https://archive.ph/z24oE

I built a simple mobile World Cup Bingo game and would love some feedback. The idea is simple: - Create your own World Cup bingo card - Follow the matches during the tournament - Earn points as events happen - Compete against friends - Check the final leaderboard when the tournament ends There's a free version and an optional Pro upgrade (R$4.90) that removes ads, unlocks exclusive themes, allows unlimited cards and gives up to 3 free swaps per game. I built it mainly because I wanted something more casual and social than fantasy football apps. Would love to hear what football fans think: https://bingo-da-copa.vercel.app/ submitted by /u/No_Net_1962 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/btb331 [link] [留言]

Two monitoring approaches answer two different questions. Synthetic monitoring answers "would the checkout flow work right now if someone tried it?" Real user monitoring answers "what did the checkout flow actually do for the 4,000 people who tried it today?" The first is a robot testing a path on a schedule; the second is instrumentation recording reality as it happens. Teams reach for one when they need the other, then conclude monitoring "doesn't work." The fix is understanding what each is structurally good at — and where each is blind. Synthetic monitoring: proactive, scripted, continuous Synthetic monitoring runs scripted checks against your application from the outside, on a fixed schedule. An HTTP check hits an endpoint and asserts on the response; a browser check drives a headless Chromium through a journey — log in, add to cart, pay — and asserts on what the user would see. The defining property is that it does not need real traffic. The check runs every 30 seconds whether or not anyone is using the app, from datacenters you choose, testing exactly the journeys you scripted. When a deploy breaks checkout at 3 AM, a synthetic check catches it at 3 AM — not at 9 AM when the first customer wakes up. Real user monitoring: passive, real, traffic-dependent RUM instruments your actual frontend with a JavaScript snippet that reports back what real visitors experience: page load times, Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS), JavaScript errors, the device and network and geography of every session. It is a recording of reality with perfect fidelity — these are real people, real conditions, real outcomes. The cost of that fidelity is that RUM is entirely traffic-dependent and entirely retrospective. It can only report on paths real users took, after they took them. A page nobody visited generates no RUM data. A broken deploy at 3 AM is invisible to RUM until a real user hits it and the error is recorded. The core difference, side by side Dimension Synthetic monitoring Real

Most synthetic monitoring setups fail in one of a few predictable ways. They monitor everything and alert on nothing useful. They assert on status code 200 and miss the empty response body. They run flaky browser checks that page someone at 2 AM for a problem that fixed itself by 2:01. Or they go stale — the checkout flow changed three months ago and the check has been failing-then-being-ignored ever since. These are not exotic failures. They are the default outcome of setting up synthetic monitoring without a discipline. Here is the discipline. 1. Monitor the journeys that cost money, not everything Every browser check costs compute and, more importantly, costs maintenance. A check on a path that does not matter is worse than no check — it generates noise that trains your team to ignore alerts. Rank your journeys by cost of silent failure and monitor the top of the list: Authentication — login, signup. The gate to everything else. The revenue path — checkout, upgrade, add payment method. The core product action — the one thing your product exists to do. Critical third-party handoffs — OAuth redirects, payment iframes, SSO. Leave static pages, read-only endpoints, and admin screens to cheaper uptime and API checks . A good rule: if a path breaking would not generate a support ticket or lose revenue, it does not need a browser check. 2. Assert on what the user sees, not just the status code The entire point of synthetic monitoring is catching the failure that a 200 OK hides. So your assertions have to go past the status code. // Weak: passes even when the page renders an error await page . goto ( " https://shop.example.com/checkout " ); expect ( page . url ()). toContain ( " /checkout " ); // Strong: asserts the user can actually complete the action await page . getByRole ( " button " , { name : " Pay now " }). click (); await expect ( page . getByText ( " Order confirmed " )). toBeVisible ({ timeout : 10000 , }); await expect ( page . getByTestId ( " order-number "

