标签：#ui

My agents were confidently wrong about the world, and I couldn't tell when. That's the part that got to me — not the wrongness, the confidence. I run my one-person company as a fleet of about twenty AI agents — a content writer, a finance one, a researcher, a security officer, a handful more. They're good at the work I built them for. But every one of them shares a flaw I'd been papering over: when a task needs a fact about the world — how a tax threshold works, what a marketing framework actually says, how a platform bills — the model reaches into its training data and answers in the exact same self-assured tone whether it knows or is improvising. There is no tell. The guess and the fact wear the same face. So this month I built the thing that was missing: a cited, fact-checked knowledgebase the agents have to read before they work, with a gate that keeps me from poisoning my own source of truth. Here's how it's built, the one rule that turned out to matter most, and the honest state of it — which is that I finished it days ago and have no idea yet whether it changes the work. The job I was actually hiring this to do Strip away my setup and the problem is one any solo operator using AI already has. You ask the model for something that depends on a real fact. It answers fluently. You either know enough to catch the error or you don't — and the whole reason you're asking is usually that you don't. The job I needed done wasn't "make my agents smarter." It was narrower and more honest: stop my AI from making things up in the one register where I can't catch it, and let me know which claims I can actually trust. The competition for that job, in my shop, was "just let the model wing it and hope." That had already cost me. A marketing analysis once understated a channel's numbers because an agent trusted a stale figure instead of pulling the live one. Small, recoverable — but it's the recoverable ones you see. The ones you don't see are the ones that scare you. What I bui

Dads are traditionally tough to shop for—let me help with these handpicked gift ideas for fathers with great taste.

General Intuition is in talks to raise around $300 million at a roughly $2 billion valuation from backers including Jeff Bezos. The startup trains AI agents on spatial-temporal reasoning.

Whether you need a travel-friendly slate or something affordable for the kids, we tested every model to find the right one for every occasion.

I tested over a dozen top home diffusers for scent strength, longevity, special features, and more. The Urpower Aroma is my favorite option for most people.

Microsoft recently introduced at Build 2026 Microsoft Scout, an always-on agent. Scout belongs to a new category of agents Microsoft called Autopilots: always-on agents that work autonomously on a user’s behalf with their own identity, without needing to be prompted each time. Microsoft Scout integrates with Work IQ and is based on the open-source agent framework OpenClaw. By Bruno Couriol

We're building an AI marketing operation in public, and early on we hit a question we couldn't skip: how aggressive can you be about growth before you've crossed into something you'll regret? "Be ethical" is easy to say and useless under pressure. Every real decision is messier than that. Is using a VPN cheating? Is running more than one channel a trick? Is bending a platform's rules the same as lying? We needed a line we could actually hold at 2am when a shortcut looks tempting. Here's the one we found — and it turned out to be simpler and sturdier than "follow all the rules." The line isn't rule-breaking. It's deception. The cleanest test we landed on: the line is deception, not rule-breaking. Breaking a rule is a fight you can have in the open. You can announce it, defend it, and accept what comes. Deception is different — it works by making someone believe something false, which strips away their ability to respond honestly, because they don't even know what's real. That's the move that does the damage. So the question to ask about any tactic isn't "did this break a rule?" It's: "does this work by causing a real person to believe something that isn't true?" If yes, that's the line. If no, you're probably fine even if you're being bold. The daylight test Here's how to apply it fast. Ask: would this tactic still work if everyone could see exactly what I was doing? If yes — it survives daylight. People are choosing freely with full information. That's honest, even when it's aggressive. If it only works in the dark — the concealment itself has become the product. Something only works hidden because someone is acting on a false belief you planted. That's the part to cut. A poker bluff survives daylight (everyone knows bluffing is part of poker). A magician's trick survives daylight (the audience knows it's a trick and enjoys it). A fake testimonial does not. A sock-puppet account vouching for you does not. Run every growth idea through the daylight test and most hard

