What are your thoughts since I’m pretty sure they partnered with Google submitted by /u/Classic-Grab-2866 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/crackerbox5 [link] [留言]

The waiver "serves the public interest by promoting a second large satellite broadband constellation."

Sequoia is just one of the top firms that sells same equity at two different prices.

On June 3, Xiaomi released the latest version of its open-source project, SoloEngine . The first low-code Agentic AI development platform. At the AIGC2026 Summit, Amazon Web Services disclosed a striking statistic: 87% of enterprises claim to have deployed AI, but only 10% have actually extracted real value from it. The current agent industry chain shows a curious pattern—hot at both ends, hollow in the middle. Upstream foundation models and chips attract capital; downstream use-case demand is robust; but the midstream lacks an engineering platform capable of converting domain expertise into reliable agents. The reasons behind this gap are concrete. Building an AI Agent currently comes down to two approaches. One is low-code workflow platforms: Dify and n8n offer visual canvases where users drag and drop nodes to quickly assemble AI applications. But workflows rely on preset paths—step A leads to step B, step B leads to step C, with if/else conditions controlling branches. Hit something outside the preset, and the flow breaks. At best, they function as AI-powered macro scripts. The other is code-based development frameworks: LangChain and CrewAI support genuine Agentic AI architectures where agents can make autonomous decisions and dynamically adjust strategies. But this requires Python programming skills. A lawyer has to learn Python just to build a legal Agent; a CMO has to configure a CrewAI environment just to set up a marketing Agent team. Low-code platforms don't support true autonomous decision-making. Code frameworks are only accessible to programmers. SoloEngine fills precisely this gap. I. SoloEngine: Making Everyone a Creator Open a browser. Drag Agents onto a canvas. Connect collaboration relationships. Configure the tools you need. Hit run. The backend automatically compiles your design into an executable Agentic AI system—one that plans tasks, executes operations, and delivers results. Users just review and confirm, and the work gets done. No lines of

AI coding agents are useful, but they still have one frustrating habit: They guess. You ask something reasonable like: “Where do we validate user input before inserting into the database?” And instead of knowing where to look, the agent starts reading files one by one. In a small project, that is fine. In a real production codebase with 80,000+ lines, multiple engineers, old decisions, half-renamed folders, and years of accumulated context, this gets messy fast. The agent reads a handful of files, hits context limits, and gives you an answer that sounds confident but points to the wrong part of the codebase. I got tired of that, so I built an open-source MCP toolkit to fix it. What I Built I built MCP Server Toolkit , a collection of four Model Context Protocol servers that give AI coding agents direct access to the things they need: Your codebase Your database Your docs Your git history Repo: https://github.com/naveenayalla1-CS50/mcp-server-toolkit The goal is simple: Stop making the agent guess. Give it tools that know where to look. Why MCP? The Model Context Protocol, or MCP, lets AI agents call external tools in a standardized way. Instead of the agent reading random files and hoping the right context fits, it can call a purpose-built tool like: search_code("validate user input") And get back file paths, line numbers, and relevant context. That means fewer wrong guesses, fewer wasted tokens, and much better answers in large codebases. The Four Servers 1. mcp-code-search Searches across your repo and returns relevant matches with file paths, line numbers, and surrounding context. Example: You: Find all places where we call sendEmail Agent calls search_code("sendEmail") Results: api/users.ts:89 services/email.ts:42 jobs/reminders.ts:117 It also includes targeted read_file and list_files tools so the agent can inspect only the files it actually needs. 2. mcp-database Lets the agent ask read-only database questions in natural language. Example: You: How many users

