标签：#t

In the face of widespread backlash to the AI data center buildout throughout the US, Google is touting its efforts to minimize the environmental impact by actually increasing water for local communities. The company laid out five commitments around water use in a new blog post published Wednesday, including a goal to replenish more water […]

After migrating Spark pipelines to Azure Kubernetes Service, two infrastructure settings interacted destructively: spark.kubernetes.local.dirs.tmpfs=true backed shuffle spill with RAM instead of disk, and a hard podAffinity rule forced all executors onto one node. Together, they caused repeated OOM kills invisible to standard diagnostics. By Pranav Bhasker

Soccer fans on r/WorldCup2026Tickets are using Claude to build DIY ticketing software, exchanging on back channels, and leaving scalpers scrambling.

Online publishers are getting more control over whether their websites appear in Google's AI Search features, thanks to a UK regulatory ruling. The new conduct rule imposed by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) requires Google to let website owners keep their content out of features like AI Overviews and prevent it from being used […]

MiniMax released M3 today and the API is already live. Worth separating what comes from their own official model page versus what comes from the launch announcement, because some of the numbers are sourced differently. From the official model page: BrowseComp 83.5, ahead of Claude Opus 4.7 at 79.3. PostTrainBench 37.1, which ranks third behind Opus 4.7 at 42.4 and GPT-5.5 at 39.3. From the launch announcement: SWE-Bench Pro 59.0%, Terminal Bench 2.1 66.0%, MCP Atlas 74.2%. The headline "beats Opus" is BrowseComp-specific, not a general capability claim across all dimensions. The context window is up to 1M tokens, implemented through their in-house MiniMax Sparse Attention architecture. They state 512K as the guaranteed minimum with 1M as the ceiling. The model was trained on 100T+ tokens and is natively multimodal rather than vision being added after the fact. Open-weights release is coming to HuggingFace and GitHub but listed as "coming soon." API access is available now through several paths, including OpenAI-compatible endpoints, while the weights are still pending. The model also supports native MCP tooling, which is where the 74.2% MCP Atlas number comes from. The demo claims are the part worth being skeptical about. A 12-hour autonomous ICLR paper replication run and a CUDA kernel optimization loop reaching 9.4x speedup are impressive if real, but these are curated showcase demos that are hard to evaluate from a screenshot. Whether sparse attention holds up at 900K+ tokens in practice rather than in controlled benchmarks is an open question. submitted by /u/Drysetcat [link] [留言]

Every impressive agent demo skips the same three things: Auth. The demo target is open. The real one has a login and a 2FA prompt. Identity. The demo agent acts as the developer. The real one needs its own email, accounts, and a place to keep secrets. State. The demo is one clean run. The real one has to remember what it did last time and resume. These are not AI problems, which is exactly why they get skipped in AI demos. But they are most of the work to go from "cool clip" to "thing that runs unattended." The model is increasingly the easy part. The unglamorous identity-and-state layer around it is where products actually live or die. Curious whether people think this layer gets commoditized into the foundation models, or stays a separate thing you assemble. submitted by /u/kumard3 [link] [留言]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy . ] submitted by /u/n4r735 [link] [留言]

Operator perspective. I use AI daily across three companies and I am bullish on it, but the gap between what gets shouted on stage and what the data shows is enormous. Best measured number across hundreds of engineers is about 7.8%, and 66% of the people who hit a peak gain saw it fade the next quarter. At the same time, people are being pushed onto it under threat of their jobs while the return is not even proven to the people mandating it. My read is the anger is not really “AI is bad,” it is “my boss profits from me using it and I do not.” Where do you land - is the resistance cognitive (it erodes skill) or economic (the gain is not shared)? submitted by /u/Alternative_Letter72 [link] [留言]

I’ve been using AI pretty heavily for the past few months — quick research, rewriting emails, brainstorming ideas, even helping outline stuff I need to write. It saves so much time and the output is usually decent. But lately I’ve noticed something weird: I’m second-guessing myself way less. I’ll get an answer from it and just kind of roll with it instead of thinking it through like I used to. Yesterday I asked it about something I already had a rough opinion on, accepted its take, and only later realized I didn’t even challenge any part of it. It feels convenient as hell, but also a little unsettling. Like I’m outsourcing the actual thinking part. Is this normal? Or am I slowly losing the habit of thinking deeply on my own? Anyone else feeling this? submitted by /u/pen-pineapple-apple [link] [留言]

