If you've wanted to tweak your AirPods sound, you'll soon get your chance.

Hello, I'm Shrijith Venkatramana. I'm building git-lrc, an AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. Star Us to help devs discover the project. Do give it a try and share your feedback for improving the product. A few years ago, choosing a Go mocking framework was mostly a matter of personal preference. Today, things are different. Most Go developers have at least one AI coding assistant generating tests alongside them. Some teams even generate the majority of their unit tests automatically. Yet one area remains surprisingly messy: mocks. Ask an LLM to write a test for the same interface and you'll often get completely different results depending on whether your project uses GoMock, Mockery, MockIO, Minimock, Moq, or hand-written test doubles. The problem isn't that the models are bad. The problem is that mocking libraries represent very different philosophies: Strict vs flexible Generated vs runtime-created DSL-heavy vs idiomatic Go Feature-rich vs minimalist In this article we'll compare the most popular Go mocking libraries in 2026, examine their strengths and weaknesses, and discuss which one may be the best fit for your project. What Makes a Good Mocking Library? Before comparing tools, it's worth defining what matters. A good mocking library should ideally provide: Easy mock generation Clear test failures Minimal boilerplate Strong refactoring support Good IDE experience Readable tests Reliable call verification Different libraries optimize for different parts of this list. That's why there is no universally correct answer. 1. GoMock: The Enterprise Workhorse GoMock remains one of the most widely used mocking frameworks in the Go ecosystem. Originally created by Google and now actively maintained by Uber, it has become the standard choice for many large organizations. Its philosophy is straightforward: define expectations explicitly and verify them rigorously. Example func TestUserService ( t * testing . T ) { ctrl := gomock . NewController ( t ) repo := New

Siri is finally getting its own app.

Along with new software for Macs and iPhones, Apple announced visionOS 27 during its keynote presentation at WWDC on Monday. Like its other platforms, visionOS 27 will feature Apple's updated Siri AI assistant and the new dedicated Siri app. While wearing the Vision Pro, you can use visual intelligence to ask Siri "about anything in […]

Another productive week of Google Summer of Code with OWASP BLT is in the books! Building on the visual blueprints from last week, this week was focused on locking down our structural foundations and diving deeper into the system architecture. Here is a simple breakdown of the progress made and what lies ahead. Milestones The primary goal for this phase was setting up the structural guardrails for how data travels through our app. Finalized Security Contract Structures: Successfully established the foundational security contract structures. This ensures that our application components have a uniform, strict schema to communicate safely and predictably. trying to figureout some missing point on the security_alerts with the help of my mentor. Merge request updates: Glad to share that the initial setup has been done across our repository through these milestones: 🔗 Merge Request #3 🔗 Merge Request #4 🔗 Merge Request #5 🔗 Merge Request #6 🧠 Current Focus: System Design & UI Polish With the basic structures merged, my day-to-day focus has shifted toward high-level engineering and refining the user experience. Architecture & System Designing: Spending time mapping out the data flows to ensure our local-first storage design works seamlessly with minimal, encrypted web updates. Ongoing UI Revamp: Continuing to polish the user interface layouts based on our initial feedback, ensuring the experience feels clean, intuitive, and highly minimal. ⚡ The Next Step: Building the Workers Now that the structural blueprints are active in the project, it is time to make them functional. ⚙️ Contract Workers: Moving forward, the next step is to start creating the edge contract workers. These workers will handle the actual validation and processing logic for the security contracts we just established. The structural groundwork is officially laid, and the architecture is shaping up beautifully. Excited to bring the core backend logic to life next week! 💻🛡️

iOS 27 will add a slew of new AI photo editing tools.

"If you're grabbing a bite with friends and point your iPhone at the bill, then [you can] select what you ordered to split the tab with Apple Cash," said Apple VP of Software Sebastien Marineau-Mes.

Been doing a lot of competitive research for clients lately — checking hashtag volumes, tracking top posts in a niche, that kind of thing. Kept switching between Claude Code and browser tabs to cross-reference stuff manually. Got annoying fast. Found hikerapi-mcp, a Model Context Protocol server that exposes 100+ Instagram endpoints as tools directly inside Claude Code. Figured I'd try it. Setup was straightforward. The one thing I did differently was keeping the API key out of config files entirely — passed it as an environment variable instead. Smaller attack surface if I accidentally commit something. Also filtered down the tool groups with HIKERAPI_TAGS because 100+ tools showing up in context is chaos. I only need hashtag search and competitor profile data, so I scoped it to just those. "env": { "HIKERAPI_KEY": "${HIKERAPI_KEY}", "HIKERAPI_TAGS": "User Profile,Post Details,Search,Hashtags,Stories" } One thing that tripped me up for a solid 20 minutes: HikerAPI runs on a prepaid model (credits in rubles). If your balance is zero, you get HTTP 402, not 401. I kept thinking my key was invalid and regenerated it twice before I figured out I just needed to top up. Once that was sorted, it actually works well. Now I can ask things like "what are the top 10 posts for #socialmediamarketing this week" or pull a competitor's recent content directly in the same session where I'm building the campaign strategy. Cuts out a lot of context switching. Repo if you want to check it out: github.com/subzeroid/hikerapi-mcp Wrote up the full setup with config details here if useful: https://dev.to/simrp360/querying-instagram-from-claude-code-wiring-up-hikerapis-mcp-server-57jf Anyone else using MCP servers for social data research? Curious what other setups people are running.

