A former xAI engineer is suing the company and SpaceX, alleging he was fired for raising AI safety concerns about Grok days before SpaceX's historic IPO.

The regulation also imposes new safety expectations on 'AI chatbot services.'

Andrew Yang’s 2020 presidential campaign was based on a warning that automation and AI would hollow out the labor market and concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. At the time, ideas like Universal Basic Income felt fringe. Now Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, and Bernie Sanders are all saying versions of the same thing. An entrepreneur at heart, […]

My frustration with distributing java apps didnt show up recently. I remember having implemented my first network jar downloaded back in the 2000's because i needed applet like feature support with desktop full control. Years after, the problem is the very same. Webstart didnt really took off and the only mean i had in my projects was the ugly fatjars, including the (for me) uglier spring-boot repackaging that changes the application classloading behaviour and hence giving me by time some headac

For days after the stunning incident, the ADA had doubled-down on the choice.

Been building EventInbox for a while — webhook delivery infrastructure for developers. Finally got the landing page live today: https://eventinbox.pro It's the layer that sits between your app and your customers' endpoints — durable delivery, automatic retries, HMAC-signed payloads, full observability, and replay. SDKs for TypeScript, Python, and Go. Still early but the API is live and signup works end to end. Would love honest feedback on the page and the product direction. submitted by /u/eventinbox [link] [留言]

Typing a few letters and numbers into my web browser, I find myself gaping at the identity documents of complete strangers. The passport of a young woman from Germany. The passport of a man from Spain with glasses resting on his head. The front and back of another man's driver's license, a stereotypically goofy expression […]

Asked it: "what did I waste on takeaways last month?" Answer: "You spent £340 on takeaways in May — 22% more than April. Want a £200 cap with a nudge near the limit?" £340. In one month. The "22% more than April" detail was the real knife. This is from my own app (Expenzez — it reads uploaded statements on-device, no bank login), so yes, I built my own roaster. But the broader point stands: AI answering questions from YOUR actual numbers beats generic budgeting advice by a mile. Best/worst thing an AI has told you about your own data? submitted by /u/biszaal [link] [留言]

Every hand-tracking demo shows you 21 dots. The interesting part is what nobody shows: turning dots into numbers someone can act on. Dots are a capability, not a product Run any modern hand-tracking model and you get 21 beautifully stable landmarks per hand at 30 FPS. Impressive — and by itself, worthless. No client has ever paid for dots. They pay for measurements : is this clearance compliant, is this part aligned, did this patient's range of motion improve. I learned this on utility infrastructure work, where the deliverable was never "we detected the wire" — it was the attachment height of that wire, and whether it violates clearance rules . Keypoints were step one of three. The demo: live metrics, not just a skeleton My portfolio's keypoint demo derives three measurements per hand, every frame: const wrist = lm [ 0 ]; const palm = distance ( wrist , lm [ 9 ]); // scale reference const pinch = distance ( lm [ 4 ], lm [ 8 ]) / palm ; // thumb tip ↔ index tip The crucial line is the scale reference . Pixel distances are meaningless — they change as you move toward the camera. Dividing by palm length (wrist to middle knuckle) gives a relative measurement that's stable under distance, and multiplying by the average adult palm length (~8.5 cm) converts it into an approximate real-world gap — the demo shows "≈ 3.2 cm" floating on the pinch line. In infrastructure work the same role is played by a known object dimension — a standard crossarm, a pole class height. Every measurement-from-pixels system needs its ruler. Finger counting is a geometric test (is each fingertip farther from the wrist than its middle joint?), and "hand openness" averages fingertip extension — three lines of geometry each, but they convert a model output into a readout a human understands instantly. Honest layering The landmarks come from MediaPipe's pretrained pipeline (palm detector → landmark regressor → gesture classifier, float16, WASM + GPU delegate) — Google's models, credited on the page