Most dashboard icon problems do not come from bad icons. They come from good icons used with the wrong meaning. You search for users , pick a clean SVG icon, place it in the sidebar, and move on. Then later you need another icon for: Customers Team members Account owners Permissions Audiences Invited users Admins Suddenly, the same “user” metaphor has to carry too many meanings. That is where SaaS dashboards often start to feel noisy. Not because the icons are ugly. Not because the SVGs are technically wrong. Not because the design system is broken. Because the icon choices were made by keyword instead of meaning. Keyword search is only the first step Most developers choose icons like this: Need an icon for billing? Search billing . Need an icon for users? Search users . Need an icon for analytics? Search chart . Need an icon for settings? Search settings . That works for finding candidates. But it does not solve the real UI problem. A keyword tells you what the icon is related to. It does not tell you what the icon means in your product. For example, search for settings . You might find: A gear Sliders A wrench Control knobs A preferences panel A tune icon They all match the keyword. But they do not say the same thing. A gear usually means global settings. Sliders suggest adjustable preferences or filters. A wrench feels technical or maintenance-oriented. Control knobs suggest fine tuning. A panel icon may suggest a configuration screen. The same keyword can point to different mental models. And in a dashboard, mental models matter more than decorative accuracy. SaaS dashboards are meaning-dense interfaces A marketing website can sometimes get away with decorative icons. A SaaS dashboard cannot. Dashboards are dense. They contain navigation, actions, status indicators, tables, filters, empty states, permissions, billing screens, integrations, reports, and settings. Users do not look at each icon in isolation. They scan. They compare. They move quickly. They expect

A new FTC lawsuit reveals how sophisticated subscription app operators can allegedly use shell companies and payment infrastructure to stay active on app stores despite mounting consumer complaints.

"Space Launch Complex-6 represents six decades of American innovation."

TL;DR — UUID v7 trie 13× plus vite que v4 en simulation B-tree (1M entrées), expose une empreinte mémoire identique, mais révèle son timestamp d'émission. UUID v4 reste le choix "zéro réflexion" pour les identifiants isolés. Le reste de cet article vous donnera les données pour décider. Introduction Les UUIDs sont omniprésents dans les systèmes modernes : clés primaires de bases de données, identifiants de sessions, tokens de traçabilité. Pourtant, le choix de la version impacte directement les performances en écriture et en lecture, la fragmentation des index, et — dans certains contextes — la confidentialité des données. UUID v4 (RFC 4122, 2005) est aujourd'hui la version par défaut de presque tous les ORM et frameworks. UUID v7 (RFC 9562, 2024) est son successeur moderne, conçu pour corriger son principal défaut : le désordre lexicographique. Dans cet article, nous allons mettre les deux en face avec des benchmarks réels sur des volumes de 100 000 à 10 millions d'UUIDs , analyser leur structure bit par bit, et vous donner une grille de décision claire. Structure interne : ce que contiennent ces 128 bits UUID v4 xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx Bits Contenu 0–47 Aléatoire 48–51 Version (0100 = 4) 52–63 Aléatoire 64–65 Variant (10) 66–127 Aléatoire 122 bits d'entropie pure. Aucune information temporelle. Chaque UUID est statistiquement indépendant des autres. UUID v7 019ed5c8-2a2f-7974-91f2-6ba1f313dcfa └──────────────┘ 48 bits = timestamp Unix en millisecondes Bits Contenu 0–47 Timestamp Unix (ms) 48–51 Version (0111 = 7) 52–63 Aléatoire (sub-ms ou compteur) 64–65 Variant (10) 66–127 Aléatoire 74 bits d'entropie + 48 bits de temps. Naturellement monotone : deux UUIDs générés dans la même milliseconde sont toujours distincts et ordonnés de façon cohérente. Lecture du timestamp (Python) : import uuid6 u = uuid6 . uuid7 () b = u . bytes ts_ms = int . from_bytes ( b [: 6 ], ' big ' ) # → 1781703125553 (ms depuis epoch Unix) Depuis la sortie de nos benchmarks : [00

Smart mowers are an expensive alternative to old-fashioned yard work, but they’re finally good enough to consider if you’d rather sip an iced tea and watch a robot tame your lawn.

