标签：#us

GitHub热门项目 | Unlock 2x more Claude Code and Codex usage | Stars: 237 | 14 stars today | 语言: Rust

GitHub热门项目 | Incredibly fast JavaScript runtime, bundler, test runner, and package manager – all in one | Stars: 93,472 | 74 stars today | 语言: Rust

Aseon Labs, which came out of Y Combinator's 2026 spring cohort, has raised $10 million from Crane Venture Partners and others.

Nine jurors. Two hours of deliberation. Twenty-six claims at the original federal complaint's peak. Three surviving claims at trial. Zero claims surviving the verdict. One hundred fifty billion dollars of maximum disgorgement exposure if the verdict had gone the other way. One hundred thirty billion dollars of OpenAI Foundation equity stake under the October 28, 2025 recapitalization. Thirty-eight million dollars of total Musk contributions per his sworn trial testimony. Forty-four million per the legal complaint. Eight years from the January 2, 2016 Sutskever-Musk "less open / Yup" email exchange to the August 2024 federal filing date. Three years of statute-of-limitations runway on the breach-of-charitable-trust claim; two years on the unjust-enrichment claim. The verdict in Musk v. Altman came in this morning at the federal courthouse on Clay Street in Oakland, before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California. The companion piece, The Calendar Technicality , makes the doctrinal argument that the procedural dismissal is the substantive determination California charitable-trust law would have produced on the merits as well. This piece takes the same conclusion through the numbers. The dollar-and-time math closed the merits door before the doctrinal door even came into view. Two hours, in context Federal-court civil-trial deliberations on complex commercial cases typically run between one and five days. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts' annual judicial-business reports show median civil-jury deliberation in the multi-day range for cases with three or more issues to resolve and dollar exposure above one billion. The two-hour deliberation in Musk v. Altman is roughly one to two standard deviations below the median for cases of this complexity. The brevity is not a function of jury inattention. The trial ran three weeks. Roughly four hours of testimony came from Altman alone on May 12, with cross-examination opening with Musk's lea

👋👋👋👋 Looking back on your week -- what was something you're proud of? All wins count -- big or small 🎉 Examples of 'wins' include: Getting a promotion! Starting a new project Fixing a tricky bug Found a new song so good it fixed your whole mood 🎵 Happy Friday!

Most developers use AI like a smarter Stack Overflow . Type a question. Get an answer. Go do the work yourself . That's fine but it's the slow way 😩 There's a faster mode, and most people haven't switched to it yet. Diff: Asking & Delegating When you ask an AI : "How do I write tests for my auth module?" You get a nice explanation. Then you write the tests yourself. You're still doing the work 🥸 When you delegate to an AI agent: "Write tests for /src/auth.py . Cover login, logout, and invalid token cases. Run them. If any fail, fix the code until they pass. Tell me what you changed." The agent opens your files, writes the tests, runs them, reads the failures, fixes the code, and comes back to you with a working test suite. You review the result. You didn't do the work. That's the shift 🙂‍↔️ It sounds small. The time difference is huge . How to write a good delegation Every delegation that works has four parts . Think of it like giving a task to a new team member: Goal: what should it produce? Scope: which files or area of the codebase? Success condition: how do we know it's done correctly? Report back: tell me what you changed and why. Here's what that looks like in practice: Debugging: "Here's the error and the stack trace. Find the root cause, fix it, and explain what was broken." Why this works: You're not asking what the error means. You're handing over the whole problem, find it, fix it, explain it 😎 Refactoring: "Refactor this file. Max two levels of nesting. No single function longer than 30 lines. Update every call site in the codebase." Why this works: The constraints are clear and checkable . The agent knows exactly when it's done 🧐 Database migration: "Write a migration script for this schema change. Make it idempotent. Run it against a local test database and confirm it succeeds." Why this works: You gave it a way to verify its own work before coming back to you 🤔 PR review: "Read this PR diff. Find anything that could fail in production. Write the tests

Rule of thumb If your action waits on something external , make it async . If it’s instant CPU , keep it sync ; for expensive CPU , offload . The core idea Async shines for I/O-bound work (DB calls, HTTP calls, queues, files). It frees the request thread while waiting, so the server can serve more requests with the same thread pool . Sync is fine for trivial, short CPU work (formatting, small calculations) where you’re not awaiting anything and the handler returns in a few milliseconds. When to choose async You call EF Core ( SaveChangesAsync , ToListAsync ), HttpClient , Azure SDK ( ServiceBusClient , BlobClient ), file I/O, or any API with Async methods. You expect latency from a dependency (tens–hundreds of ms). You need cancellation and timeouts (propagate HttpContext.RequestAborted ). When sync is acceptable The action is pure CPU and trivial (e.g., quick math, mapping, input validation) and returns immediately. There are no I/O waits and no benefit from freeing the thread. If it’s CPU-heavy (image processing, big JSON transforms), do not just make it async—offload to a background queue/worker or a separate compute service. Async won’t make CPU faster. Pitfalls to avoid Don’t block async : never use .Result / .Wait() on Tasks (deadlocks/thread-pool starvation). Async all the way down : if the controller is async, downstream calls should be too. Don’t fake async : returning Task.Run around synchronous I/O just burns threads. Keep concurrency bounded when fanning out to multiple I/O calls. Mini decision checklist Any I/O? → Use async (end-to-end). Pure CPU? Tiny (≤ a few ms) → Sync is fine. Heavy/variable → Offload to background worker; controller returns 202/Location or uses a queue. ASP.NET Core examples Async (I/O-bound) — recommended [ ApiController ] [ Route ( "orders" )] public class OrdersController : ControllerBase { private readonly OrdersDbContext _db ; private readonly HttpClient _http ; public OrdersController ( OrdersDbContext db , IHttpClientFactory

