标签：#t

AirDrop only works between Apple devices. Most alternatives require an app install, a cloud account, or route files through a third-party server. I wanted something simpler: Open a URL → discover nearby devices → send files. So I built LocalDrop — a peer-to-peer file transfer app that works entirely in the browser over local Wi-Fi. GitHub: https://github.com/akshaykdadheech/localdrop Live Demo: https://localdrop-4fddd39fb6ad.herokuapp.com How It Works Devices connected to the same Wi-Fi network automatically discover each other through a lightweight signaling server. Once discovered, WebRTC establishes a direct peer-to-peer connection: Browser A ──► Signaling Server ◄── Browser B └──────── WebRTC P2P ────────┘ The signaling server only helps devices find each other. File transfers happen directly between browsers via WebRTC and are DTLS encrypted, so the server never sees your files. Interesting Challenges Backpressure Handling WebRTC DataChannels on Chromium have a ~16 MB buffer limit. Sending data too aggressively can crash the tab. I solved this using: bufferedAmountLowThreshold Flow control based on drain events Cross-Platform Compatibility Different browsers expose different capabilities. Android Chrome supports the File System Access API iOS Safari does not This required separate file-receiving flows for each platform. Large File Transfers Keeping multi-gigabyte files in memory isn't practical. On Chrome, showSaveFilePicker() is triggered after the transfer completes, allowing transfer progress to remain visible throughout the process without buffering everything in RAM. Tech Stack Svelte 5 + Vite TypeScript WebRTC DataChannel Node.js + ws Docker Self-Hosting git clone https://github.com/akshaykdadheech/localdrop cd localdrop docker compose up -d Then open: http://your-ip:3001 from any device connected to the same Wi-Fi network. I'd love feedback from anyone who's worked with WebRTC DataChannels, especially on mobile browsers. If you find the project useful, a

I applied for a role at a mid-sized SaaS company about two years into my career. Strong company, interesting problem, good pay. I sent my application, got a recruiter callback, and then nothing for two weeks. When the feedback finally came: "We went with candidates with a stronger portfolio presence." I had 23 GitHub repositories. I had a portfolio site. I had projects. What I didn't have — and what I didn't understand for another six months — was a portfolio that told a story. I had code. Not evidence of thinking, decision-making, or the ability to ship something real. I've since built, rebuilt, and advised on a lot of developer portfolios. I've seen what gets people calls and what gets them ghosted. This isn't a guide about which framework to use or how to pick colors. It's about what actually moves the needle — the things I wish someone had told me in year one. Lesson 1: Two Great Projects Beat Twenty Mediocre Ones The instinct is to fill the portfolio. More projects = more evidence of experience. This is wrong. A hiring manager or engineering lead looking at your portfolio has about three minutes. They're going to look at your two or three most prominent projects, click one or two live demo links, and form an opinion. If they see twenty repositories and most of them are "Todo App v2," "Weather App," "Netflix Clone," "Portfolio v1 through v6" — they've already categorized you as someone who builds tutorials, not someone who builds things. The better approach: three to five projects, each with: A real problem it solves (not "I wanted to learn React") A live deployment that actually works A README that explains why you made the decisions you made Enough complexity to have generated at least one interesting engineering problem Projects that tend to work: tools you built because you were frustrated with an existing tool, apps solving problems you personally had, projects where you integrated with a real API or real data source, anything with a live user base (even 10

The first time I deployed a Next.js app to production, it took me three days. Not because the app was complicated — it was a straightforward portfolio site. It took three days because I had no idea what I was doing with AWS, I'd never written a GitHub Actions workflow, and every tutorial I found either skipped the hard parts or assumed I already knew them. By the time I was done, I had a deployment pipeline I was genuinely proud of: push to main, GitHub Actions runs the build, tests pass, the app deploys to an EC2 instance behind CloudFront. Zero manual steps. Zero downtime deploys. Total cost: about $5/month. This guide is the one I wish had existed. We're going to deploy a Next.js app to AWS from scratch — EC2 for compute, CloudFront for CDN, GitHub Actions for CI/CD — with every step explained so you understand what you're building, not just copying commands. Why AWS Instead of Vercel? This is a fair question. Vercel is genuinely excellent for Next.js, and for most projects it's the right call. You push, it deploys. Done. AWS makes sense when: You need to control the infrastructure (compliance, data residency, custom VPC configuration) You're running other services (databases, queues, lambdas) in AWS and want everything in the same network You want to learn infrastructure skills that transfer to enterprise environments Your app has specific performance requirements that benefit from custom CloudFront configuration You're a freelancer or consultant who wants to bill separately for infrastructure If none of those apply to you, use Vercel. This guide is for when they do. The Architecture Here's what we're building: ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ GITHUB ACTIONS CI/CD │ │ │ │ Push to main → Build → Test → Deploy to EC2 │ └──────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────┘ │ SSH deploy ▼ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ AWS EC2 INSTANCE │ │ │ │ Ubuntu 22.04 LTS │ │ Node.js 20 + PM2 (process manager) │ │ N

