Article URL: https://www.continue.dev/ Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48580147 Points: 6 # Comments: 2
There was a phase when Google was the only goal I could see. I pushed myself through endless DSA...
https://www.midjourney.com/medical Video: https://x.com/midjourney/status/2067422898407837797
I built the desktop app that detects and redacts personal data (or PII) locally without sending any text to server. It supports rule-based filtering and AI model-based redaction (eg openai privacy filter). It's open source and free. Please check out the repo and https://pii-gui.vercel.app/
Here's what you need to do to get those pesky "write with Gemini" pop-ups to go away.
Introduction Enterprise orchestration is evolving. As systems grow more distributed and...
I'm considering applying to a phase I topic that is a pretty good fit for our tech and we should meet all basic requirements (U S. Based, small business, etc.), but I'm unsure if the juice is worth the squeeze. If anyone has any experience applying and going through the process I'd love to hear about it. Things I'm curious about... - how competitive is it? - how detailed should proposals be? - am I guaranteed to hear back? - how long after closing is a decision made? Thanks in advance.
Here is the detailed, deep-dive article tailored for DEV.to, written in a natural, highly technical style, completely free of icons, and designed to resonate with developers building agentic workflows. Building an Autonomous AI Experience Engine: Taming the Multi-Agent CLI Fleet As developers integrate more AI tools into their workflows, a new architectural problem has emerged: agent sprawl. We have incredible tools like Claude, Grok, and Codex running in our terminals, but they operate in silos. They lack shared memory, they step on each other's toes, and coordinating them feels like herding cats. To solve this, I built TechSphereX Studio — an open-source, polyglot AI Experience Engine. It is an autonomous multi-agent platform designed to intercept AI coding actions, orchestrate goal-driven work across a fleet of CLI agents, and mathematically learn from every session to improve future outcomes. Here is a deep dive into how I moved from isolated prompt engineering to a fully automated, self-learning agentic brain. Key Architectural Pillars 1. The 3-Layer Intercept Pipeline Before any CLI executes a command, TechSphereX intercepts the action to determine if the system already knows how to solve the problem based on past experiences. This happens across three highly optimized layers: Layer 1 (Read-only Filter): Evaluates the action in under 1ms. If the action is non-destructive (like a simple read), it skips heavy processing to save resources. Layer 2 (Semantic Search): Uses Qdrant running locally to perform vector embeddings and search the system's history for similar past tasks in under 50ms. Layer 3 (LLM Rerank): Passes the semantic results to a local Ollama instance to filter out contextually irrelevant data in under 500ms, ensuring the execution agent only receives high-fidelity context. 2. The Agentic Brain & Multi-Role Teams Instead of throwing a massive, complex prompt at a single coding agent, TechSphereX mimics a multi-role engineering team. The pipeline st
How we built a medicine-substitution engine that refuses to be clever There is a category of bugs where the code looks perfectly correct in code review, the unit tests pass, the demo on stage goes beautifully, and a real person dies. Medicine substitution is one of them. We built Agada — point a phone camera at a medicine strip in India, and the app tells you whether the drug is registered with the regulator, what it does, and whether a chemically identical version is available at the government pharmacy for a fraction of the price. The point is real: Indians spend about ₹65,000 crore a year out of pocket on branded medicines when the same molecule sits in a Jan Aushadhi Kendra at a tenth of the cost. The Dolo-650 story (₹32 vs ₹4.90 for the same paracetamol) is the most famous example, not the only one. The hard part isn't the camera, the OCR, or the price lookup. The hard part is the substitution engine — the piece of code that decides "is this salt the same as that salt." Get that wrong in the wrong direction, and the app cheerfully tells a user that their 500mg anti-epileptic can be replaced with a 200mg one, because the strings look similar. So we built a matcher that refuses to be clever. This post is about the parts we deleted. The starting problem A user scans "Crocin 500mg Tablet IP". A Jan Aushadhi record says "Paracetamol 500 mg". A naive matcher says: both contain "500", both contain "Paracetamol" (or "Acetaminophen", which is the same thing in a different country), ship it. The user buys the generic. Savings: ₹20. Everyone wins. Now consider: Crocin 650 Advance vs Dolo 650 — same molecule, same dose, different brands. Fine. Augmentin 625 vs Augmentin 375 — same two salts, different ratio. The combo tolerance might let it through, but the clinical implication is real. Levofloxacin 500 vs Ofloxacin 400 — both fluoroquinolones, both "similar," but levofloxacin is the levo-isomer of ofloxacin and is dosed at roughly half. A "fuzzy" match here could halve so
A couple of weeks ago I published a post with a tidy rule in it. When you add capability to an AI coding agent, reach for the lightest option first: a procedure file before a CLI, a CLI before a heavier integration, and only build the heavy machinery once you've proven you'll reuse it. My whole case rested on context cost. The heavy options load a lot of definitions up front and carry them every turn, so starting light keeps the window clean. I still think the front half is right. But it isn't the rule I'd write now, because a reader took it apart in the comments and handed it back as something better. This post is about that exchange, because the rewrite was sharper than my original, and pretending I arrived at it alone would be both a lie and the less interesting story. The hole, found in one comment The first comment didn't argue with the rule. It walked straight to the blind spot. The moment a tool touches anything external or stateful, lightest-first reverses on you: a lightweight call that fails silently halfway through is harder to debug than a heavier tool that surfaces the failure cleanly. Pay the complexity up front. My first instinct was to defend, and I did, a little. I said we were measuring different things, that I'd optimized for context cost while they were optimizing for failure observability, both real, different axes. I held the line by pointing out you can wrap a lightweight call to fail loudly, so the cheap path stays open. That was true, and it was beside their point, and they didn't let me hide behind it. The question that moved the rule They asked one question that did more work than my entire post: what's your actual trigger for paying the complexity up front, the type of state, or the class of error? Sitting with that is where my own rule changed under me. The honest answer is state type, and the moment I said it out loud, context cost stopped being what the rule was about. What makes a failure expensive isn't the error. It's whether the op