Turn your analytics into beautiful monthly email reports Discussion | Link

A new report warns that Miami, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Dallas, and Houston could be particularly hot places to play during the 2026 World Cup.

In recent months hackers have attempted to extort money from porn stars with big followings, in some cases filling their feeds with pro-MAGA and crypto content.

Vos tests API passent en local. Le vrai enjeu est de les exécuter automatiquement à chaque pull request, fusion et build nocturne, sans clic manuel. Pour cela, vous avez besoin d’un exécuteur CLI : il lance vos tests en mode headless, retourne un code de sortie exploitable par la CI et génère un rapport lisible par votre pipeline. Essayez Apidog aujourd'hui Deux outils reviennent souvent pour ce cas d’usage : le CLI Bruno et le CLI Apidog . Les deux exécutent des tests API depuis GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Jenkins ou tout environnement Node.js. Les deux font échouer la build lorsqu’un test échoue. La différence principale se situe avant l’exécution : où vivent les tests, comment ils sont créés et comment la CI y accède. Cet article compare les deux outils au niveau commande, avec des exemples directement intégrables dans un pipeline. En bref CLI Bruno ( @usebruno/cli , binaire bru ) exécute des fichiers .bru présents dans votre dépôt Git. Il est open source, fonctionne hors ligne et ne nécessite ni compte ni jeton. CLI Apidog ( apidog-cli , binaire apidog ) exécute des scénarios de test créés visuellement dans Apidog, récupérés par ID avec un jeton d’accès. Les deux génèrent des rapports JUnit, JSON et HTML. Les deux retournent un code non nul en cas d’échec, ce qui permet à la CI de bloquer une fusion ou un déploiement. Choisissez Bruno si vous voulez des tests versionnés comme du code, dans le dépôt. Choisissez Apidog si vous voulez créer, chaîner et exécuter des scénarios visuels sans maintenir manuellement des fichiers de test. Le problème : des tests qui existent mais ne tournent pas Un test API lancé manuellement finit souvent par devenir obsolète. Il a été écrit, validé une fois, puis oublié pendant que l’API évoluait. La solution n’est pas seulement d’ajouter plus de tests. Il faut les exécuter automatiquement à chaque changement avec un signal clair : succès ou échec ; rapport exploitable ; code de sortie lisible par la CI. Un exécuteur CLI doit donc rempli

As AI systems become more powerful, the conversation is shifting. The biggest challenge is no longer whether AI can write code, solve problems, or accelerate scientific discovery. The real question is: How do we safely govern systems that may eventually become more capable than the institutions built to regulate them? This is where my research on Universal Biometric Identification (UBID) and Universal Digital Credits (UDC) becomes interesting. The Problem Modern AI systems operate in a world where identity is increasingly difficult to verify. A powerful AI model can be accessed through: Anonymous accounts Disposable email addresses VPNs Automated bot networks Fake identities As AI capabilities increase, this creates a growing governance challenge. If a future AI system could discover software vulnerabilities, design advanced technologies, or perform high-impact research, how would organizations determine who should have access? Today, they largely cannot. The internet was designed around connectivity, not verified human identity. What Is UBID? In my paper, I propose Universal Biometric Identification (UBID), a framework where every person receives a globally unique identity based on multiple biometric factors such as: Fingerprints Facial recognition Iris patterns Voice recognition Behavioral characteristics These biometric signals are combined with cryptographic security and distributed ledger technologies to create a secure digital identity framework. The goal is not surveillance. The goal is to create a trusted proof-of-personhood system. A system capable of answering a simple question: Is this a real, verified human? What Is UDC? Universal Digital Credits (UDC) extend this identity layer into a global transaction framework. Instead of relying entirely on traditional banking systems, transactions can be linked directly to verified digital identities. This creates: Reduced fraud Better accountability Financial inclusion Transparent transaction records Global access