Diagrid has announced the release of Dapr 1.18, introducing what it calls Verifiable Execution, a new set of capabilities designed to bring cryptographic trust, provenance, and tamper-evident execution records to distributed applications and AI agents. By Craig Risi

Porn music videos have circulated on the fringes of the internet for years. Featuring everything from narrative-driven stories to hypnosis, they are proliferating across X as “bate fuel” for gooners.

For a long time, I thought programming wasn't for people like me. Not because I wasn't interested in technology. Not because I didn't enjoy solving problems. But because I kept hearing the same thing over and over again: "You need to be good at math to become a programmer." The more I heard it, the more I believed it. Whenever I saw developers building websites, apps, or cool projects, I assumed they were all math experts. 🧮 I imagined them solving complex equations all day while I struggled with basic math concepts. So before I even wrote my first line of code, I had already convinced myself that programming probably wasn't for me. And honestly, I think many beginners feel the same way. 🤔 The Fear Was Bigger Than The Reality When I finally started learning programming, I expected math to be my biggest challenge. It wasn't. My biggest challenge was understanding why things weren't working . I spent hours trying to figure out: Why isn't this button working? 🖱️ Why is this variable undefined? 🤨 Why did this code work yesterday but not today? 😅 Why did fixing one bug create three new bugs? 🐛 Very quickly, I realized that programming wasn't testing my math skills nearly as much as it was testing my patience and problem-solving ability. Most of the time, the challenge wasn't: "Can you solve this equation?" It was: "Can you figure out what's causing this problem?" 🧠 Logic Matters More Than Most People Think One of the biggest lessons I learned is that math and logic are not exactly the same thing. Yes, math uses logic. But you don't need to be a math genius to think logically. Programming is often about breaking a big problem into smaller, manageable pieces. For example: If a user clicks a button, what should happen next? If data is missing, what should the application do? If an error occurs, how should it be handled? That's logic. You're constantly thinking: "If this happens, then what should happen next?" And honestly, that's a huge part of software development. Some of

Everything is expensive. Treat yourself to one of these WIRED-tested and -approved Prime Day picks under $30.

TL;DR Welcome back to Dev Opportunity Radar. This is a weekly series where I share opportunities,...

I'm a professional developer, and AI has significantly increased my output—I'd say by maybe 30 or 40 percent. GitHub Copilot has significantly changed the way I work with code. However, I take pride in producing high-quality code quickly, which is why my rates are high. Using AI helps me increase my output while maintaining that level of quality. My take on AI is that it is not going to replace humans anytime soon. It is, however, putting significant pressure on the economy. Previously, setting up a functional, decent-quality project without much complexity took time—at least weeks. Now, such tasks are incredibly fast and easy; anyone can set them up in a few minutes using AI, even without any coding knowledge. Success in most fields, however, is not just a measure of how fast you can build; it's also about how well you can execute. Current AI can offer advice, but it still cannot execute for you. Market success requires sensitivity, context, and adaptability. AI can help significantly if you know how to ask the right questions. But the economy is made of people, not AI (yet). To earn money, someone must give you money because they value what you offer. The arrival of LLMs hasn't changed this. I feel the pressure. The corporation I work for is pushing for AI adoption, and the initial drawbacks and realizations are already becoming apparent. First point: Customers, at best, don't care about your AI. They don't want it. Second point: AI succeeds at making developers more productive but fails with higher complexity—though not for the reason people usually think. With the right prompt, GPT-5.4 can create fairly complex solutions, even more complex than many corporate business processes. The real reason is that, at a certain level, complexity lies not in the total amount of information in the system, but in how the human aspect of the business translates when you try to formalize higher-level context. This is something most developers don't see (or care about). For examp

Anthropic's critics argue it's rapidly accumulating power. The company says that's what responsible AI development looks like.

Amazon-owned MGM Studios’ decision to drop the OpenAI movie is just part of AI and film industries becoming increasingly intertwined. On Uncanny Valley, we take a look at where this is all headed.

The code runs. That's not the question. There's a failure mode with AI-generated code...

