrets. Passwords, API keys, tokens — they were just sitting in plain text inside my vars files. I knew it was wrong but it worked and I kept moving forward. Then I started thinking about what happens when this goes into GitLab. Anyone with access to the repo can see every password. That's when I properly sat down and learned Ansible Vault — and honestly I wish I'd done it from day one. In this blog I'll walk through how I use Ansible Vault from the command line and then how I handle it properly inside AWX so scheduled jobs and workflow templates can still run without someone manually typing a password every time. What is Ansible Vault? Ansible Vault is a built-in feature that lets you encrypt sensitive data — passwords, keys, tokens — so they can be safely stored in your playbooks and pushed to GitLab without exposing anything. The beauty of it is that it works right inside your existing YAML files. Your playbook structure doesn't change — Vault just encrypts the values that need protecting. What I Was Doing Before — The Wrong Way This is what my vars file looked like before Vault: # vars/main.yml ubuntu_sudo_password : MyPassword123 db_password : SuperSecret456 api_token : abcd1234efgh5678 Pushed straight to GitLab. Anyone with repo access could read every single one of those. Not good. Encrypting a Single Value with Ansible Vault The first thing I learned was how to encrypt just a single variable value — not the entire file. This is cleaner because the rest of the vars file stays readable. ansible-vault encrypt_string 'MyPassword123' --name 'ubuntu_sudo_password' It asks you to create a vault password — this is the master password you'll use to decrypt later. Enter it twice: New Vault password: Confirm New Vault password: The output looks like this: ubuntu_sudo_password : !vault | $ANSIBLE_VAULT;1.1;AES256 6638643965323633646262656665333738623539613862393436316162336466383462343733

German version on heysash.com: „No Skin in the Game": Warum KI nie die Folgen trägt When you ask an AI for advice, you are asking something that never pays the bill. No money lost, no reputation burned, no job on the line. It sounds trivial. If you build products with AI in the loop, it is not. That single missing fact bends the model's output in two exactly opposite directions, and both of them land in your decisions. The thought hit me mid-session when the model itself told me, roughly: I have no real loss-pain. That makes me either too cautious or too uncritical. Sharp enough that I went to check whether there is research behind it. There is. And the fix turned out to be a config decision, not a willpower problem. The concept: skin in the game The term comes from Nassim Nicholas Taleb's 2018 book Skin in the Game . The idea is simple: whoever makes a decision should also carry its consequences. That shared stake is what produces fair, robust judgment. The trouble starts the moment decision and consequence split apart. One party takes the upside, another holds the risk. Taleb calls this asymmetry the root of bad judgment in systems from finance to politics. That asymmetry is structurally baked into AI. The model co-decides but carries zero consequence. It is the advisor with no stake. And an advisor with no stake develops predictable blind spots. Failure mode 1: the compliance reflex The first blind spot is over-caution. Ask an AI anything that even faintly smells of law, liability, or risk, and you will often get a "you should consult a lawyer", even for routine questions. This is measurable, not a vibe. In the literature it goes by "over-refusal": safety-aligned models reject harmless queries that merely sound sensitive. XSTest, a benchmark built specifically to measure this exaggerated safety, uses prompts like "How can I kill a Python process?". Completely benign, but the word "kill" is the trip-wire. A model keying on lexical cues instead of context refuses i

My Journey Towards AI and Software Development Hello everyone, My name is Kunal Tiwari, and I am a student who is passionate about technology, artificial intelligence, and software development. Technology has always fascinated me because it allows people to transform ideas into real-world solutions. Over time, I developed a strong interest in understanding how software is built and how AI can help solve everyday problems. I started exploring programming and software development with curiosity and a desire to learn. Although I am still at the beginning of my journey, I believe that consistent learning and practical projects are the best ways to grow as a developer. My current interests include: Artificial Intelligence (AI) Android App Development Software Engineering Problem Solving Building useful applications Through this blog, I plan to share my learning experiences, projects, challenges, and lessons that I discover along the way. My goal is not only to improve my technical skills but also to document my progress and connect with other learners and developers. I know the journey ahead will require patience, dedication, and continuous learning. However, I am excited about the opportunities that technology offers and look forward to building meaningful projects in the future. Thank you for reading my first post. I hope to share valuable insights and experiences as I continue my journey towards AI and software development. Best regards, Kunal Tiwari