token-warden is a thrifty office manager for your AI assistants. It does four things: Keeps the receipts. Every time the AI finishes a task, it quietly notes how much that cost — like saving every taxi receipt in a drawer. Notices waste. When a task costs far more than usual, it asks a cheap junior AI: "Why was that so expensive? What habit would've made it cheaper?" — and writes down a suggested habit, e.g. "search for the right file before opening files at random." Tests the habit for real — this is the important part. It doesn't just trust the suggestion. It keeps a fixed set of practice tasks (like a standardized test that never changes), and runs them twice: once with the new habit, once without. Now it has hard numbers on whether the habit actually saved money, instead of a hunch. Keeps only what pays off. A habit takes up room in the AI's memory, and that room itself costs a little every single time. So the rule is strict: a habit must save at least twice what it costs to keep, or it's thrown out. Winners get written into the AI's permanent memory so it uses them automatically forever after; losers are discarded (but remembered as "tried it, didn't work" so the same bad idea won't come back). vukkt / token-warden Claude Code plugin that makes coding agents measurably cheaper over time: collect token costs, distill candidate rules, benchmark them on a frozen golden suite, and keep only rules that earn their context rent. token-warden A Claude Code plugin that makes coding agents measurably cheaper over time. Most "agent memory" accumulates advice nobody ever verifies. token-warden treats agent memory as an engineering problem: every rule that wants space in an agent's context must prove, on a fixed benchmark, that it saves more tokens than it costs — or it gets evicted. The result is a per-agent memory file containing only rules with measured positive return. Measured, not vibes — every rule carries a token delta from real benchmark runs Self-funding — rules m

We Built ARK Because Our Customer Support Was Spread Across 4 Apps The Problem A few months ago, our small team was drowning. Not in customers (well, a little) — but in tabs. WhatsApp open in one window. Instagram DMs in another. A live chat widget buried in a third. Email in a fourth. Every time a customer reached out, someone had to figure out: which channel did this come from, has anyone replied already, and what was the context of the last conversation? The result was predictable: slower replies, repeated questions to customers, and a support workflow that didn't scale past a handful of conversations a day. Why Existing Tools Didn't Fit We looked at the usual suspects — Intercom, Zendesk, Front. They're solid products, but they're built for large support teams with big budgets and dedicated admins. We needed something simpler: a single inbox, AI doing the repetitive work, and a setup that doesn't take weeks to configure. What We Built ARK pulls every customer conversation — WhatsApp, Instagram, Messenger, email, live chat — into one inbox. On top of that, AI handles three things: Drafting replies based on conversation history and context Summarizing long threads so anyone on the team can jump in without reading 40 messages Routing conversations to the right person automatically based on topic or channel The goal wasn't to replace human support — it was to remove the busywork so the team can focus on actually helping people. Where We Are Now ARK is live with a 7-day free trial (auto-renews after that). We're still early, and we're shaping the roadmap based on real feedback from teams managing support across multiple channels. If you're dealing with the same multichannel chaos we were, I'd love to hear how you're handling it — and what's still missing from the tools you've tried. 🔗 https://byark.ai/

Do you really need a full framework to handle a few API endpoints or webhooks? Laravel and Symfony are excellent tools — for large applications. But when you're building a focused microservice, a webhook receiver, or a lightweight REST API, bootstrapping a full-stack framework means carrying hundreds of files, a massive autoloader, and a dependency tree you'll never fully use. That's the problem webrium/core was built to solve: a minimalist, zero-dependency PHP micro-framework written entirely from scratch, designed to stay out of your way. Installation composer require webrium/core That's it. No configuration files to publish, no service providers to register. The Entry Point Every webrium application starts with the same three lines: <?php require_once __DIR__ . '/vendor/autoload.php' ; use Webrium\App ; use Webrium\Route ; App :: initialize ( __DIR__ ); // ... your routes here App :: run (); App::initialize() sets the root path and loads the global helper functions. App::run() initializes error handling and dispatches the current request through the router. Routing The router supports all standard HTTP methods. Route handlers can be closures, a Controller@method string, or an [Controller::class, 'method'] array. Basic routes: Route :: get ( '/status' , fn () => [ 'status' => 'alive' ]); Route :: post ( '/items' , fn () => [ 'created' => true ]); Route :: put ( '/items/{id}' , fn ( $id ) => [ 'updated' => $id ]); Route :: patch ( '/items/{id}' , fn ( $id ) => [ 'patched' => $id ]); Route :: delete ( '/items/{id}' , fn ( $id ) => [ 'deleted' => $id ]); Route handlers return an array — the framework automatically encodes it as JSON and sends the correct Content-Type header. Dynamic parameters: Route :: get ( '/users/{id}/posts/{postId}' , function ( $id , $postId ) { return [ 'user_id' => $id , 'post_id' => $postId , ]; }); Named routes: Route :: get ( '/users/{id}' , fn ( $id ) => [ 'id' => $id ]) -> name ( 'users.show' ); // Generate the URL elsewhere: $url = rout