Online it feels like every company is fully embracing AI. In reality, most organizations I interact with are still trying to figure out where it fits into existing workflows, processes and software. The interesting conversations aren't usually about models anymore. They're about trust, reliability, permissions, governance and how AI fits into the way people already work. The gap between AI demos and real-world adoption still feels larger than most people realize. submitted by /u/Bladerunner_7_ [link] [留言]

This is a submission for the GitHub Finish-Up-A-Thon Challenge I wired edge-context-mode into my own...

Most API teams treat the contract as an afterthought: write code, generate a spec, then watch the two drift apart. Git-native API design reverses that flow. You treat the API contract as source code, version it in Git, and review every change the same way you review application logic. Try Apidog today This guide focuses on implementation discipline, not a single tool. You’ll design contracts in branches, review them in pull requests, and turn a committed spec into mocks, tests, and docs. The goal is simple: your Git history should also be your API history. If you already know what Spec-First tooling looks like and want the product walkthrough, read the companion piece on the git-native API workflow . This article stays focused on practice. What “git-native” means for API work Git-native means your API definition lives in your repository as a plain text file. Not in a proprietary cloud database. Not behind a vendor login. A .yaml or .json file sits next to your code and is tracked by the same version control system your team already uses. In many cloud-locked API design tools, the contract lives in the vendor’s backend. You edit through a web UI, and your repository only contains an export. That export can become stale, and your Git history no longer explains how the API evolved. The git-native model inverts that relationship: The file in main is the contract. Any GUI is a view onto that file. Branches, commits, pull requests, blame, and rollback all apply to your API surface. Mocks, docs, tests, and generated clients derive from the committed spec. A git-native setup has three core properties: The spec is a text file in the repo. Changes flow through normal Git operations: branch, commit, PR, merge. Downstream artifacts derive from the committed file, not from a separate database. Why design and develop APIs in Git You already trust Git with your code. Your API contract deserves the same treatment. 1. History When someone asks, “When did we add the cursor pagination

Multiplayer markdown for you, your team, and your agents. Discussion | Link

TL;DR Day 2 of AI Native DevCon shifted from agent capability to operating discipline. The strongest sessions focused on how teams can run AI-native delivery with clearer context pipelines, measurable agent behavior, safer execution boundaries, and better organizational ownership. The scale showed up in the numbers too. Across the two days, DevCon brought together 650+ in-person registrations, around 2,000 online registrations, and a packed mix of sessions, workshops, hallway conversations, and practical lessons. Day 2 leaned into workshops. That shift mattered because the second day was less about proving agents can do useful work and more about showing how teams can make that work repeatable. Hey there, welcome back. Rohan Sharma here again continuing the devcon series. Day 1 gave us the framing, including Guy Podjarny ’s core point that skills should be treated like real software assets. Day 2 picked up from there and moved into the operating details. Once agents are inside daily engineering work, platform and product teams need to decide what changes first, who owns those changes, and how the results are measured. Talks that shaped Day 2 Harness engineering beyond code Marc Sloan from Tessl focused on the next gap many teams are hitting. Code context is increasingly structured, but product and design context still lives in external systems such as Figma, Notion, and Linear. Pulling that context live can reduce staleness, but it introduces drift in evals, versioning, and reproducibility. The practical lesson was to stop treating external product and design context as random reference material. Teams need a defined layer between the repository and those external systems, with clear versioning so evaluations can be replayed against known context snapshots. Without that, agents can produce work that looks technically correct while missing the product constraint that actually mattered. That is a very expensive kind of almost-right. From vibes to metrics Simon Obstbau