At the beginning of my Engineering career, I worked in a place where I had a lot of freedom to implement and experiment any technology I found interesting. I tried many technologies like PHP, Java, EJBs, SOAP, Rest and JavaScript. This gave me a lot of perspective, but I lacked the guidance and mentoring from more experienced developers. One of the most problematic things I built was a login. I would like to share in this document things that I did in the past so you understand why it is problematic and how I would build them today. Earlier Mistakes My First PHP Login. This is not a terrible option when using a single host, small project, but the biggest problem comes when we need to scale horizontally. Session variables exist only on the servers they are created. If you add more servers + Load Balancer, there is no guarantee that your requests go to the same server. In terms of vulnerabilities, if somebody manages to read your session id, they can impersonate you, act on your behalf. This is not really different from other methods like JWT so it is important to set up SameSite cookies or CSRF tokens, but do you think I did that for my first login ? of course NOT! My first Password storage. If you are thinking on implementing a login please NEVER do what I am about to describe: The first time I implemented a password, I was worried that somebody would find out the "actual" password. I wasn't actually thinking about using HTTP (instead of HTTPs), so my take on this was "encrypting" the password into MD5. Then the password was saved in MD5, but I was NOT doing anything different than just sending the password AS is. Let me explain the problems with this approach: Over HTTP an MD5 password can be read, and anybody can simply replicate the request with the same MD5 MD5 was actually NOT encrypting, it was a hashing. There are databases all over the internet mapping MD5 and other hashed passwords available so finding an MD5 can actually be translated to an actual password

Six months ago I got tired of switching between apps to talk to AI. ChatGPT in the browser. Claude in another tab. Local models in a terminal. It was like having five friends who all live in different cities and refuse to visit each other. So I did what any developer with too many GPUs and too little patience would do: I built my own assistant and put it where I already spend my day — Telegram. It's not a chatbot for customers. It's not a business automation tool. It's just... my assistant. It lives in a private chat on my phone and handles the stuff I used to do manually. Here's what six months of actually using it has looked like. What I Actually Built (And Why Telegram) I already had three machines running Ollama at home — a Mac Mini M4, a Windows PC with an RTX 3060, and an Ubuntu box. Three endpoints, eight models, and me constantly forgetting which model was good for what. Telegram was the obvious choice because: I'm already there all day (friends, family, a few dev groups) It works on my phone, my Mac, and my watch The Bot API is dead simple I can send voice messages, photos, documents — and the bot can handle all of them The setup: a Python bot running on the Mac Mini, connected to all three Ollama endpoints. When I message it, the bot classifies what I want, routes to the right model on the right machine, and replies in the same chat thread. Sounds simple. Took three evenings to get right. Took six months to make actually useful. The Things I Actually Use It For Here's the honest list. Not the marketing pitch — the real daily usage: 1. Quick questions without context switching "Summarize this article" (I paste a link). "Explain this error" (I paste a stack trace). "Rewrite this email less formally." These used to mean opening a browser tab, logging in, maybe hitting a rate limit. Now I just... send a message. The reply comes back in 2-8 seconds depending on which model handles it. The routing is simple but effective: quick chat → small model on the Mac. Cod

Before this week, NFTs on Solana weren't new to me. I've previously worked with Programmable NFTs ( pNFTs ) and even built projects that integrate them. However, most of my experience was centered around the Metaplex ecosystem, so I tended to think about NFTs through that lens. What surprised me during this learning arc was discovering how much can be built directly with Token Extensions. By creating NFTs from the token level upward, I gained a much deeper understanding of the underlying primitives that make digital assets work on Solana. The Mental Model: What Is an NFT on Solana? As developers, we often interact with NFTs through SDKs , frameworks , and marketplace tooling. Those abstractions are useful, but they can hide what's actually happening on-chain. This week helped me simplify the model: An * NFT * is fundamentally a token mint configured with: A supply of one Zero decimals Metadata describing the asset Optional relationships to collections or groups Using Token Extensions, many of these capabilities can be attached directly to the token itself rather than relying on additional programs or infrastructure. That shift in perspective was one of the biggest takeaways from this challenge. What I Built Over the course of this arc, I created an NFT on Solana Devnet using Token Extensions and explored several capabilities that I had never implemented directly before. The process included: Creating a mint configured as an NFT Adding metadata using the Metadata Extension Minting a single token Creating a collection using the Group Extension Associating the NFT with the collection through the Member Extension Auditing the account structure and extension data on-chain Updating metadata after the NFT had already been created One of the most valuable parts of the exercise was inspecting the accounts directly instead of relying solely on SDK abstractions. For example: spl-token initialize-metadata \ <NFT_MINT> \ "My First NFT" \ "MNFT" \ https://example.com/metadata.jso