Training a network from scratch in raw NumPy, quantizing it to int8, and running it as ~80 lines of dependency-free JavaScript — with a parity test proving the browser matches Python to 1e-6. Why bother? MNIST is a solved problem Digit recognition is the "hello world" of ML — that's exactly why I used it. The model isn't the point. The point is everything around the model, which happens to be the part that matters in production work too: training without a framework, compressing for deployment, running inference in a constrained environment, and proving the deployed system matches the trained one. Training: just NumPy and math The network is a 784→128→64→10 MLP — hand-written forward pass, backpropagation, and Adam optimizer. No autograd, no framework: # backward pass, by hand dz3 = ( probs - y_batch ) / batch_size grads_w [ 2 ] = a2 . T @ dz3 da2 = dz3 @ weights [ 2 ]. T dz2 = da2 * ( z2 > 0 ) # ReLU mask grads_w [ 1 ] = a1 . T @ dz2 ... One trick that matters for a drawing demo specifically: shift augmentation . MNIST digits are centered; humans draw wherever they like. Training on randomly translated copies makes the model tolerant of sloppy placement. Combined with MNIST-style preprocessing at inference (crop to bounding box, scale into a 20×20 box, center by center-of-mass), real-world doodles classify reliably. Final test accuracy: 98.2% . Compression: int8 in 15 lines A float32 weight file would be ~430 KB. Symmetric int8 quantization cuts it ~4×: scale = np . abs ( w ). max () / 127.0 q = np . clip ( np . round ( w / scale ), - 127 , 127 ). astype ( np . int8 ) One scale factor per layer, weights stored as base64 in JSON: 145 KB total , and quantized test accuracy is identical to float — 98.2%. Inference: ~80 lines of plain JavaScript In the browser, the weights are dequantized once on load, and inference is three matrix-vector products with ReLU and a softmax. ~109K multiply-adds — about a microsecond-scale problem for any modern device. No TensorFlow.js (t

Camouflage has always been graded by human eyes. But the thing hunting for you in 2026 is increasingly a detection model — so test against that. The premise Surveillance is automated now: drones, trail cameras, perimeter systems — most of what "sees" runs an object-detection network. Which makes traditional camouflage evaluation (a person squinting at a photo) the wrong test. The right test is adversarial: run the actual detector against your concealment and measure what it finds. That's the whole demo: upload a photo, and an object-detection model hunts for people in it — at four simulated distances — producing a detection-range profile and a stealth score. Simulating distance with pixels You can't move the camera after the photo is taken, but you can simulate the dominant factor in long-range detection: pixels on target . A person at 50 m simply occupies far fewer pixels than at 5 m. So each analysis run downscales the image progressively and re-runs detection: const DISTANCE_LEVELS = [ { label : ' Close (~5m) ' , scale : 1 }, { label : ' Mid (~15m) ' , scale : 0.45 }, { label : ' Far (~30m) ' , scale : 0.22 }, { label : ' Very far (~50m) ' , scale : 0.12 }, ]; for ( const level of DISTANCE_LEVELS ) { const scaled = drawScaled ( image , level . scale ); const detections = await model . detect ( scaled , 10 , 0.15 ); // best 'person' confidence at this simulated range } The output reads like a range card: detected at 5 m with 96% confidence, 41% at 15 m, invisible beyond 30 m. A stealth score aggregates it: how poorly did the adversary see you, averaged across ranges? Honest about the model The detector is COCO-SSD (a pretrained MobileNet-based model from the TensorFlow.js team) running entirely on-device — I didn't train it, and the demo says so on the page. The contribution here is the evaluation framework : using detectors as adversaries, simulating range, and turning subjective "good camo" into a measurable profile. The full version of this concept goes further