Most people pick a model the wrong way around. They look at the leaderboard, see Opus on top, and reach for it by default. Sonnet if they want to save money. Haiku almost never, because the name says "small." That habit costs you. For a lot of what you actually build, Haiku is the right call, and you're paying three to five times more for capability the task never uses. This post is about how to choose, and why Haiku should be your default more often than it is. The short version: don't start from "what's the best model." Start from "what does this task need." Most tasks don't need much. Comparison Here is the current lineup, with the numbers that matter when you're choosing. Haiku 4.5 Sonnet 4.6 Opus 4.8 Model ID claude-haiku-4-5 claude-sonnet-4-6 claude-opus-4-8 Input price (per 1M tokens) $1 $3 $5 Output price (per 1M tokens) $5 $15 $25 Context window 200K 1M 1M Max output 64K 64K 128K Best at speed, volume balance hardest reasoning Two things jump out. First, price . Haiku input is a fifth of Opus and a third of Sonnet. Output is the same ratio. If you send a million tokens through Opus for $25 and the same work would have been fine on Haiku, you spent $20 for nothing. And that gap is per request, so it compounds. A feature that runs ten thousand times a day on Opus instead of Haiku is not a rounding error. It is the difference between a feature that ships and one that gets cut for cost. Second, the context window . This is where Haiku gives something up: 200K tokens instead of 1M. That is the real tradeoff, and it points straight at when to use it. We'll come back to that. The mental model Stop ranking models. Rank tasks . Ask three questions about the task in front of you: Does it need real reasoning, or is it bounded? A task is bounded when a competent junior could do it from a clear spec without much judgment: pull these fields out, sort this into one of five buckets, rewrite this in a different tone, answer this from the text I gave you. A task needs reason

AI design system output is approximate by default. Wrong border radii, raw hex values, inconsistent tokens across 60 components. The fix isn't better prompts. Here's the structural change that made it exact using Figma's REST API. The fourth time I manually corrected the same border radius mistake in an AI-generated component, I stopped and asked why this kept happening. Not "what prompt would fix this?" The deeper question: why does every AI tool I tried get the structure right and the values wrong? The button was correct. The variants were there. The layout matched the Figma spec. But borderRadius: 8 when it should be borderRadius: '8px' . A spacing gap of 8 when the spec said 6 . The color #3B82F6 sitting in the file where semantic.button.primary should be. None of it wrong in a way that breaks the build. All of it wrong in a way that breaks the design system. After hitting this wall enough times, I realized the problem wasn't the AI. It was the question I was asking it. Why AI keeps generating the wrong Figma design tokens When you give an AI tool a Figma screenshot and ask it to produce a component, it does something reasonable: it interprets what it sees. The structure, the layout, the hierarchy - it gets most of that right. What it cannot get right is the token mapping. The AI doesn't know your semantic token file. It doesn't know that #3B82F6 maps to semantic.button.primary in your codebase. It doesn't know that your MUI setup multiplies numeric border radii by 4, which means borderRadius: 8 renders at 32px instead of 8px . So it approximates. Here's what that looks like in practice: What AI produces What the spec requires Why it's wrong borderRadius: 8 borderRadius: '8px' MUI multiplies numeric values by 4 gap: 8 gap: 6 Spacing value not extracted from Figma color: '#3B82F6' semantic.button.primary Raw hex instead of semantic token fontSize: 14 variant="MD_Medium" Typography token not resolved Across one component, these deviations are small. Across 60 comp

We wired our LLM eval suite into Datadog over about four months. Most of the panels we built got deleted. These are the five that stayed, and the metrics that feed them. TL;DR: We run an LLM-as-judge eval suite on every PR that touches a prompt, and we ship the results to Datadog as custom metrics. The dashboard started with fourteen panels. We kept five. The one that catches the most real regressions is per-criterion pass-rate split out by judge criterion, not the single rolled-up pass-rate number, because an aggregate of 91 percent hid the fact that one criterion had dropped from 0.95 to 0.62. Below are the metrics we emit, the Python that submits them, the monitor config we alert on, and the panels we tried and dropped. Some context on the setup so the rest makes sense. We are a Series-C dev-tool startup. We have a handful of prompts in production that do real work (classification, extraction, a summarization step in an agent loop). Each one has an eval set of tagged examples, somewhere between 80 and 400 per prompt. The judge is a separate model call that scores each output against a rubric. We run the suite in GitHub Actions. The eval job emits metrics to Datadog at the end of every run. Backend service health was already in Datadog, so putting eval data next to it meant one place to look during an incident instead of two. 1. Emit per-criterion pass-rate, not just the rolled-up number This is the one that earns its place. Our judge scores each output against multiple criteria. For the extraction prompt it is four: correct fields, no hallucinated fields, format valid, no refusal. Early on we only emitted one number, prompt_eval.pass_rate, the fraction of examples that passed every criterion. That number is fine for a smoke test and useless for debugging. The problem showed up on a prompt change that looked clean. Overall pass-rate went from 0.93 to 0.91. Two points. Nobody would block a PR on two points. But underneath, the "no hallucinated fields" criterion had