You already have Playwright tests. They run in CI on every pull request, they assert that login works and checkout completes, and then they stop — because CI only runs them against a branch, at merge time. The moment the code is in production, those tests go silent. A third-party script breaks checkout at 3 AM and your perfectly good test suite says nothing, because nothing triggered it. Playwright monitoring closes that gap: you take the same browser tests and run them on a schedule against production, turning your end-to-end suite into a synthetic monitoring system that watches real user journeys continuously. Prerequisites Node.js 18+ and an existing project ( npm install -D @playwright/test , then npx playwright install chromium ). A deployed production (or staging) URL to run checks against. A dedicated synthetic test account — never a real customer's credentials. A secret store for that account's credentials (GitHub Actions secrets, or your platform's equivalent). Never hard-code them. Step 1 — Write a check that asserts on what the user sees A monitor-grade check is not "did the page load." It is "could a user complete the thing they came to do." Assert on the outcome, with a generous timeout for real-world latency: import { test , expect } from " @playwright/test " ; test ( " checkout reaches confirmation " , async ({ page }) => { await page . goto ( " https://shop.example.com " ); await page . getByRole ( " button " , { name : " Add to cart " }). click (); await page . getByRole ( " link " , { name : " Checkout " }). click (); await page . getByLabel ( " Email " ). fill ( process . env . SYNTHETIC_EMAIL ! ); await page . getByLabel ( " Card number " ). fill ( " 4242424242424242 " ); await page . getByRole ( " button " , { name : " Pay now " }). click (); // The assertion a 200 OK can never make for you: await expect ( page . getByText ( " Order confirmed " )). toBeVisible ({ timeout : 15000 , }); }); Credentials come from process.env , not the source. The t

Synthetic monitoring tools all promise the same thing — catch the broken checkout before your users do — and then bill you in seven different ways for it. The hard part of choosing one is not the feature checklist; it is predicting what you will actually pay when a single browser check running every 30 seconds from three regions turns into 259,200 runs a month. We compared seven synthetic monitoring tools on what separates them in practice: browser engine and fidelity, how you author checks (code, recorder, or AI), location coverage, alerting and on-call, failure forensics, and — the one that surprises teams — the pricing model. Every price below was verified against official pricing pages in June 2026. For the concepts behind these tools, start with what synthetic monitoring is . TL;DR comparison Tool Best for Browser engine Authoring Pricing model Browser price Checkly Code-first teams running Playwright suites Chromium (+ suite) Code (TypeScript) Per-run, 3 separate bills ~$4–6.50 / 1k Datadog Enterprises that want APM correlation Chrome/FF/Edge Recorder + code Per-run × freq × locations ~$12–18 / 1k Grafana Cloud / k6 OSS-leaning teams, best free tier Chromium (k6) Code (k6) + convert Per-execution ~$50 / 10k Better Stack Bundled monitoring + on-call Chromium Code + codegen paste Per-minute + per-seat ~$1 / 100 PW-min New Relic Broad type matrix + compliance Selenium (Chrome/FF) No-code step + code Per-check + seats + ingest ~$50 / 10k Sematext Predictable per-monitor pricing Chromium Code Per-monitor / month ~$7 / browser monitor Site24x7 No-code recorder + many locations Chrome/FF Recorder Pooled "advanced checks" ~$10 / 10k runs How we evaluated Real synthetic monitoring is more than a scheduled ping, so we scored each tool on six dimensions. Browser fidelity : does it run a modern engine (Playwright/Chromium) or older Selenium, and how faithfully does it reproduce a real user? Authoring mode : can you write checks as code, record them point-and-click, or gen

If you want to reproduce my current local Hermes Agent + Qwen3.6-27B setup, this is the shape I would start from. Target One local coding agent. One 24GB GPU. Long context. Tools enabled. Thinking enabled. No child agents fighting the main request. The goal is not peak tok/s on a short prompt. The goal is: can the same agent session keep working after hours of tool calls without losing prefix locality, timing out during prefill, or getting wrecked by auxiliary requests? Model This setup is intentionally text-only. I am not serving the multimodal GGUF variant here. The working configuration uses groxaxo/Qwen3.6-27B-GPTQ-Pro-4bit through vLLM with --language-model-only . That choice matters. On a 24GB RTX 3090, the text-only GPTQ-Marlin path gave the best balance I found between long context, prefix caching, stable agent behavior and usable decode speed. Vision should be handled by a separate service/model if needed. vLLM The useful shape: CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES = 0 vllm serve groxaxo/Qwen3.6-27B-GPTQ-Pro-4Bit \ --served-model-name qwen3.6-27b-gptq-pro-4bit \ --dtype float16 \ --quantization gptq_marlin \ --tensor-parallel-size 1 \ --max-model-len 131072 \ --max-num-seqs 1 \ --kv-cache-dtype fp8_e5m2 \ --enable-prefix-caching \ --reasoning-parser qwen3 \ --enable-auto-tool-choice \ --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder \ --gpu-memory-utilization 0.95 \ --max-cudagraph-capture-size 32 \ --language-model-only I used a recent vLLM nightly, not an old stable image ( 0.20.1rc1.dev16+g7a1eb8ac2 ). The two flags people will want to argue about: --max-num-seqs 1 --max-model-len 131072 I use max_num_seqs=1 deliberately. With an agent, parallelism is not free. Title generation, context compression, retries, browser checks, tool calls and side jobs can all steal KV/cache locality from the main request. On one 24GB GPU I prefer one useful request over two requests sabotaging each other. 131k context is tight, but workable here. If your service OOMs, reduce context before adding MTP or enf