If you use Cursor, Claude Code, or Windsurf daily, you've probably had this experience: You open a fresh chat, ask for a small fix, and twenty minutes later the AI has rewritten your API layer, added three new dependencies, and switched your data-fetching pattern "for consistency." The model isn't broken. It's contextless. Every new session starts from zero. It doesn't know your stack, your conventions, or the things it must never touch. So you spend the first ten minutes re-explaining — and the last hour undoing. Here's what fixed it for me. The real problem isn't prompts Most devs collect prompts. Notes app, Slack snippets, old chat threads. That helps for one-off tasks, but it doesn't solve the session problem. What you need is persistent context — rules that load automatically before you type anything. Two files do this: CLAUDE.md — read by Claude Code (and usable as project context elsewhere) .cursorrules — loaded by Cursor on every session (rename to .windsurfrules for Windsurf) Drop them in your project root. Done. What goes in a good config file A useful config is not ten lines of "use TypeScript and write clean code." That's too vague to change behavior. Mine include: Project structure — where pages, components, and API routes live Stack + versions — Next.js 14 App Router, not Pages; Zod; shadcn/ui Commands — npm run dev, npm run typecheck, npm run test Coding conventions — naming, import aliases, Server vs Client Components DO NOT section — the most important part (more on this below) Workflow notes — use @folder, prefer editing existing files, minimal diffs Here's an excerpt from the DO NOT section that saved me the most time: DO NOT — Critical Anti-Patterns Do NOT create a pages/ directory or use the Pages Router Do NOT rewrite the entire API layer — extend existing route handlers Do NOT add new npm dependencies without stating why Do NOT make drive-by refactors in unrelated files Do NOT fetch data in useEffect when Server Components can fetch directly T

NVIDIA's cuda-python , the official Python bindings for the CUDA toolkit, recently added automatically-generated .pyi stub files using stubgen-pyx . Their description of why: "This allows IDE auto-completion to work (which is also used by IDE-integrated coding agents). This has also found 2 real bugs in our code already. The ability to catch a certain class of bugs with this will be really helpful going forward, especially since our linting abilities with cython-lint are a bit behind what they are in pure Python." When you commit .pyi stubs alongside a Cython extension, you get an artifact your normal Python linting and type-checking pipeline can analyze. Inconsistencies between what the Cython source does and what the stub claims become visible. NVIDIA found two real bugs this way before they were reported. I'm the author of stubgen-pyx, and this post is a technical walk-through of how those stubs are produced. The problem with existing stub generators When you compile a Cython module, the source disappears. What you get is a .so (or .pyd ) file: a compiled extension with no type information readable by a language server. Tools like mypy's stubgen can generate stubs for these by importing the compiled binary and using runtime introspection. The results are usually disappointing. Take this typed Cython module: """ Mathematical utilities for scientific computing. """ cdef class Matrix : """ A simple matrix class. """ cdef int rows cdef int cols def __init__ ( self , int rows , int cols ): """ Initialize a matrix. """ self . rows = rows self . cols = cols def shape ( self ) -> tuple [ int , int ]: """ Get matrix dimensions. """ return ( self . rows , self . cols ) cpdef scale ( self , double factor ): """ Scale all elements. """ pass cdef int _validate ( self ): """ Internal validation (not exposed). """ return 0 def matrix_product ( Matrix a , Matrix b ) -> Matrix : """ Compute matrix product. """ return Matrix ( a . rows , b . cols ) Running stubgen on the compiled

