GitHub热门项目 | The Secure CommsOS™ for mission-critical operations | Stars: 45,503 | 15 stars today | 语言: TypeScript
GitHub热门项目 | open-source coding agent | Stars: 33,769 | 38 stars today | 语言: TypeScript
GitHub热门项目 | Penpot: The open-source design tool for design and code collaboration | Stars: 49,911 | 94 stars today | 语言: Clojure
Arriving six years after Google’s last smart speaker, the new HomePod-style device was redesigned to play host to Gemini’s chatbot.
The new Thread Networks Diagnostics Tools app from Thread Group, the standards body behind the wireless IoT protocol, officially launches in beta today. The app, which arrives on iOS and has been available on Android in alpha for a few weeks, is the first dedicated tool to provide visibility into your Thread-based smart home network. […]
Jackery is jumping on the fridge-battery trend with what it says is the "world's slimmest." FridgeGuard also looks nice; a break from power stations that tend to look more at home at a job site than the kitchen or living room. Measuring just 2.63 inches (67mm) thick, the Jackery FridgeGuard power station is meant to […]
The smart home networking protocol Thread is adding a new way to onboard devices without a Thread border router. The feature, called Thread Direct, is designed to let users set up Thread-powered devices - such as smart plugs and smart locks - using only a phone or mobile device equipped with a Thread radio. Current […]
After teasing it on X last week, GuliKit announced a new version of its TV Docking Station today that now supports the Switch 2 as well as previous versions of the console, including the original Switch and OLED model. The new version of the dock carries forward a similar design as the original and looks […]
Google's first new smart speaker in six years starts shipping on June 29th, narrowly missing its promised spring launch window. Preorders for the Google Home Speaker open today, June 17th. Nothing has changed hardware-wise in the nine months since the $99 speaker was announced. It has the same slightly squished round design, with touch-capacitive buttons […]
LinkedIn is trying to make it easier for users to prove their proficiency with apps that are relevant to their current or future jobs. A new "connected apps" feature is launching today that allows users to link a selection of supported apps to their LinkedIn profile, with each app providing a "simple, specific description of […]
Most developers run git pull dozens of times a week without thinking about it. And most of the time, it works. Then one day you open a PR and the reviewer says "can you clean up the merge commits?" You look at your branch and see three "Merge branch 'main' into feature/login" commits scattered through history. The feature itself is 5 commits. The log is a mess. That mess comes from one decision: using git pull instead of git pull --rebase . Here's what's actually happening, and why the rebase variant produces cleaner history for teams. The setup: diverged history You're working on feature/login . You commit two changes locally ( X , Y ). Meanwhile, your teammate pushes two commits to main ( C , D ). Your branch and main have now diverged . Neither is a strict superset of the other. Git needs to reconcile them when you pull. Shared history: A → B Your local: A → B → X → Y (you added X, Y) Remote main: A → B → C → D (teammate added C, D) Git has two strategies for this reconciliation. Strategy 1: git pull (merge) A plain git pull creates a merge commit that joins your local history with the remote. Your commits and the remote's commits both appear in the log, connected by a merge node. The git log reads: M Merge branch 'main' into feature/login D fix: timeout on slow connections Y feat: client-side validation C chore: upgrade eslint X feat: login form B (shared) A (shared) This is honest history — it records exactly what happened: parallel development that was joined at a specific point. But it's also noisy history — the merge commit has no meaningful changes, and the log interleaves commits that weren't conceptually related. Strategy 2: git pull --rebase With --rebase , Git takes a different approach. It: Temporarily sets aside your local commits ( X , Y ) Fast-forwards your branch to the tip of the remote ( D ) Replays your commits on top, one by one, creating new commits ( X' , Y' ) The git log reads: Y' feat: client-side validation X' feat: login form D fix: timeo
Lars Faye's Agentic Coding Is a Trap — published Sunday, May 3, picked up on Hacker News at 398 points and 316 comments — is the best single compendium of the cognitive-debt evidence base anyone has put together in 2026. It catalogues the studies. It names the trade-offs. It lands on a personal-discipline conclusion. The receipts are now collected; the careful reader will have spent the weekend nodding through them. Buried in Faye's second paragraph, almost in passing, is the line that does the actual analytical work. Faye describes the agentic workflow as a process in which "someone defines the project's requirements ... generates a plan, and then pulls the slot machine lever over and over, iterating and reiterating with often multiple agent instances until it's done." The link goes to a March post by Quentin Rousseau, CTO and co-founder of Rootly, titled One More Prompt: The Dopamine Trap of Agentic Coding. The metaphor isn't Faye's. Rousseau got there first, in clinical language: the workflow runs on "variable ratio reinforcement — the same psychological mechanism that makes slot machines the most addictive form of gambling" . That is the framing the rest of Faye's piece is downstream of, and it is the framing this article is about. What the receipts add up to Faye's catalogue, briefly. Anthropic's own research note on internal use names what it calls the "paradox of supervision" : effective use of Claude requires the very skills that sustained Claude use atrophies. MIT Media Lab's Your Brain on ChatGPT measured the cognitive impact and labelled it cognitive debt . A Microsoft study covered by 404 Media reached parallel findings for knowledge workers more broadly. A separate Anthropic study on coding skills reported a 47% drop-off in debugging skills among engineers leaning heavily on AI-assisted workflows. Sandor Nyako, the LinkedIn engineering director who oversees fifty engineers, has reportedly asked his team not to use these tools for "tasks that require cri