A 1990s Nobel-adjacent therapy, a webcam, and 21 hand keypoints — recreating the mirror-box illusion for phantom limb pain, no hardware required. A therapy built on an illusion In the 1990s, neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran discovered something remarkable: amputees suffering phantom limb pain often felt relief just by seeing their missing limb move again. His apparatus was almost comically simple — a box with a mirror. Put your intact hand in, look at its reflection where the missing hand would be, and move. The brain, watching the "missing" hand obey commands again, often dials the pain down. The limitation was never the science. It was the box: a physical apparatus, used in clinics, hard to scale, impossible to measure. Replacing glass with keypoints A webcam plus real-time hand tracking can produce the same illusion with better properties: webcam frame → hand landmark model (21 keypoints, on-device) → reflect: phantom[i] = { x: 1 − x, y, z } → render real hand (solid) + phantom twin (ghost) on canvas The reflection is one line of math. Everything around it is what makes the illusion land: const phantom = real . map ( p => ({ x : 1 - p . x , y : p . y , z : p . z })); The visual treatment matters more than I expected. The phantom hand is rendered as a ghostly cyan skeleton with a translucent palm fill, a "breathing" glow that pulses on a ~3 second cycle, and a fading afterimage trail of its last few frames — it reads as present but ethereal , which is exactly the perceptual story mirror therapy needs to tell. A dashed mirror plane down the center of the frame makes the reflection relationship legible at a glance. The engineering details that matter Tracking : MediaPipe HandLandmarker (Google's pretrained model — credit where due), running via WebAssembly with GPU delegate. ~30 FPS on a laptop. Privacy by architecture : every frame is processed on-device. For a medical-adjacent application, "video never leaves your browser" isn't a feature, it's a requirement. Lazy

The biggest lessons I learned from open source contributions weren't found in the code itself. Communication, collaboration, and workflows matter more than I expected. For a long time, I hesitated to contribute to open source. Part of it was because I assumed that contributing meant writing code. As a self-taught developer, that felt intimidating. The other part was "Git anxiety." Forks, branches, pull requests, merge conflicts, and CI checks all seemed like a lot to understand before I could even make a contribution. Eventually, I started small. Instead of focusing on code, I looked for opportunities to improve documentation, README files, and learning materials. What surprised me was that writing the actual change was often the easy part. Most of my learning happened outside the code itself: understanding contribution guidelines, repository workflows, automation, and review expectations. Over time, I realized that modern open source contribution is about much more than just writing code. Contribution Model Has Changed When many people think about open source contributions, the mental model is still fairly simple: Find Bug ↓ Write Code ↓ Open PR In reality, I realized that most modern repos involve much more than that. Before making a change, contributors often need to understand project workflows, CI pipelines, automated checks, contribution guidelines, and review expectations. The code change itself might only take a few minutes, while understanding how the repo operates can take much longer. A modern contribution often looks more like this: Understand Repository ↓ Understand Workflow ↓ Understand Automation ↓ Make Change ↓ Open PR ↓ Respond to Review It looks intimidating, but I think this flow helps projects stay maintainable as communications grow. What I've learned from contributing to different projects is that open source is not just a coding skill. It's also a collaboration skill. The faster you can understand how a project works, the easier it becomes to

Some engineering problems are only painful because they happen so rarely. Even with a coding agent, the frustration still feels the same. I’ll wrestle with a tool that isn't my daily driver, hit a wall of errors, finally find a resolution, and then I neglect to note the solution because the problem is "fixed." This happened to me recently with a custom, internal GitHub Actions workflow I use for a post-release DevRel task. To make it work, I need to pass a specific authentication token to run Entire in a headless mode. A couple of months ago, I sat down with my AI agent to configure this for the first time. Because Entire is new and our setup is completely undocumented, it took a grueling trial-and-error process to figure out how to generate the token via a local device-flow login. Eventually, we found the answer. I pasted the token into my GitHub secrets, the workflow turned green, and I went about my day without writing anything down. I rarely take notes now that I use coding agents, but it’s not a sustainable practice. I need something to take note of the resolution (even if it’s my agent). Today, when the token expired, I was back at square one. Why I Didn’t Make a Skill Normally, my instinct is to automate repetitive tasks by building a reusable workflow, like an Agent skill or a goose recipe. But a dedicated skill didn't make sense here: Low Frequency: This happens once every few months. Writing and maintaining code for a skill I barely use is textbook over-engineering. Security & Context: Generating an auth token involves sensitive device flows. I didn’t want a generic token-generation script floating around in my global automation suite. I wished my agent had a memory, so I could ask “ How did we get that GENERIC_ENTIRE_TOKEN last time?" and have it recall the context. Instead, I spent an hour re-debugging a problem I had already solved. It was just my agent and me making guesses. To break the loop before the next expiration, I decided to use Entire. (At the