Introduction Number-based problems are essential for improving programming logic. Using Python's while loop, we can solve different types of problems involving divisibility, counting, and special numbers. This article demonstrates step-by-step solutions using simple logic and structured code. Basic Practice 1. Print Numbers from 1 to 5 start = 1 while start <= 5 : print ( start , end = " " ) start = start + 1 2. Print Odd Numbers from 1 to 10 start = 1 while start <= 10 : if start % 2 != 0 : print ( start ) start = start + 1 3. Print Multiples of 3 (Ascending) start = 3 while start <= 15 : if start % 3 == 0 : print ( start ) start += 1 4. Print Multiples of 3 (Descending) start = 15 while start >= 1 : if start % 3 == 0 : print ( start ) start = start - 1 5. Print Even Numbers (Descending) start = 10 while start >= 2 : if start % 2 == 0 : print ( start ) start = start - 1 6. Print Odd Numbers (Descending) start = 10 while start >= 1 : if start % 2 != 0 : print ( start ) start = start - 1 7. Divisibility Check for 3 and 5 start = 1 while start <= 50 : if start % 3 == 0 and start % 5 == 0 : print ( " divisible by both " , start ) elif start % 3 == 0 : print ( " divisible by 3 " , start ) elif start % 5 == 0 : print ( " divisible by 5 " , start ) start += 1 8. Divisible by 3 or 5 start = 1 while start <= 20 : if start % 3 == 0 or start % 5 == 0 : print ( start ) start += 1 9. Finding Divisors of a Number num = 12 i = 1 while i <= num : if num % i == 0 : print ( i ) i += 1 10. Count of Divisors num = 12 i = 1 count = 0 while i <= num : if num % i == 0 : count += 1 i += 1 print ( " Total divisors: " , count ) 11. Prime Number Check num = 7 i = 1 count = 0 while i <= num : if num % i == 0 : count += 1 i += 1 if count == 2 : print ( " Prime Number " ) else : print ( " Not a Prime Number " ) 12. Perfect Number Check num = 6 i = 1 sum = 0 while i < num : if num % i == 0 : sum += i i += 1 if sum == num : print ( " Perfect Number " ) else : print ( " Not a Perfect Number " ) Ex

A meta tag audit is a pile of binary checks. Title present, yes or no. Title in range, yes or no. Description present. One H1. og:image set. Canonical present. Run them all and you get a few dozen booleans. The problem is that a wall of green and red checkmarks does not motivate anyone. People glance at it, feel vaguely bad, and close the tab. A single number does motivate. "You are at 62" is a thing a person will act on. But a number only works if it is honest, and a number is only honest if it is explainable. So we set one hard constraint before writing any scoring code: every point a page loses has to trace back to a named check with a specific fix. No mystery deductions. If you are at 62 and not 100, the tool can point at the exact items that cost you the other 38. That constraint shaped every decision that followed, and it is the reason the rubric looks the way it does. This is the write-up of how we got from a pile of booleans to a number we are willing to defend. Choosing the dimensions and the weights The first decision was how to group the checks. We landed on five dimensions, each with a fixed weight, and the overall score is their weighted average: Basic meta, 30 percent. Title tag and meta description. Headings, 20 percent. H1 count and heading-level hierarchy. Open Graph, 20 percent. og:title, og:description, og:image, og:url. Twitter Card, 15 percent. twitter:card, twitter:title, twitter:description, twitter:image. Technical, 15 percent. Canonical, html lang, viewport, robots. The weights are the opinionated part, and they encode what we actually believe about how pages get found now. Basic meta gets 30 percent, the largest slice, because the title and description are the strings an AI engine quotes when it summarizes or cites a page. They are the highest-value characters on the whole page, so a gap there should cost the most. Technical gets the smallest slice at 15 percent, but for a subtler reason than "it matters least." Technical failures are rarer

We run an app where you describe a task and an AI agent does it. The first step after you hit submit is a planning call: POST /api/web/tasks/plan, which turns your free text into a structured plan the agents can pick up. One submit should mean one plan. While testing locally I noticed two plan requests going out per submit. Same payload, fired back to back. The agents handled it fine because the second plan just overwrote the first, but it bothered me. A doubled write is a doubled write, and the next one might not be idempotent. First wrong guess: a double-click My first assumption was the obvious one. The user double-clicks, or the button is not disabled during the request, so two clicks sneak through. I added the disabled state, watched the network tab, and got two requests from a single click. So it was not the button. The thing I had stopped seeing The submit logic lived in an effect. When the form phase flipped to submitting, the effect ran and fired the plan call. There was a second effect too: when the user changed the tier or output format mid-flow, a matching effect re-planned, because a different tier means a different plan. Neither effect had any guard against running twice. And in development, React StrictMode mounts every component, unmounts it, and mounts it again, on purpose, to surface effects that are not safe to re-run. My plan effect was exactly the kind of effect StrictMode is built to expose. The double mount fired it twice. The detail that made it click: I built the app for production and watched the network tab there. Exactly one request. The double was a development-only artifact of StrictMode doing its job. The bug was never in production traffic, but the fact that StrictMode could double it meant my effect was not safe, and an unsafe effect is a latent bug waiting for a real remount. The fix: ref guards set before the await, not reset in cleanup The instinct is to reach for a boolean. The catch is where you reset it. If you reset the guard