If you've ever heard the phrase "it works on my machine", you already understand the exact problem Docker was built to solve. Before Docker existed, deploying software was painful. Developers would spend hours — sometimes days — configuring servers, managing dependencies, and debugging environment-specific issues. Docker changed all of that by packaging applications and their dependencies into lightweight, portable units called containers. What Exactly Is a Container? Think of a container like a shipping container in the real world. No matter what's inside — electronics, furniture, food — it fits on any ship, truck, or train. In software, a Docker container holds your application code, runtime, libraries, and configuration, all bundled together so it runs identically anywhere: your laptop, a staging server, or a cloud provider. This is fundamentally different from virtual machines (VMs). While VMs emulate an entire operating system — making them heavy and slow to start — containers share the host OS kernel and start in milliseconds. They use far less memory and disk space, making them ideal for modern microservices architectures. The Core Docker Concepts You Need to Know Image : A read-only template used to create containers. Think of it as a recipe. You define it in a Dockerfile, and Docker builds it into an image. Container : A running instance of an image. You can run multiple containers from the same image simultaneously. Dockerfile : A plain text file with instructions for building a Docker image. Every command in the file adds a new layer to the image. Docker Hub : A cloud registry where you can find and share Docker images. It's like GitHub, but for container images. Docker Compose : A tool for defining and running multi-container applications using a YAML file. Your First Docker Commands Getting started with Docker is simpler than most developers expect. After installing Docker Desktop on your machine, you can run your first container with a single command:

Relativity Space, the rocket company led by former Google executive Eric Schmidt, was picked to launch NASA's Aeolus payload to Mars in 2028, as reported earlier by TechCrunch. Under a new public-private partnership, Relativity Space will provide the "spacecraft, rocket, and cruise operations" to fly Aeolus to Mars, where the payload will "provide the first […]

I was debugging an internal project management application built with SvelteKit and a Rust API. Locally, navigation felt almost instant. On the VPS, opening the Tickets, Timeline, and OpenSpec docs pages felt noticeably slower. Clicking a ticket also took too long before the preview panel became useful. My first assumption was infrastructure: Maybe the VPS was underpowered. Maybe PostgreSQL queries were slow. Maybe the reverse proxy added latency. Maybe SvelteKit SSR was taking too long. The measurements pointed somewhere else. The Baseline I started with the feature list endpoint used by both Tickets and Timeline. For a project with 52 tickets: Metric Result API response time ~4 ms Response size 353,956 bytes Number of tickets 52 The API was not slow. But it was returning around 354 KB for a list of only 52 items. The SvelteKit route payload showed the same pattern: Route Data payload Tickets 349,857 bytes Timeline 354,731 bytes This explained why local testing was misleading. On localhost, transferring and parsing a few hundred kilobytes is easy to miss. Once the app runs behind a VPS, reverse proxy, TLS, and a real network connection, the payload becomes much more visible. What Was Inside the Payload? I broke down the feature response by field. The descriptions alone accounted for: 296,177 bytes That was more than 80% of the complete response. The list endpoint was returning something similar to this for every ticket: interface FeatureListItem { id : string ; title : string ; status : string ; priority : string ; storyPoints : number | null ; dueDate : string | null ; description : string | null ; checkoutCommand : string | null ; openSpecCommand : string | null ; } The problem was not that these fields were useless. They were useful on the ticket detail panel. They were not useful when rendering the initial list. Timeline was even more wasteful. It used ticket status, dates, dependencies, and assignees, but still downloaded every full Markdown description. The D