The 30-second version Anthropic shipped Claude Opus 4.8 a few hours ago. Every benchmark on the announcement page is up: SWE-bench Verified, GPQA, MATH-500, the agentic tool-use evals. The marketing copy reads as it always does — "our most capable model", "strongest coding performance", "better instruction following". If you have been around since 4.5, you know the shape of this announcement by heart now. The announcement skipped the only question that matters for teams running Claude in production: should you upgrade today, next week, or next month, and which of your workloads should stay on Opus 4.7 indefinitely? Anthropic does not write that part. They cannot — it is workload-dependent, and the answer for a code-review agent is different from the answer for a customer-facing chat product. This post is the decision tree I am applying to my own stack today. It is opinionated. Three of the workloads I run are staying on 4.7 until at least mid-July, and I will explain exactly why. Your mileage will vary, but the reasoning shape should transfer. What actually shipped in Opus 4.8 Let me anchor on the facts before the opinion. Opus 4.8 is the third release in the Opus 4.x family this year. The pattern across 4.6 (March), 4.7 (April), and 4.8 (today) has been roughly monthly. Each release has shipped a 2-4 point bump on SWE-bench Verified and a similar bump on the agentic evals. 4.8 follows the pattern: roughly 3 points on SWE-bench, about 2 points on the multi-step tool-use benchmark, and a more visible jump on the long-context retrieval evals — the 'needle in a haystack at 200K tokens' style tests. Three changes are worth pulling out of the announcement: Better long-context coherence . The 4.8 release notes specifically call out improved behavior on tasks that span more than 100K tokens of context. Concretely: less mid-context summarization, fewer instances of the model 'forgetting' early-context instructions, better citation of source material when retrieved chunks sp

The interpreter's variable lookup is now blazing through arithmetic loops at a 57% faster pace. But this isn't just about raw speed — four tracker items were checked off the list, culminating in a more robust system. All rolled out on submain, a direct result of a thorough four-pillar audit. BindingId replaces string hashing at runtime The heavyweight change came from tracker #009. Previously, our interpreter was busy hashing variable names every time they were accessed. That was a repeat offender in wasted cycles. Now, by using a pre-assigned numeric BindingId, we seize efficiency. The semantic phase was already handing out these IDs, but the runtime kept adding the overhead back. It doesn’t anymore. ScopeFrame.vars has transitioned to a HashMap equipped with a zero-cost identity hasher keyed by u32 binding IDs. Name-based lookups are still around but tucked away for less frequent operations like string interpolation. Fixes were necessary upstream: ConstDecl and semantic_impls now hold onto their BindingId, making sure our semantic phase pipelines gracefully into the interpreter's primary key system — narrowing the gap with JIT's variable handling. Here's how the numbers shine on a Windows release build: arith_loop (5M iterations): from 5744ms down to 2481ms (56.8% boost) nested_loops (4M iterations): from 2675ms down to 1796ms (32.8% boost) fib_recursive: from 6835ms down to 6488ms (merely 5.1% faster due to call-frame constraints) Our findings align with expectations: recursive functions aren't bogged down by variable lookups as much as by setting up call frames. Array bounds errors stop lying Misleading diagnostic labels are on their way out, thanks to tracker #002 and #032. Attempts to access out-of-bounds array indices once triggered an error as unhelpful as variable 'index 5' has not been declared . Not anymore. Changes came in two waves. First, we introduced a new error variant: RuntimeError::IndexOutOfBounds { pos, index, length } . Then, three runtime.rs c

Retry storms turned 1 timeout into 340 duplicate calls billed in 90 seconds Infinite tool loop ran 1,200 iterations before I noticed at 2am Partial stream cleanup stopped half-written DB writes corrupting records Trap every error class with a circuit breaker and a hard iteration cap Five Claude API errors quietly drained my account before I built guards around them. None of them threw a loud crash. They just kept billing while I slept. Here is exactly what broke, what it cost, and the traps I now run on every project. The Retry Storm That Billed 340 Times in 90 Seconds The most expensive mistake I made was naive retry logic. A single request timed out. My code caught the timeout and retried. The retry also timed out, so it retried again. Within 90 seconds I had fired 340 requests for one piece of work. The problem was that the Claude API had actually received and processed several of those requests. The timeout happened on my side waiting for the response, not on Anthropic's side. So I was paying for completed work I never saw, then paying again for the retry. My first version of the retry looked harmless. A while loop, a counter set to 5, a sleep of one second between attempts. The flaw was that the sleep was constant and the counter reset on every new job. Under load, jobs stacked, and each one spawned its own retry chain. That is how 1 timeout became 340 calls. The fix was exponential backoff with a hard ceiling and a request ID. I now generate a unique idempotency-style key per logical job and refuse to issue a second call for the same key until the first fully resolves or hard-fails. Backoff starts at 2 seconds and doubles up to 32 seconds, then gives up after 5 total attempts. attempt = 0 delay = 2 while attempt < 5 : try : return call_claude ( job_key ) except Timeout : attempt += 1 sleep ( delay + random_jitter ()) delay = min ( delay * 2 , 32 ) raise GiveUp ( job_key ) The jitter matters more than it looks. Without it, ten failed jobs all retry at the exact