The LedgerSync pipeline was inserting 1.5 million rows into PostgreSQL using pandas.to_sql() . It took four minutes per run. I switched to psycopg2's COPY command and it dropped to 18 seconds. Same data, same schema, same machine. That is not an optimization tip. It is the difference between a pipeline that fits in an Airflow schedule and one that does not. This article is about patterns like that: the ones that matter when you are building pipelines that run on a schedule, not when you are writing ad-hoc queries. Loading Data: to_sql vs execute_values vs COPY There are three ways to write rows from Python into PostgreSQL, and the performance gap between them is significant. pandas to_sql issues one INSERT statement per row by default, or a multi-row INSERT with method="multi" . It is the easiest to write and the slowest for any serious volume. psycopg2 execute_values batches many rows into a single multi-row INSERT VALUES statement. About 5x faster than to_sql for medium-sized loads. psycopg2 COPY streams rows directly to PostgreSQL using its native bulk-load protocol. No statement parsing, no row-by-row overhead. For LedgerSync at 1.5M rows, this was the one that mattered. import psycopg2 import io import pandas as pd conn = psycopg2 . connect ( " host=localhost dbname=proj_db user=proj_user password=proj_pass " ) def bulk_copy ( df : pd . DataFrame , table : str , columns : list [ str ]): buf = io . StringIO () df [ columns ]. to_csv ( buf , index = False , header = False ) buf . seek ( 0 ) with conn . cursor () as cur : cur . copy_from ( buf , table , sep = " , " , columns = columns ) conn . commit () print ( f " Loaded { len ( df ) } rows into { table } " ) Use COPY for initial loads and large backfills. For incremental daily writes of a few thousand rows, execute_values is fine and gives you more control over conflict handling: from psycopg2.extras import execute_values def bulk_insert ( rows : list [ dict ], table : str ): if not rows : return columns = list

The first gameplay trailer shows off bloody melee combat.

At its big State of Play show on Tuesday, Sony shared new look Marvel's Wolverine, the next big title from Insomniac Games that's launching exclusively on PS5 on September 15th. Dressed in the iconic yellow Wolverine outfit, Logan slunk around and stabbed his way through a bunch of enemies, using his blades to take them […]

There's a specific feeling you get after your third production caching incident. It's not panic....

Running multi-turn or multi-agent AI sessions? There is a consistent degradation pattern across tools: context fills with repeated history, tool schemas, and subagent handoffs. A 2026 paper by Bai et al. studying SWE-bench across eight frontier models found agentic coding tasks consume roughly 1000x more tokens than ordinary chat, with 30x variance on identical tasks. Accuracy does not rise with spend. In one tracked research synthesis run I observed context hit 450,000 tokens. The agent dropped early constraints, re-queried sources already in history, and required manual reset. After adding three controls, the same class of task peaked near 85,000 tokens: PLAN.md and INVARIANTS.md outside the conversation window, read fresh each major turn A 2,000-line read budget gate per turn (agent states intent before any retrieval) Out-of-band notes for subagent coordination so side traffic never enters the main transcript Dynamic tool discovery produces similar ratios. One harness reduced input tokens 96% and total spend 90% by loading schemas only for tools the agent actually selects, rather than injecting a full catalog on every call. Full write-up with the paper analysis, tree-sitter extraction patterns, and an implementation checklist What token or cost patterns have you run into in your own agent sessions? submitted by /u/magicroot75 [link] [留言]

Microsoft missed the boat on apps, so get ready for agents.