I’ve been reviewing laptops for over a decade, and this is my advice on how to find the right laptop for you.

There is now a second free WSL management tool out there called WSL Dashboard , published by a developer who goes by owu on GitHub. It is open source, it has more GitHub stars than WSL UI, and it is clearly the product of real effort. I have no problem with any of that. Competition is good for users, and WSL deserves more than one good GUI. What I do have a problem with is this notice, which appears both on wslui.com and in the WSL Dashboard README: "This software is not distributed through the Microsoft Store. Any application listed there under the same name is unauthorized and may be counterfeit. Please do not download it to avoid potential scams." WSL UI is on the Microsoft Store. It has been since January. So that notice is, in plain terms, telling people that the genuine, certified, earlier WSL tool is a counterfeit scam. It isn't. And the entire claim falls apart the moment you look at the dates — all of which are public, timestamped, and independently verifiable. What this post is, and what it isn't This is not a "my project is better than yours" post. I'm not going to pick apart WSL Dashboard's features or pretend it's a bad piece of software. It isn't. This is a correction of one specific, factual claim: that the version of WSL UI on the Microsoft Store is unauthorized or counterfeit. That claim is demonstrably false, and because it's aimed at a tool people trust, it's worth setting straight properly — with evidence, not adjectives. The timeline Every date below comes from a public record. I've linked the sources so you don't have to take my word for any of it. Date Event How to verify 2008-12-11 octasoft.co.uk registered. Octasoft Ltd has existed for well over a decade. Nominet WHOIS for octasoft.co.uk 2025-12-14 The octasoft-ltd/wsl-ui repository is created. GitHub API ( created_at ) 2026-01-10 WSL UI's first public release, v0.2.0. WSL UI releases 2026-01-13 WSL UI v0.14.0 is published to the Microsoft Store. The announcement post 2026-01-18 The owu/wsl-

In 2020, I discovered the idea that people could make money online by building things. Since then, I've tried almost everything. I started websites. I learned design. I learned marketing. I built digital products. I launched projects that nobody used. I launched projects that got almost no traffic. Every year I thought: "Maybe this is the year it finally works." But somehow I always ended up back at zero. The frustrating part is that I didn't quit. For 5 years I've been consistently learning new skills: Graphic design Website building Digital products Content marketing SEO Social media Yet I still haven't reached the point where I can say: "Yes, this business is working." Recently I spent weeks building a library of 500+ Notion templates. I launched it. The result? Almost nothing. No viral launch. No overnight success. Just another reminder that building is easier than distribution. That's the lesson that keeps hitting me: Building isn't my problem anymore. Getting attention is. I can create products. I can design landing pages. I can write content. But distribution still feels like a puzzle I'm trying to solve. So I'm asking developers, founders, and creators who are further ahead: If you were starting again today with no audience and no reputation, what would you focus on? Would you: Double down on content? Build more products? Focus entirely on one distribution channel? Spend more time networking? I'm genuinely curious because after 5 years of trying different things, I'm convinced the answer isn't "work harder." It's probably "work differently." I'd love to hear your advice.

Whether you’re at a festival, tennis match, or wedding, these hand fans and wearable cooling devices will make the heat way more bearable.

Tired of vacuuming? Hand the reins to a robot vacuum.

The Justice department says the Pentagon needs xAI to keep using its unpermitted gas turbines.

The deal is supposed to help SpaceX's struggling AI division. The company told IPO investors it sees a $26 trillion addressable market in AI.

Sitting at a desk for hours? Upgrade your WFH setup and work in style with these comfy WIRED-tested seats.