Have you ever wondered how Discord keeps your channel messages available even when a server goes down? Or how Amazon DynamoDB serves petabytes of data with single-digit millisecond latency? The unsung hero powering almost all these distributed systems is hashing — a simple but powerful technique that makes even load distribution, fast lookups, and seamless scaling possible. As more applications move to distributed cloud architectures, understanding hashing for distributed systems is no longer optional for developers. Choosing the wrong hashing algorithm can lead to cascading failures, cache stampedes, and expensive downtime. This guide breaks down every core hashing technique, real-world use cases, best practices, and common pitfalls to avoid in 2026. Table of Contents What is Hashing in Distributed Systems? Core Hashing Algorithms Explained Traditional Modulo Hashing Consistent Hashing Virtual Nodes (VNodes) Rendezvous Hashing (HRW) Jump Consistent Hash Maglev Hashing Multi-Probe Consistent Hashing Consistent Hashing with Bounded Loads Real-World Applications of Distributed Hashing Head-to-Head Algorithm Comparison Best Practices for Distributed Hashing Common Pitfalls to Avoid Conclusion References What is Hashing in Distributed Systems? Hashing in distributed systems is the practice of mapping data keys (e.g., user IDs, object keys, channel IDs) to server nodes using a deterministic hash function. The core goals are: Distribute load evenly across all nodes to avoid hotspots Enable fast lookups (O(1) or O(log N)) without a central coordinator Minimize data movement when nodes are added or removed during scaling Support fault tolerance by simplifying replication across nodes The simplest implementation is modulo-based hashing , where node_id = hash(key) % N and N is the total number of nodes. While trivial to implement, it suffers from a fatal flaw: the rehashing problem. When N changes (a node is added or removed), nearly all keys are remapped to new nodes, causin

We’ve all been there: every year, you get a physical, receive a thick PDF full of blood markers, glance at the "normal range" checkmarks, and toss it into a digital folder titled "Health Stuff" to be forgotten. But what if I told you that those isolated data points are actually a time-series story of your biological aging? In this tutorial, we are going to build a Longevity Knowledge Graph . We will leverage GraphRAG (Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation) , Neo4j , and Unstructured.io to transform a decade of messy medical PDFs into a structured intelligence layer. By the end of this post, you'll be able to query your health history with context that standard vector search simply can't grasp—like "How has my fasting glucose trended relative to my BMI over the last five years?" If you're interested in advanced data engineering patterns or looking for more production-ready AI health architectures, I highly recommend checking out the deep dives over at WellAlly Blog , which served as a major inspiration for this build. Why GraphRAG? (The Problem with Vector Search) Standard RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) is great at finding a specific needle in a haystack. But if you ask, "What is the relationship between my Vitamin D levels and my bone density over time?", a vector database might just pull three separate paragraphs. GraphRAG allows us to: Connect Entities : Link a Blood_Metric (e.g., LDL) to a specific Time_Point . Traverse Relationships : Follow the path from User -> Report -> Marker -> Trend . Global Reasoning : Summarize high-level health trajectories across multiple years of data. The Architecture 🏗️ Here is how the data flows from a messy PDF to a queryable graph: graph TD A[Medical PDF Reports] -->|Unstructured.io| B(Clean JSON/Elements) B -->|Entity Extraction| C{LLM Processing} C -->|Nodes & Edges| D[Neo4j Graph Database] D -->|GraphRAG Query| E[Longevity Insights] F[User Query: 'Is my HbA1c rising?'] --> E subgraph Storage D end Prerequisites To f

Explore our ambitious, people-first industrial policy ideas for the AI era—focused on expanding opportunity, sharing prosperity, and building resilient institutions as advanced intelligence evolves.