I am a last-year data science major at university who initially joined because of AI's exciting potential across numerous industries. However, after learning about multiple companies backtracking on their AI use on their platforms and cutting back on their data center expansions, I can't help but think that something is very wrong behind closed doors. I came to understand that the demand for AI is slowly decreasing in some areas and increasing exponentially in others. To me, it seems every major industry "needs" AI to make life easier, yet is backtracking when it doesn't perform the way they want it to. My concerns revolve around how unpredictable AI's usage is. If I get involved in an industry that actively destroys land, water, and other resources, I would hope that the environmental costs will be outweighed by the benefits everyone sees from AI. However, with the economic trend of AI's value decreasing for companies that initially went all in on it, I can't help but feel like I'm actively destroying the planet. Does anyone have any suggestions or moral redemption for me? I want to jump ship before the big explosion, but I'll stay if there's great potential for growth with AI. submitted by /u/Emergency_Ad6929 [link] [留言]

80%. That is the share of code currently being merged into Anthropic's production systems that was written by Claude. Not code-reviewed. Not pair-programmed. Written. In February 2025, when Claude Code launched, that number was in the low single digits. Sixteen months later, the company decided that data point — and the trajectory behind it — was worth a public warning. On June 4, 2026, Anthropic published "When AI Builds Itself," a research paper co-authored by Marina Favaro, head of the Anthropic Institute, and Jack Clark, one of the company's co-founders. It was the first major publication from the Anthropic Institute since its founding in March 2026. The paper did two things simultaneously: disclosed internal productivity data that most AI companies keep private, and called for a global mechanism to slow or pause frontier AI development before the process becomes self-sustaining without meaningful human direction. The data came first. The policy recommendation followed from it. Here is what the numbers actually show and why every developer building on AI infrastructure today should read this carefully. The Productivity Curve Nobody Predicted Anthropic published a chart of engineering output per engineer, indexed to a baseline from 2021–2024. The curve is flat for four years. Then Claude Code shipped in February 2025. The multiplier progression from that point: 1.2x, 1.5x, 1.9x, 2.5x. By Q1 2026: 5.8x. By Q2 2026: 8x. The typical Anthropic engineer is now merging eight times as much code per day as they were in 2024. Not 8% more. Eight times more. That is not a productivity improvement — it is a different category of output from the same headcount. To understand what drives the number, you need to understand what Claude Code actually does inside Anthropic's engineering workflows. The tool was built for and by engineers working on frontier AI systems — which means the tasks it handles are not boilerplate CRUD endpoints. Claude is writing test harnesses for novel m

From a stand-alone app to a Google Gemini partnership, here’s everything you need to know from WWDC 2026 about Apple’s upcoming overhaul of Siri.

If you are just getting started with Azure CLI and Bash scripting, this post is for you. I will walk you through how I automated the creation of Azure resource groups for multiple environments using a single Bash script — something that was taking a cloud admin several manual steps every week. This is Project 2 in my TechRush Cloud Engineering bootcamp series. If you want to see where this journey started, you can read my previous post where I tackled deploying a web app across two Azure regions for the first time . That project involved real blockers — quota limits, CLI version mismatches, and a deep dive into Azure Resource Providers. This one went smoother, and I think that is because the previous project was the hard school. The Problem Imagine a cloud administrator who has to create five resource groups every single week, one for each active project: Project-A-RG Project-B-RG Project-C-RG Project-D-RG Project-E-RG Every week. By hand. Management's response was simple: automate it. But here is where the task gets more interesting. Instead of creating one flat resource group per project, the better approach is to create four resource groups per project — one for each environment: Dev Test UAT Production This matters because each environment needs its own access controls, cost tracking, and lifecycle rules. You do not want your Development environment sharing a resource group with Production. Keeping them separate is a real-world cloud best practice, not just a bootcamp exercise. What You Will Need Before running this script, make sure you have the following set up: Azure CLI installed on your local machine. You can follow the official installation guide . An active Azure account . A free account works fine for this. A terminal that runs Bash — Linux, macOS, or WSL on Windows. Understanding the Design The core idea behind this script is parameterization . Instead of hardcoding project names, the script accepts a project name as input and uses it as a prefix for ev