SQLite ON CONFLICT DO SELECT Proposal, PostgreSQL 19 Features & SQLite Critical Bug Today's Highlights This week in databases, a proposal seeks to expand SQLite's ON CONFLICT clause to match PostgreSQL 19's DO SELECT for advanced conflict resolution. Concurrently, an early look at PostgreSQL 19 highlights key features improving performance and data management, while a critical out-of-bounds read bug in SQLite's fossildelta.c extension reminds us of the importance of low-level code security. Request: Support "ON CONFLICT DO SELECT" to match Postgres 19 (SQLite Forum) Source: https://sqlite.org/forum/info/81840ccfecf0885ba4418152d6c7f164de00d189b2cf7c682690151b0 This forum post proposes extending SQLite's ON CONFLICT clause to include a DO SELECT action, mirroring a feature anticipated in PostgreSQL 19. Currently, SQLite supports DO NOTHING and DO UPDATE for handling unique constraint violations. The proposed DO SELECT would allow an application to retrieve existing rows that caused the conflict, providing more granular control over conflict resolution beyond simply ignoring or updating the data. This feature would be particularly useful in complex data pipelines or replication scenarios where knowing which existing data caused a conflict is necessary for subsequent application logic, such as logging, merging, or initiating alternative processing paths. The discussion highlights the growing convergence of SQL features across different database systems and the desire for enhanced compatibility and expressiveness in SQLite. Implementing DO SELECT would empower developers to build more robust and intelligent conflict resolution strategies directly within their SQL statements, reducing the need for multi-step application-side logic involving separate SELECT queries after a failed INSERT or UPDATE attempt. Such an addition could streamline data ingestion processes and improve transactional integrity for embedded SQLite applications. Comment: This feature would be a game-ch

Introduction and Background The Rust ecosystem, celebrated for its memory safety and performance, relies heavily on crates —its package management system. These crates, hosted on the crates.io registry, are the building blocks of Rust projects, enabling developers to share and reuse code efficiently. However, this convenience comes with a hidden cost: a single compromised crate can cascade into a full-blown supply chain attack, as recently demonstrated by the 'onering' crate compromise . The Role of Crates in the Rust Ecosystem Crates serve as the backbone of Rust's dependency system. When a developer adds a crate to their project, Cargo , Rust's package manager, automatically resolves and includes all transitive dependencies. This mechanism, while streamlining development, amplifies the attack surface . A malicious crate, like 'onering', can propagate through multiple projects, executing harmful code during build or runtime. The attack on 'onering' exploited this very mechanism, leveraging the trust inherent in the Rust ecosystem to exfiltrate sensitive code from unsuspecting systems. The 'onering' Compromise: A Case Study in Supply Chain Vulnerability The 'onering' crate was compromised through a malicious code injection during an upload or update. This injection bypassed the insufficient security measures of the crates.io registry, which lacks robust checks for uploaded crates. Once deployed, the malicious code executed during the build process, exfiltrating sensitive data from systems that depended on it. The attack's success underscores the lack of developer vigilance regarding supply chain security and the overreliance on registry integrity . Systemic Failures and Their Mechanisms Insufficient Security Scanning: The crates.io registry failed to detect the malicious code during upload due to limited automated scanning capabilities . This allowed the compromised crate to enter the ecosystem undetected. Overreliance on Registry Security: Developers often trust cr