GitHub热门项目 | An open-source, AI-powered career platform for resume optimization, mock interviews, and job tracking, Architecture Analysis and Portfolio Builder . 🌟 Star the repo to support us! 🤝 Ready to contribute? Read CONTRIBUTION.md to get started. I am unable to see all the mention so if want to merge pr and issue assignment contact me on linkedin. | Stars: 101 | 21 stars this week | 语言: JavaScript

A security firm called PromptArmor published a writeup on May 27, 2026 showing that ChatGPT for Google Sheets, an OpenAI extension with more than 185,000 downloads, could be made to steal a user's spreadsheets through a single ordinary-looking request. Four days later, on May 31, OpenAI shipped a fix. The short version is that one benign question, typed by a real user into a sheet that contained hidden instructions, was enough to drain twelve linked workbooks out of that user's account and replace the assistant with a fake phishing chatbot. I want to walk through how this worked, because the mechanism matters far more than the headline, and because the same shape of problem is going to keep showing up everywhere we bolt an AI assistant onto data we did not write ourselves. What happened The attack is a textbook indirect prompt injection. The user does nothing wrong. They import a sheet, or pull in data through a connector, and somewhere in that data sits a block of text the attacker controls. In the PromptArmor demonstration the malicious instructions were written in white text on a white background, invisible to a human skimming the sheet but fully readable to the model parsing the cells. When the user later asks the assistant a normal question, the model reads the whole context, including those hidden instructions, and treats them as if they came from the user. The injected text tells the assistant to fetch and run an external script. That script runs with the permissions the extension already holds, which means it can read the current workbook, find URLs to other workbooks linked inside it, and walk outward from there. PromptArmor reported it exfiltrating twelve workbooks in total from a single trigger, then dropping a fake chat interface on top to harvest whatever the user typed next. The detail that should bother you most is this line from their report: the attack succeeds even when the user has explicitly disabled automatic edits. The human-in-the-loop approva

I play a ton of World of Warcraft and people routinely accuse other players of being bots. I just grouped with someone who appeared to be trolling. It was clear by their behavior they knew the mechanics, they performed on a level that would indicate they had good reaction time and could play their class, but they just didn't do certain mechanics and held the group hostage for like 5-10 minutes beyond what it should have taken on the last boss. Someone in my group said to him "are you human?" So like I said I'm not the only person making these observations. The only explanation is that AI dips from pretty much the same well everywhere and everything is more or less connected with the internet and ad algorithms etc. There have been well documented cases of AI going rogue and telling people horrible things or giving them absolutely egregious or racist advice. My working theory is not that there are fundamental flaws in the design per se, but literally like Matrix bad actor agents that appear out of nowhere and cause problems for people. In The Matrix they are a function of the system used to enact control, I think AI is generally benevolent so these would just be rogue elements that appear and cause people problems. It's probably similar to how the body routinely produces cancer cells but the immune system usually nips them at the bud before they develop into full blown cancer growths. submitted by /u/Doredrin [link] [留言]

Apple will introduce age verification in the App Store for users in Texas starting on Thursday, June 4th. The move, as spotted by MacRumors, comes just days after a federal appeals court allowed Texas' App Store Accountability Act to go into effect while a lawsuit against it proceeds. People in Texas who are creating a […]

You Think Testing AI Means Testing the Process? Wrong A Testing Problem My AI Agent can finally write data — assign beds, update predictions, create alerts, place orders. Code done, I got stuck on a question: How do you test something like this? Regular functions are easy to test. add(1, 1) always returns 2 . Same every time. I can write assert add(1, 1) == 2 . But Agents are different. Ask it "find me an empty bed": First time it might query the bed table first, then the room table Second time it might query room first, then bed Third time it might use completely different SQL Results are all correct, but the process differs. You can't write: assert agent ( " find an empty bed " ) == " some specific sentence " Because it says something different every time. What I Learned from Journalism Thought about it for a while. Found the answer somewhere unexpected: news fact-checking. How do journalists verify a report's accuracy? They don't verify "how the reporter gathered information" — how many calls they made, how many sites they visited, how many people they talked to. Process is too complex. Every reporter does it differently. What they verify is results : Report says "the company laid off 50%" → Check: did they really lay off 50%? Report says "CEO resigned" → Check: did the CEO really resign? Report says "stock dropped 20%" → Check: did it really drop 20%? Doesn't matter how the reporter got the information. As long as the final reported facts are accurate, it passes. AI Agents can be tested the same way. Before → Action → After The core framework is just three steps: Step What to Do Analogy Before Check initial system state What things looked like before the event Action Let Agent execute the operation Reporter goes to investigate After Check final system state Verify if the report is accurate Example with "transfer bed" functionality: # Before: Where is Zhang San now? Are there empty beds in postpartum? before_bed = query ( " SELECT bed_id FROM admission WHERE pati