Hey developers! I have been working on a side project to help people discover the best AI tools in one place. It is a curated directory designed to be clean, fast, and user-friendly. You can check it out live here: GetNexusAI Tech Stack Used: Next.js / React Tailwind CSS Vercel for hosting Why I Built This: Finding the right AI tool among thousands of options can be overwhelming. I wanted to create a simple dashboard where users can easily filter and find exactly what they need without the clutter. I Need Your Help! Since I just launched it, I would love to get your honest feedback: How is the loading speed and UI/UX? What features should I add next (e.g., user reviews, bookmarking tools)? If you have built an AI tool, let me know so I can feature it! Check the website here: https://getnexusai.tech

Check this out: i run four monetization channels side by side. Sponsored posts, display ads, YouTube ad revenue, and affiliate links. After eighteen months of tracking every dollar in a spreadsheet I built myself, I can tell you with brutal honesty: affiliate income is the only one that scales without me having to constantly produce more content or chase the next brand deal. But the math only works if you pick the right program. Most affiliates I know are promoting garbage with terrible retention, and they have no idea they're burning their audience's trust for a $9 one-time payout. Let me walk you through how I evaluate affiliate programs, what I've learned from running real funnels, and why the AI API category has quietly become the most lucrative vertical for tech creators in 2026. My Monetization Stack After 18 Months of Testing Here's a snapshot of my monthly revenue from a tech newsletter with around 34,000 subscribers and a YouTube channel sitting at 88,000 subscribers: Sponsored posts: $2,100 per placement, but I can only land maybe 2-3 per month without annoying my list Display ads: $1,800 per month from Mediavine, but this number barely moves regardless of how hard I work YouTube ad revenue: $2,400 per month, capped by watch time and RPMs Affiliate income: $6,800 per month, and it grows every single month even when I publish nothing That last number is what got my attention. Affiliate income compounds. When I published a tutorial in February recommending a tool, that single piece of content still earned me $340 in May because users stayed subscribed. No other channel behaves like that. No other channel lets a piece of content from four months ago keep paying you. But here's the catch that took me a while to figure out: not all affiliate programs are built the same way. And the difference between a good program and a bad one can be 10x in lifetime earnings per referred user. # # How I Score an Affiliate Program (The Growth Hacker Scorecard) Before I promote