Picture this: You just spent weeks building an awesome new feature. It's fully tested and ready to go. But when you hit "Deploy," your entire application goes down for 5 minutes, and your users are met with a blank loading screen. Not a good look. In the world of DevOps and Cloud Infrastructure, how you roll out updates matters just as much as the code itself. AWS Elastic Beanstalk gives us 5 distinct deployment policies to handle this smoothly. Let's break them down from simplest to most robust so you know exactly which one to pick for your next project. 1. All at Once (The Speed Demon) This is the simplest method. Elastic Beanstalk takes all your existing servers, shuts them down, deploys the new code, and boots them back up simultaneously. [ Old App ] ─> SHUTDOWN ALL ─> DEPLOY NEW ─> [ New App ] The Good : It’s incredibly fast. The Bad : Your app goes completely offline during the deploy. When to use it : Only in development environments where downtime doesn't matter. Never use this in production! 2. Rolling (The Line Worker) Instead of updating everything at once, Beanstalk splits your servers into batches (e.g., 2 at a time). It takes the first batch offline, updates them, brings them back online, and then moves to the next batch. Batch 1: [ Updating... ] Batch 2: [ Running Old App ] Batch 1: [ Running New App ] Batch 2: [ Updating... ] The Good : No total downtime! Your app stays online. The Bad : While a batch is updating, your overall server capacity drops. Plus, users might experience a "mixed state" where refreshing switches them between the old and new version. When to use it : Production environments that can handle a temporary dip in bandwidth. 3. Rolling with Additional Batch (The Safe Substitution) To fix the capacity problem of standard rolling, this policy launches a brand new batch of instances first. Once those new servers are healthy and running the updated code, Beanstalk starts rolling the update through the old servers. [Old Servers: 100% Capa

I started my career in the late 2010s, and I have had a front-row seat to the growth of the industry that has given me everything: software engineering. Looking back over the last decade, I have mixed feelings about some of the calls I made. And I am seeing the same patterns play out again now. So for engineers who are confused about where this is headed and how to navigate it, here is how I think about it. Generalist SWEs were a product of cheap money The late 2010s, I saw an huge amount of startup funding, globally. Flipkart, Snapdeal, Jugnoo, and hundreds of others were scaling hard and one hiring pattern I saw was that: everyone wanted generalist software engineers. People who could easily get upto speed across the stack.- backend, frontend, infra, deployment and simply ship. Building software was expensive. Automation was still low. Kubernetes had just gone mainstream. Shipping still meant a surprising amount of manual work: SSH-ing into servers, copying artifacts around, running mvn builds by hand, debugging deployments straight in production, duct-taping infrastructure that today you would never touch. Companies fought over engineers who maximized feature throughput. Breadth was a premium, because every extra engineer increased the rate at which software got built. It helped because the money was also free and VCs rewarded growth over efficiency, and hiring software engineers in bulk was the easiest way to spend it. Pull up a resume from an engineer who started around that time and you will usually see the same shape: a long list of technologies and frameworks, broad and adaptable, but rarely deep in any one thing. There was no incentive to go deep. LLMs Changed The Dynamics LLMs did not kill software engineering. It compressed the cost of implementation. The work that got hit first was the work that was already standardized: CRUD apps; API integration and glue code; Framework-heavy backend work; Frontend scaffolding; Standard architectural patterns. What use

Throughout my career, transitioning between CTO roles and, more recently, focusing purely on distributed systems architecture and high-performance engineering, I've seen many architectural patterns rise and fall. But few have caused as much silent damage to company bottom lines as the premature adoption of microservices. Over the last decade, the industry bought into the idea that, in order to scale, you needed to split your system into dozens (or hundreds) of independent services. The practical result I find in most companies? The creation of the dreaded "Distributed Monolith." The Anatomy of Waste: Networks vs. Memory The hard truth we need to face with maturity is that microservices primarily solve problems of organizational scale (Conway's Law), not necessarily performance. If your engineering team isn't the size of Netflix or Uber, prematurely fragmenting your codebase is shooting yourself in the foot. Technically, what happens when we break down a monolith without the proper domain boundaries? We trade extremely fast and cheap local function calls (resolved in the processor's L1/L2 Cache) for slow and expensive network calls (TCP/IP). We start spending an absurd amount of computational time on constant JSON serialization and deserialization, and the AWS bill explodes with internal traffic costs (egress/ingress) between Availability Zones (AZs). You haven't scaled your application; you've merely added network latency and infrastructure complexity. The Return of the Modular Monolith True seniority in software engineering isn't about mastering the most complex architecture of the moment, but having the wisdom to know when not to use it. That's why the Modular Monolith has consolidated itself as the initial gold standard for new projects and restructurings. In a well-designed Modular Monolith (and languages with strong type systems and strict scope control, like Rust, shine absurdly well here), you maintain the logical separation of domains. Modules are independen

Un-0 is an image-generation system tool that shows for the first time how the company's technology can replicate conventional AI systems.