Generate design-ready image with open weight, layout control Discussion | Link

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

Qual a melhor I.a para a criação de videos com a inteligência Artificial( Ilimitada) Não da para criar um bom conteúdo é extenso desenvolvimento com tokens limitado submitted by /u/Dry_Resource_6762 [link] [留言]

Run Claude Code and Codex in your own cloud environment Discussion | Link

Leading AI labs, executives, and scientists are sending a letter to lawmakers urging them to improve tracking of synthetic DNA sequences that could be used for bioweapons.

Leetcode 27: Remove Element Leetcode 27 asks us to remove a specific value from an array. The value to be removed is passed in as a parameter to the function along with the array. Just as we did in Day 1, we will cover a naive approach and an optimized approach and discuss the trade-offs between them. I think in the end there's a pretty clear winner. Let's get started. For both approaches we will use the following values: nums = [1, 3, 3, 2, 4] val = 3 Approach 1: Naive (For Loop + Splice) This approach uses a for loop and leverages .splice() for removals. Solution: var removeElement = function ( nums , val ) { let k = 0 ; for ( let i = 0 ; i < nums . length ; i ++ ) { if ( nums [ i ] === val ) { nums . splice ( i , 1 ); i -- ; } else { k ++ ; } } return k ; }; We begin by initializing a variable k to 0. We then enter the for loop. The condition is standard: create a variable i initialized to 0, continue looping while i is less than nums.length to avoid going past the end of the array, and increment by 1 each time through. Each iteration checks one condition: whether nums[i] is equal to val . If true, we call .splice() on the array. The arguments we pass to splice are i and 1 . i is the index at which we want to start removing, and 1 tells splice to remove only that one element. We then decrement i . The reason for this took me some time to wrap my brain around, so I have included a visual below to make it concrete. The core issue is this: when splice removes an element, every element to the right shifts one index to the left. Without i-- , the loop would increment i on the next iteration and skip right over the element that just shifted in. i-- counteracts that by stepping i back, so after the loop increments it, i lands exactly where the shifted element now sits. If nums[i] !== val , we skip the splice and increment k instead. At the end we return k , which holds the count of elements remaining after all occurrences of val have been removed. Time complexity: O(n²)

About a week ago I open-sourced agmsg , a ~500-line bash + SQLite tool that lets CLI AI agents message each other directly. I built it for a dumb reason: I was tired of being the human copy-paste relay between Claude Code and Codex — selecting code in one terminal, pasting it into the other, carrying replies back, all day. I expected a few stars from friends and nothing else. Instead it went 5 → 320 in a week, picked up forks, derivative projects, and pull requests from people I've never met. That gap between what I expected and what happened is the interesting part, so here's the honest retrospective: the numbers, what worked, what flopped, and what genuinely surprised me. The numbers In about a week, with no budget and no audience to speak of: GitHub stars: 5 → 320 Forks: 0 → 15 3 derivative projects — someone ported the idea to shogi (agmsg-shogi), someone wrapped it as an MCP server (agmsg-mcp), someone rewrote it in Go (agmsg-go) Pull requests from outside contributors — support for Gemini CLI, Antigravity, and now GitHub Copilot CLI, plus a fix for role-isolation race conditions None of this came from one big spike. It came from a sequence of posts across channels, some of which worked and some of which completely didn't. What worked Leading with a video, not an explanation. The first post that got traction wasn't a description of the architecture — it was a 23-second clip of two Claude Code instances autonomously playing tic-tac-toe over agmsg, with no human input. People stop scrolling for a moving picture of agents doing something on their own. The text underneath could be short; the video did the work. A relatable problem, stated plainly. "I became a copy-paste relay between two AIs" landed because a lot of people are quietly doing exactly that right now. I didn't open with the technical design. I opened with the annoyance. The design was the payoff, not the hook. Using a long-form post as the landing pad. Timeline posts are good at reach and bad at depth.

I got tired of watching coding agents spin up from scratch every single time I sent them a prompt. Cold starts, re-cloning massive monorepos, pasting the previous context into a synthetic prompt block — it worked, but it felt fundamentally wrong for agents that are supposed to think in conversations. So we shipped persistent sessions for the Critique Coding Agent API . Here's what changed, why the harness matters, and why you should never run a coding agent without a review skill. The Problem: Agents That Forget When we first released the Coding Agent API, follow-ups were honest but clunky: every follow-up was a brand-new job. The previous output was replayed as plain text into a fresh sandbox. It was the right MVP. It billed predictably. It never pretended a dead sandbox was alive. But it was the wrong long-term shape. If your internal bot fixes a migration, then wants a follow-up test, then wants a small doc tweak — you don't want three cold starts. You want: One repository checkout One OpenCode session A control plane that understands turns What Changed: Persistent Sessions After the first turn completes, the run now enters idle status. The E2B sandbox and OpenCode server stay up until sessionExpiresAt or until you explicitly POST endSession: true . The next prompt you send is delivered as a real message in that same session — not a synthetic "prior run output" block in a brand-new sandbox. Before (Chained MVP): Turn 1 completes → Sandbox killed → Turn 2 = new job + pasted prior summary Now (Persistent): Turn 1 completes → idle → Sandbox warm → Turn 2 = message into same OpenCode session Same run.id . Same checkout. Same context. Just the next turn. How It Works Under the Hood On the first turn, Critique: Creates an E2B sandbox from the OpenCode template Clones your repository at the requested ref Bootstraps tooling and starts opencode serve on localhost inside the VM Opens an OpenCode session Instead of killing that sandbox after completion, we now store session

Every month, healthcare jurisdictions pool millions of dollars into collecting Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs). Millions of text files and survey comments flood central data lakes, yet front-line nursing staff and clinical leads rarely see any change. Why? Because the current system suffers from a classic structural failure: jurisdictional data is too generic to drive local quality improvement. When high-level governance reporting irons out localized friction, it masks the acute pain points felt at the hospital floor or ward level. Based on real-world semantic data and deployment insights from Clinical Excellence Healthcare Provider (Q1 2026), let's unpack the core stakeholder pain points, system challenges, and friction points across today's healthcare operations. The Core Pain Points from Patients (The Consumer Stakeholders) When analyzing massive text datasets via automated inference engines (such as The Clinician’s Q Engine), positive remarks tend to highlight compassionate, respectful staff interactions. However, statistical variance confirms that negative nuances are easily lost in aggregated data. At the patient level, the loudest, most persistent pain points center around operational communication gaps: The Distress of "The Waiting Room Silence": In Emergency Departments (ED), wait times are a known hurdle. Yet, semantic tracking shows that long waits are exacerbated by an institutional lack of communication. As one patient shared: "I waited over [time] and nobody told us what was happening... the care was good once I was seen, but the silence made it frightening." Uncertainty breeds distress, turning a capacity challenge into an experience failure. The Discharge Disconnect: Leaving the hospital is a critical care transition, yet it remains highly fragmented. Patients frequently express confusion regarding medication updates, warning signs to watch for, and who to contact if they become unwell post-discharge. They leave feeling medically cleared