If you've ever built a REST API with Express, you've probably felt it. Middleware registration, type definitions, body parser setup, connecting Joi or Zod... the structure is simple, but the boilerplate is excessive. When I first saw Hono, I was skeptical. "Another Express clone," I thought. That changed when I actually ran it. Bottom line: Hono v4 is more than just lightweight and fast. TypeScript type inference flows naturally all the way to route handlers. Zod validation connects via a single official package. On Bun, response times are noticeably faster than Express. Everything in this post is based on what I ran in a sandbox in June 2026. Why Hono — Compared to Express and Fastify Understanding where Hono fits means answering three questions. Bundle size : Hono v4 core is about 12KB. Express is 58KB, Fastify is 77KB. The gap might not sound dramatic, but in edge environments like Cloudflare Workers or Deno Deploy, bundle size directly affects cold start time. Edge functions sometimes initialize a new runtime per request — smaller means faster first response. Runtime compatibility : Express is Node.js-only. Fastify targets Node.js by default. Hono was designed from the start to "run anywhere." The same code deploys to Bun, Deno, Cloudflare Workers, Node.js, and AWS Lambda Edge. TypeScript support : Express requires @types/express as a separate install, and properties added to req via middleware don't get type inference. Hono is written in TypeScript from the ground up, and the Hono<{ Bindings: Env; Variables: Variables }> generic gives you type-safe access to environment variables and middleware state. I'm not saying Hono is the right choice for every situation. If your team is deeply invested in Express, or you need a mature plugin ecosystem, there's no compelling reason to switch. But if edge deployment is the goal, or you want type safety from day one, Hono is the most convincing TypeScript API framework right now. Installation and First Server — Response in

Node.js will change its release schedule starting with version 27 in October 2026, moving from two major releases per year to one. All releases will become Long-Term Support (LTS), removing the distinction between odd and even versions. An Alpha channel for early testing will also be introduced. This decision addresses maintenance challenges and aims to align with user needs. By Daniel Curtis

Introduction: The Question of Relevance Imagine you’re a college student, fresh off mastering pandas , and you’re eyeing the freelancing market for data cleaning and automation gigs. You’ve heard of openpyxl , but as you dig deeper, you hit a wall: every resource seems to peg it as a relic for handling 2010 Excel sheets . That’s it. No modern use cases, no integration with cutting-edge tools, just a dusty library stuck in the past. So, you pause. Is openpyxl still relevant in 2023, or is it a dead end for someone trying to build a competitive freelancing portfolio? This dilemma isn’t just about openpyxl—it’s about the mechanism of perception in tech. When a tool is associated with outdated formats, its capabilities are often misinterpreted or overlooked . Openpyxl’s documentation and community discourse rarely highlight its modern applications, leaving newcomers like you to assume it’s obsolete. But here’s the catch: openpyxl isn’t just a 2010 Excel handler. It’s a low-level Excel manipulator that, when paired with libraries like pandas and numpy, can handle complex tasks that these libraries alone can’t. The problem isn’t openpyxl’s functionality—it’s the information gap between its perceived and actual utility. The stakes are clear: if you dismiss openpyxl as outdated, you risk missing out on a tool that could complement your pandas and numpy skills , making your freelancing services more efficient and versatile. But if you invest time in it without understanding its modern applications, you might waste effort on a tool that doesn’t align with current demands. The question isn’t whether openpyxl is relevant—it’s whether you’re looking at it through the right lens. In this investigation, we’ll dissect openpyxl’s role in 2023 freelancing, addressing its perceived limitations and uncovering its hidden strengths. By the end, you’ll have a clear rule for deciding whether to include it in your toolkit: If your freelancing gigs involve Excel-specific tasks that pandas ca

AI Coding Agents in 2026: From Pair Programming to Autonomous Teams Slug: ai-coding-agents-2026-stack-comparison 1. The Three Categories That Actually Matter The 2024‑2025 hype cycle treated every AI coding tool as a single‑dimensional “best‑of‑list.” 2026 data shows that professional developers now average 2.4 tools per workflow (Stack Overflow Survey 2025). The real decision is architectural: Layer Goal Typical Agent Type Line‑level editing Speed, low latency Editor assistants Repo‑level planning Context depth, multi‑file changes Autonomous agents Enterprise governance Isolation, audit, CI/CD integration Platform agents Choosing a “one best tool” ignores the trade‑off between context window size (how many tokens the model can see) and execution speed (how fast the tool returns a suggestion). A narrow‑window editor assistant excels at instant autocomplete, while a wide‑window autonomous agent can rewrite an entire microservice in a single run. The three‑tier framework aligns the tool’s strengths with the architectural layer where they matter most. 2. Tier 1: Editor Assistants — Speed at the Line Level Tool Market Position Key Feature (2026) Pricing (per developer) Cursor $500 M+ ARR, fastest growth in Q1 2026 Parallel agents update git worktrees; 2‑second latency on 8‑core laptops $15 /mo (individual) – $120 /mo (team) GitHub Copilot 4.7 M paid subscriptions, 75 % YoY growth Agent Mode with multi‑agent workflows; deep VS Code integration $10 /mo (individual) – $100 /mo (enterprise) Windsurf 1.2 M active users, strong UI polish Real‑time code‑style enforcement; limited to 4‑file context Free tier up to 5 k lines, $30 /mo premium Tabnine Enterprise‑only after 2026 pivot Air‑gapped deployment; NVIDIA Nemotron 4‑bit models for on‑prem inference $200 /mo per seat (minimum 10 seats) When to choose each Cursor – prioritize raw typing speed and git‑aware suggestions. Ideal for startups that need rapid iteration without heavy IDE lock‑in. Copilot – best for teams already on