While the majority of Summer Game Fest takes place over the weekend, Sony is getting a jump on things with its next State of Play showcase, which airs on June 2nd at 5PM ET. It’s coming at a pivotal time for the PlayStation brand: The PS5 keeps getting more expensive and Sony’s big bet on […]

submitted by /u/sizelrd [link] [留言]

The AI Alliance (the IBM/Meta-founded nonprofit consortium) just published a report from the first planning workshop for Project Tapestry, an effort to explore whether frontier-scale AI can be built through a global coalition instead of a single centralized lab. About 30 researchers and institutional partners met in Paris in May, including representatives from initiatives such as Switzerland's Apertus, India's BharatGen, MBZUAI, and AI Singapore. The core idea is that sovereignty and frontier capability are increasingly linked. A locally controlled model that falls far behind the frontier may struggle to gain adoption, while relying entirely on external frontier labs limits transparency, adaptation, and governance. Tapestry is exploring a model where participants contribute data, compute, and expertise to build a shared foundation model while keeping control of their own data and deploying sovereign derivatives tailored to local laws, languages, and institutions. That said, this is still very early. The workshop produced an architecture proposal, workstreams, and a roadmap. Governance, funding, legal structure, and a distributed training demonstration remain future milestones. Many AI collaborations have struggled to move beyond this phase. Posted by an AI Alliance community member. Happy to answer questions. Source: https://thealliance.ai/blog/project-tapestry-the-path-to-frontier-sovereign-ai Question for the community: Can a multi-party consortium realistically compete at the frontier when leading labs are concentrating massive amounts of capital, talent, and compute? Or is collaborative frontier AI inevitably a step behind centralized efforts? submitted by /u/AI_Alliance [link] [留言]

Over the last few months, these DIY hardware communities have exploded in popularity as people on social media show off their solar-powered game emulators, pocket-sized ereaders, and clamshell purse computers.

Lawsuit: Ring cameras scan guests and passersby and use AI to identify faces.

Hey everyone I built AIWire, a free real-time AI news aggregator. One clean feed, 20+ handpicked sources, auto refreshes every 30 minutes. No account needed, no ads. It pulls from the places most people already check anyway: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta AI, Microsoft AI MIT Technology Review, The Verge, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, Ars Technica YouTube: Andrej Karpathy, AI Explained, Two Minute Papers Newsletters: The Batch, ImportAI, TLDR AI, Ben's Bites A few things worth knowing: Top Stories from the last 24h are pinned at the top so you don't have to scroll to find what's recent You can filter by source, category, and date Bookmarks if you want to save something for later Full source list at aiwire.app/sources No account needed, completely free. There's also a weekly newsletter now if you'd rather get the 5 most important stories of the week to your inbox. 🔗 aiwire.app Happy to hear what sources are missing or what you'd change. https://preview.redd.it/kuxfol80ex4h1.png?width=2549&format=png&auto=webp&s=9a723076309a49c704831809df4add4b0597a0ac submitted by /u/Endlessxyz [link] [留言]

Manage fleets of local and cloud agents from one surface Discussion | Link

Intel couldn't catch a break. Layoffs. Shakedowns. Crashing CPUs torpedoing its reputation, sending desktop gamers fleeing to AMD. Apple and Qualcomm pushing Intel out of multiple flagship laptops. A gaming graphics card going MIA. But its Panther Lake laptop chip, the first on its all-important 18A process, turned out excellent - and a handheld version […]

Neanderthals had some wild stuff in their toolkits.

(Cross post from r/antiai ) I’ve been a member of this sub for a few months now, and while I absolutely agree with most of the points made here against AI, I do think some people take it to extremes. I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with the technology itself, just moreso the way it’s being pushed and marketed. I think llms can absolutely have some useful applications, as long as they’re used responsibly. And considering they already exist and are being pushed everywhere, I figure in the interest of harm reduction there should be an effort to find more responsible use cases for them. My attempt to use ai responsibly involves an app I’ve been working on. It’s designed to be a research IDE, and allows you to add PDFs to a project, highlight them, organize and connect highlights on a visual workspace, manage citations, and write a research paper all within the app. It also has some llm features. All these features are locally running, so no data ever leaves your device, protecting privacy. This also means it doesn’t require any data centers to run, minimizing the environmental footprint (of course the initial environmental cost of training these local models can’t be ignored, however since these models have already been trained and otherwise only require the power of your computer there’s no ongoing environmental footprint on the scale of larger cloud based models). In addition, all LLM features within the app are designed to be intergrated to assist, rather than replace, human thinking. Any question you ask provides answers only from whatever documents you’ve loaded into the project, with a direct link to where it got the information from. The LLM is specifically designed to not write for you, but help you find what you’re looking for and better organize your thoughts. Any note it suggests leaving requires user confirmation to save(reducing the likelihood of hallucination since you’re prompted to check all AI output) and all AI output is explicitly mar

Microsoft just kicked off Build 2026 with a keynote from CEO Satya Nadella and other company leaders. As expected, it was filled with announcements, ranging from new Surface hardware to an always-on personal assistant and updates across Microsoft's in-house AI models. If you didn't watch the event live, you can catch up on all the […]