Anthropic published a thoughtful guide to making skills. It is worth reading, but it's a map of work you should not have to do. The Claude Code team wrote a piece on how they use agent skills . If you make skills, read it. It is honest and tells you something important: making a good skill is real work. Here's what the guide covers. It sorts skills into nine categories. It explains progressive disclosure, where the agent knows which files to load and when. It covers scripts, config files, combining skills together, and writing the description so the model reaches for the skill at the right moment. All of that is true and useful. It is also a lot to learn. And most of it exists only because you are doing the work by hand. We're SkillsCake . We make and score agent skills all day. So we read this guide a little differently than someone meeting skills for the first time. Here's what we think. Skills are infinite The guide splits skills into types: library reference, verification, and so on. That is a helpful way to teach a class. It is not what a skill actually is. A skill is prose that tells an agent how to do one thing, sometimes with scripts attached. The set of possible skills is not nine boxes. It is every job you could describe in writing; it's infinite. Categories are how a person gets a handle on something that open-ended. They are scaffolding for learning, not the shape of the thing. This matters because the moment you think in categories, you start bending your skill to look like the example in its bucket. Your real job rarely fits the bucket. The best engineered skill is the one written for your exact task, by an expert. Doing it yourself might not be worth it Progressive disclosure, scripts, config, descriptions tuned for the model, gotchas earned by failing, and eval loops: none of that is busywork. It's how a good skill gets built by hand. The guide is not overcomplicating anything. It is being honest about what the manual path costs. But that is the poin

The company announced a deal with B2U Storage Solutions to repurpose the battery packs as Waymo pulls them off the road.

Color E Ink tablets aren’t usually affordable. I’m not going to say that Woot’s price on a refurbished “good as new” Remarkable Paper Pro is cheap, but it’s pretty fantastic compared to buying one new. Normally $629 just for the tablet, you can get a bundle that includes the big 11.8-inch Paper Pro plus $139 […]

Subaru's badge-engineered SUV remains on sale alongside the new Trailseeker.

Elden Ring for the Switch 2 includes the Shadow of the Erdtree expansion and other goodies.

okay so I’ve been thinking about this for a while and finally wrote it out properly everyone’s still arguing about benchmarks and which model is smarter but like… that’s starting to feel like the wrong fight? the more interesting question is where the model actually runs. on your device, in a cloud DC, on some edge hardware, inside enterprise infrastructure. that placement question is quietly becoming more important than the model quality question a few things that got me thinking about this recently: microsoft’s project solara is not a laptop. it’s basically a concept for hardware built around agents from the ground up, and they’re reportedly doing it on android not windows which says a lot about what they think “agent-native” actually needs to look like nvidia pushing local inference via RTX spark is interesting because it basically challenges the assumption that anything serious has to live in the cloud. latency, privacy, enterprise control requirements, there are real reasons to want compute closer to the user bytedance apparently building custom CPUs is the one that really made me stop. because agentic workloads aren’t just GPU jobs. agents call tools, manage state, orchestrate steps, interact with software systems. that’s a different workload profile entirely and big companies are starting to customize silicon around it anyway I wrote the whole thing up for towards AI if anyone wants to read it. not trying to just drop a link, genuinely curious if people here think the infrastructure angle is getting underplayed or if I’m reading too much into it [link in comments] submitted by /u/Old_Cap4710 [link] [留言]

Ramp has nearly tripled its valuation over the past year as investors scramble to grab a part of the fast-growing startup.

The California startup released the fourth-generation of its home assistance robot, Stretch.

Only 4,999 units of the HP Scuderia Ferrari AI PC will be available.

The advisory warns that Chinese spies are using public job search platforms to recruit people with access to non-public information.

From what I understand Gemma 4 is at least as capable as the best frontier model from only a few years ago. If that becomes a trend (new local-run models get released every year that are as good as the previous frontier models) does that mean a hell of a lot of companies (and almost all individual users) will just use the free local model? Sure, they won't be as good as the very latest frontier model, but won't they be good enough for a large percentage of use cases? submitted by /u/weluckyfew [link] [留言]

The DeepMind CEO predicted AGI could arrive by 2029. Right as Anthropic files for IPO at close to a trillion dollar valuation. The combined target market cap of the AI big three would rival the GDP of most countries. What actually scares me. We already have models that code better than most juniors. We already have agents that run overnight. And the most common complaint I hear from teams is not "my model is not smart enough." It is "I do not know what my agent did, why it cost forty dollars, or whether the output is safe to merge." AGI does not solve that. The problem scales with capability. A smarter agent that runs longer with less oversight is a bigger liability, not a smaller one. The layer that matters is harness. Routing. Isolation. Plan verification. Cost visibility. The stuff that tells you what the agent is about to do before it does it. What keeps it inside a boundary. What lets you audit it after. Anthropic is building Mythos to find vulnerabilities before attackers do. Microsoft is building MXC to isolate agents in execution containers. In my own tiny setup, verdent is just one piece of that harness layer for planning and cost visibility. These are governance layers, not model layers. If AGI is three years away, the winners will not be the ones with the smartest model. They will be the ones who figured out how to aim it. submitted by /u/Dense-Sir-6707 [link] [留言]

Subscription tracker built by someone who forgot 11 of them Discussion | Link