Here's a trace that reset how I think about evaluating tool-calling agents. An agent tries to book a flight. It calls search_flights with departure_date="next Friday" . The endpoint expected an ISO date, so it returns a 400 . The agent retries the same string four times, then apologizes to the user and gives up. Now the part that actually bothered me. Tool selection was correct. The model picked the right function out of a registry of 28. My tool-selection accuracy logged a clean 1.0 . The aggregate task-completion logged a 0 . And neither number told me which of three things broke: the argument was wrong, the model never read the 400 body, or the retry policy looped on the same input. My eval wasn't wrong. It was asking the wrong question. What "tool-call accuracy" actually grades If the only thing you measure is did the agent call the right tool , you're testing intent, not execution. Tool selection is necessary, not sufficient. It passes the moment the right function name shows up in the trace, completely blind to whether the arguments were garbage, whether the model read what came back, or whether it recovered from the 400 . That's the gap. The metric checks that the agent started the right way. Production needs to know whether it finished the right way. The reframe: it's four eval problems, not one The thing I had to internalize is that tool-calling eval is four problems stacked, each with its own root cause: Tool selection , right tool, or correctly no tool Argument extraction , schema-valid and semantically correct Result utilization , did it actually use what the tool returned Error recovery , did it retry, fall back, or escalate Score them separately and "the agent failed" collapses into "the argument extractor regressed on date strings on the flight-booking path." One bisect instead of three days. What I rebuilt Layer 1: Tool selection (with the bucket everyone drops) F1 on the tool name, so a 28-tool registry doesn't hide a regression on one rare endpoint

I run multiple Claude Code sessions all day — one per feature, one per service, sometimes five at once. Every session was asking me for permission in its own terminal. I'd miss requests buried in a background tab. I'd switch windows mid-thought just to approve a git status . I'd lose context constantly. And there was no single place to see what Claude was doing across all of them. So I built Gatekeeper — a TUI daemon that intercepts every Claude Code tool call and routes it to one unified approval dashboard. The dashboard Three panes, one terminal: Left — all active Claude sessions, with status badges: [auto] means auto-approve is on, [linked] means it's wired to a terminal window Middle — pending permission requests with an age timer so you know what's been waiting longest Right — full request detail, danger warnings, and the numbered approval menu Every Claude Code tool call — Bash , Edit , Write , Agent — passes through a PreToolUse hook before executing. The hook connects to Gatekeeper's Unix socket, sends the request, and blocks. Gatekeeper shows it in the UI. When you decide, the answer travels back and Claude proceeds or stops. Approving requests The menu in the right pane mirrors Claude Code's own style: 1 Allow once 2 Always allow 3 Deny ↑ / ↓ moves the cursor, Enter confirms. Or just press 1 , 2 , 3 directly. A and D are quick shortcuts for allow/deny. Option 2 — always allow — is where it gets useful. Choosing it saves a persistent rule so the same request never surfaces again: Bash → saves the command pattern (e.g. npm run * ) to config Edit / Write → saves the directory to an allowlist Agent → enables auto-approve for that session The rule is written both to Gatekeeper's own config and to Claude Code's settings.json allowlist — so Claude Code itself won't prompt for it either. Auto-approve sessions Press A in the Sessions pane to mark a session as trusted. It shows [auto] — routine tool calls pass silently without appearing in the queue. But some things