If you build with AI, three stories this week rhyme into one theme: the hype is colliding with the bill. Here's the builder's read on each — and what I'd actually do about it. 1. Most of a new TikTok feed is now AI slop A Kapwing study reported by Tubefilter hand-checked 10,742 videos across 20 categories and found that 59% of what a brand-new TikTok account sees is AI-generated . Kids content was the worst — 57% slop, with the #CartoonKids tag hitting 97% — and TikTok serves roughly 3x more slop than YouTube. Why builders should care: generation is now free and infinite, so volume is worthless as a moat. The scarce thing is taste and verification. If your product or content can be faked by a feed of bots, it will be. Polish, point of view, and "a human clearly did this" are the new differentiators. 2. Databricks grew 80% — but agents are eating its margins Per CNBC , Databricks' annualized revenue jumped about 80% to ~$6.9B, and its AI products now bring in $1.7B (up from $1.4B). The catch: the CEO says gross margin "will go lower" as customers run more agents. Why builders should care: this is the quiet tax of agentic software. An agent that loops, retries, and calls tools burns far more tokens than a single API call. If you're shipping agents, budget for inference at scale , not the sticker price on the pricing page. Profitability now lives in prompt efficiency, caching, and knowing when not to call the model. 3. 60% of US consumers are turned off by "AI" branding A WordPress VIP survey of 2,000 people, covered by TechCrunch , found that 60% reject "AI" in brand messaging , while 86% still want to check the original sources behind a claim. Why builders should care: "Now with AI!" is starting to read like a warning label. Sell the outcome, not the technology — "2x faster," "fewer errors," "your data stays private" — and cite where your results come from. Trust is becoming a feature you ship, not a slogan you bolt on. The takeaway Feeds are flooded, agents are cost
The first two articles in this series each showed one technique. Implementation notes #001 was a dynamic dropdown — a form field that fills itself from an API. Implementation notes #002 was a dynamic credential — an API key that arrives from the form and threads through to the HTTP nodes. This article is the capstone. It walks through all-services-demo , the example workflow that ships with n8n-nodes-ldxhub , where those two techniques combine with a Switch node to host five different AI document-processing services inside one workflow — structured extraction, translation refinement, OCR, PDF conversion, and text extraction. The screenshots and the workflow JSON below come from the n8n-nodes-ldxhub package. The patterns themselves are generic — they work for any set of services you want to consolidate into a single template. This is not a "follow these steps" article. It's a parts catalog. No two readers are solving the same problem, and templates rarely fit anyone's situation as-is. Take what fits. Drop the rest. You don't need to understand all 46 nodes to reuse the patterns. The shape The workflow has 46 nodes — large enough to look intimidating in the editor, but structurally it's just five repeated paths plus a small routing section. The entry section is two nodes: On form submission — the trigger. Asks the user which service they want and collects an API key. Route by Service — a Switch node with five outputs, one per service. Everything to the right of the Switch is service-specific. Five paths fan out: StructFlow, RefineLoop, RenderOCR, CastDoc, ExtractDoc. Each path ends in two Form Ending nodes — one for success (auto-downloads the result), one for error. That's the spine: form → switch → service path → ending. The complexity is pushed into the service paths. The spine: routing by static comparison The Switch node ("Route by Service") uses Rules mode. Each rule reads the same expression from the form — {{ $json.service }} — and compares it to a static serv
Upgrades include 360-degree audio and deeper integration with Google's Gemini.
You change one value in a JSON config, run git diff , and get a wall of red and green — because a formatter reflowed the file, or the serializer reordered the keys, or the indentation shifted by two spaces. The one thing you actually changed is buried in there somewhere. Good luck finding it in review. The problem is that git diff and diff work on lines . JSON isn't lines — it's a tree. So I built jdelta : it compares the data , ignores key order and whitespace entirely, and tells you exactly which values changed, addressed by path. Zero dependencies, no network. What it looks like $ jdelta config.before.json config.after.json Added (1) + features.darkMode true Changed (2) ~ auth.required true → false ~ server.port 8080 → 3000 +1 -0 ~2 auth.required flipped to false and you can see it instantly — no scrolling past 200 lines of reindented braces. Why not git diff / diff ? Because they diff text. Run a formatter, sort your keys, change two spaces of indent, and a line differ lights up the whole file while reporting zero semantic change. jdelta parses both sides and walks the trees: Object keys show as user.profile.age ; array elements as items[2].price . Odd keys fall back to quoted brackets ( ["order-id"] ). A key on only one side is added / removed ; a key on both with a different value is changed . A type change ( number → string , object → array ) is one changed entry tagged with the kinds — not a confusing add + remove. Reordered keys and whitespace produce nothing , because they aren't data changes. Great for reviewing config changes, API-response snapshots, tsconfig / settings.json , lockfile-adjacent files, and test fixtures. In scripts and CI jdelta a.json b.json --json # machine-readable: {added, removed, changed, summary} jdelta a.json b.json --quiet # just the +a -r ~c line jdelta a.json b.json --exit-code # exit 1 if they differ — gate a pipeline on it Install npx jdelta a.json b.json # Node build (npm) pip install jdelta # Python build — same behavior Tw
submitted by /u/DataBaeBee [link] [留言]