Simple Intro Your company gets one big cloud bill. It says $30,000. But which team spent it? Which app? Nobody knows. Kubernetes makes this worse because 100 small apps share the same computers. It’s like 10 families sharing one electricity bill. Let’s fix this in 5 easy steps Step 1: Put Nametags on Everything In Kubernetes, you can add "labels" to your apps. Example: team=sales , app=website , owner=pooja If you don’t add name tags, you can never track who spent what. It’s the most important step. Step 2: Check the Big Cost - Computers 70% of your bill is for CPU and RAM. That’s the “brain” and “memory” your apps use. The problem: Most people book a big computer but only use 20% of it. You pay for 100%, use 20%. You waste 80% money. Easy fix: Every month, check “How much did I book vs How much did I use?” Then book smaller next time. Step 3: Don’t Forget Hidden Costs Two things people forget: Storage: Like a hard disk. You deleted the app but forgot to delete the disk. It still charges you every month. Network: Moving data between countries or zones costs money. Check for old disks and big data transfers once a month Step 4: Share the Common Bill Fairly Some costs are for everyone. Like the main Kubernetes system or empty computers waiting for work. How to split it? Easy. If Team A uses 60% of the total computer power, they pay 60% of the common bill. Fair for everyone. Step 5: Use a Tool, Not Excel Doing all this in Excel will make you cry. It’s too much data. Use a tool that does it automatically. It connects to your Kubernetes, reads all the name tags, and tells each team: “You spent $2,340 this week.” Final Tip You can’t save money if you don’t know where it’s going. First, make the costs clear to everyone. Then the savings happen automatically. FAQ - In Simple Words Q1. Why can’t I just see costs in AWS bill? Because AWS only tells you “EC2 cost $10k”. It doesn’t tell you which of your 50 apps used that EC2. Kubernetes hides the details. Q2. What is the first

If you've ever worked on a live game, you've probably watched this happen: an update ships, something feels off, the forums light up, and within an hour the community manager is in the middle of a fire they didn't start and can't immediately put out. And here's the thing most people get wrong about that person's job. "They just post updates, right?" That's the assumption. A game community manager writes patch notes, posts announcements, answers a few questions on Discord, drops the occasional meme, and keeps the social feeds warm. That's the visible 10%. The other 90% is harder, quieter, and almost invisible when it's done well. A community manager sits at a collision point. On one side: players who are frustrated because something broke, a balance change feels unfair, compensation feels insulting, or an update slipped. On the other side: a dev team that's heads-down debugging, prioritizing, and sometimes wrestling with problems that genuinely can't be fixed fast. The community manager has to talk to both sides at once — without sounding cold, defensive, fake, or corporate. That's not a "soft skill." That's translation under pressure, and it's hard. The real role: a two-way translator Strip away the memes and the role is basically two jobs sharing one desk. Job one is outward. Translate the studio to players: acknowledge the actual pain, explain what's known and unknown, hold boundaries without being defensive, and come back with real updates. Job two is inward. Translate players to the studio: take a pile of angry, contradictory, emotional posts and turn them into categorized, prioritized, actionable feedback the team can build from. Most people only ever see job one. Job two — the research half — is usually what decides whether the game actually improves. We'll get to it. Why players hate "we hear you" Players can smell a script instantly. These phrases aren't wrong , but they're hollow: "We hear you." "We value your feedback." "Please be patient." "We apologize f

Seus testes de API passam no seu laptop. O que importa é se eles rodam em cada pull request, merge e build noturno sem intervenção humana. Para isso, você precisa de um executor de linha de comando: ele roda os testes em modo headless dentro do pipeline, retorna código de saída correto e gera relatórios que o CI consegue ler. Experimente o Apidog hoje Dois CLIs aparecem com frequência nessa configuração: Bruno CLI e Apidog CLI. Ambos executam testes de API em CI/CD, mas partem de modelos diferentes: Bruno é git-native , offline-first e open source. O CLI executa arquivos .bru versionados no repositório. Apidog é uma plataforma de API completa. O CLI executa cenários visuais criados no aplicativo, buscados por ID. Ambos funcionam em GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Jenkins e qualquer runner com Node.js. Ambos falham a build quando um teste falha. A diferença principal está em como você cria os testes, onde eles ficam e como o CI os acessa. Em resumo Bruno CLI ( @usebruno/cli , binário bru ) executa arquivos .bru diretamente de uma pasta no seu repositório Git. Apidog CLI ( apidog-cli , binário apidog ) executa cenários de teste visuais do seu projeto Apidog usando um access token . Ambos geram relatórios JUnit, JSON e HTML. Ambos retornam código de saída diferente de zero quando há falha. Use Bruno quando quiser testes em texto simples, versionados no repositório, sem conta e sem dependência de rede. Use Apidog quando quiser criar cenários visualmente, encadear requisições, reutilizar ambientes e rodar testes data-driven sem manter código de teste manualmente. O problema: testes que existem, mas não rodam Um teste executado só manualmente tende a ficar desatualizado. A API muda, o teste continua parado e ninguém percebe até quebrar algo em produção. O objetivo do CLI é transformar esses testes em um gate automatizado: Rodar sem interface gráfica. Retornar erro quando uma asserção falhar. Gerar relatório para o CI. Permitir execução por ambiente, pasta, cenário ou tag. Func

TL;DR OOMKill is a reporting artifact, not a root cause. By the time the kernel logs the kill event and your alerting pipeline fires, the service already degraded for every user who hit The Alert You See Is Not the Problem You Have OOMKill is a reporting artifact, not a root cause. By the time the kernel logs the kill event and your alerting pipeline fires, the service already degraded for every user who hit it in the preceding minutes. Operators page on the kill. The latency damage is already done. Aspect What Operators Observe What Actually Happens OOMKill event Alert fires; pod is restarted Kill is the kernel's final action after degradation is already complete Silent pressure window No alert fires; no dashboard turns red p99 latency climbs as allocator contention serializes parallel work Incident attribution Logged as "OOM, increased limit"; latency spike blamed on network or dependency Root cause (limit headroom erosion) goes unaddressed; pattern repeats Limit headroom over time No automated signal warns of erosion Gap between working set and limit shrinks as traffic grows or data shapes shift Recommended alert threshold Triggered at kill event Trigger at 80% headroom consumption before kernel involvement The mechanism works like this. Kubernetes memory limits define a hard ceiling enforced by the Linux kernel's cgroup subsystem. When a container's resident set size approaches that ceiling, the kernel does not wait. It begins refusing new memory allocations. Silent pressure window The application's allocator blocks, retries, or falls back to slower paths. Garbage collectors in JVM and Go runtimes trigger earlier and more aggressively because the heap has no room to grow. Each of these responses adds latency to in-flight requests before a single OOMKill event appears in your logs. The kill is the kernel's final action after the application has already been running degraded. Silent pressure window. The interval between first memory pressure and pod termination is

Most explanations of atomic swaps stop at the spot case: two parties lock funds, one reveals a secret, both legs clear in the same short window. Clean, but it quietly assumes the trade settles right now . A lot of real agent activity isn't spot. It's a forward: two agents agree on terms today - asset pair, size, price - and settle at some future point, T+24h or T+48h. Procurement agents pre-committing to a delivery. A treasury agent locking tomorrow's FX-equivalent rate. A market-making agent quoting a forward to offload inventory risk. The economics are old; what's new is that the counterparties are anonymous software that will never meet. That raises a question spot swaps don't have to answer: what holds the trade together in the gap between agreement and settlement? In traditional markets the answer is a chain of intermediaries - a clearing house, posted margin, a credit desk that decides whether your counterparty is good for it. Strip those away, as you must in a market of anonymous agents, and the naive version of a forward collapses. If nothing binds the trade, either side can simply not show up when the price has moved against them. That's counterparty risk, and it's exactly the thing a forward is supposed to manage. This post is about how the HTLC primitive - the same hashlock plus timelock most people only associate with same-block atomic swaps - can encode a forward obligation that's binding without anyone custodying the funds in between. The timelock is doing more work than you think Recall the two parameters of a hash-time-lock contract: Hashlock: funds can only be claimed by revealing a preimage s such that hash(s) == H . The same H is used on both legs, so the act of claiming one leg reveals the secret that unlocks the other. That's what makes the swap atomic - both clear or neither does. Timelock: if the preimage isn't revealed before a deadline, the funds refund to their original owner. No third party decides this; the contract enforces it. In the sp

submitted by /u/Motor_Ordinary336 [link] [留言]

Centralize, scope, and sync skills for every AI agent Discussion | Link