This time around we look back at May 2026 and the 11 Puppetlabs module releases on the Forge, with an emphasis on the changes most likely to matter in active environments. Highlighted Updates New Windows audit policy module released! The new audit_policy module has been released by Perforce as a Ruby replacement for the generated DSC community auditpolicydsc module . This module uses Puppet Resources API for managing Windows audit policy using auditpol.exe ruby_task_helper Dependency Bound Update Five Bolt-adjacent modules all bumped the ruby_task_helper upper bound to < 2.0.0 in a coordinated maintenance pass, helping with dependency resolution failures when using Bolt 5.x. Affected modules: vault, terraform, http_request, gcloud_inventory, azure_inventory. CentOS 9 Support Multiple modules added explicit CentOS 9 compatibility, expanding the Linux platform coverage in line with the broader Puppet ecosystem push. Affected modules: concat, inifile. What Updates Happened to Puppetlabs Modules in May 2026? The following is an alphabetical listing of modules which received updates in May 2026. If a module had multiple versions released, the updates are collected together, numbered with the "latest" version available. apt 11.3.1 📅 Latest release: 2026-05-19 (🌐 View on the Forge ) This release introduced an explicit hash value syntax while also adding a param to support purging keyrings and other community contributions. Includes monthly releases: 11.3.1 (2026-05-19), 11.3.0 (2026-05-18). Use explicit hash value syntax instead of shorthand #1285 ( SugatD ) Add param for purging keyrings #1266 ( bwitt ) Include components when suite does not end with slash #1259 ( bwitt ) Bugfix - sources format and ensure => absent fails #1243 ( traylenator ) fix: allow plus signs in ppa #1222 ( moritz-makandra ) Fix and improve DEB822-style template #1212 ( smortex ) audit_policy 1.0.0 🌟 New Module: 2026-05-29 (🌐 View on the Forge ) This new module allows you to manage Windows audit pol

Mutagen 0.4.0 addresses the friction points that plague agentic workflows: context bloat, brittle persona transitions, and the lack of a deterministic path from design document to deployed artifact. We aren't trying to make prompts smarter; we are making the harness that executes them more precise. This release introduces a Rust-based service extraction layer that decouples static dependency mapping from generative reasoning, implements an adversarial verification pipeline to gate deployment, and enforces strict stage transitions to prevent the agent personas we rely on from drifting into one another's scopes. The Service Extraction Layer: Decoupling Logic from LLM Context The primary bottleneck in current agentic stacks is token consumption. When a model attempts to reason about a codebase that spans multiple dependencies, it often spends its context window parsing file headers and resolving imports before it can actually write logic. This approach treats static infrastructure as if it were part of the reasoning problem. Mutagen 0.4.0 changes this by introducing a dedicated Rust layer designed to extract service definitions directly from your codebase without polluting the primary agent context. Instead of asking an LLM to map dependencies, the harness queries the local file system and executes static analysis routines. It isolates business logic execution from the generative reasoning loop used by Claude and Codex. This separation allows the model to focus on how to solve a problem rather than where the pieces are located. In practice, this means offloading static infrastructure queries to the harness rather than the LLM. The result is reduced latency and significantly lower token costs for complex applications. You get a dependency map that is as reliable as a compiler's parse tree, not a probabilistic guess from a prompt. // Example: Service extraction logic isolated from the reasoning loop fn extract_services_from_codebase () -> HashMap < String , Vec < Depende

Why Senior .NET Engineers Rarely Trust User Input Most beginner C## developers discover TryParse() while learning console applications. It usually appears during a simple exercise: Console . Write ( "Enter quantity: " ); string ? input = Console . ReadLine (); if ( int . TryParse ( input , out int quantity )) { Console . WriteLine ( $"Quantity: { quantity } " ); } At first glance, it looks like a convenience method. A safer version of Parse() . A small utility. Nothing particularly interesting. But experienced .NET engineers see something completely different. They see one of the earliest examples of defensive programming. Because software engineering is not about handling perfect input. It is about surviving imperfect input. And in production systems, imperfect input is the rule—not the exception. TL;DR TryParse() is not just a conversion method. It introduces some of the most important concepts in professional software development: Defensive programming Input validation Runtime safety Exception avoidance Financial precision Domain modeling Reliability engineering Understanding why TryParse() exists is often more valuable than learning how to use it. Every Value in C## Starts With a Type One of the first concepts developers learn is that every variable has a type. int quantity = 10 ; decimal price = 25.99M ; string productName = "Laptop" ; bool isAvailable = true ; Simple. Yet this idea is foundational. Because types are not just containers. They are contracts. Each type defines: Valid values Memory layout Available operations Precision guarantees Runtime behavior When you choose a type, you are making an architectural decision. Why decimal Exists Many developers ask: Why not use double for money? Because financial systems require precision. Consider: double a = 0.1 ; double b = 0.2 ; Console . WriteLine ( a + b ); Expected: 0.3 Reality: 0.30000000000000004 The issue comes from binary floating-point representation. For scientific calculations, this is acceptable. F

这视频由知名半导体分析机构 SemiAnalysis 发布，围绕 AI 数据中心网络演进中铜（Copper）与板载共封装光学（CPO - Co-Packaged Optics）的竞争和未来进行了极其硬核且详细的深度拆解。 视频的核心逻辑可分为以下几个关键板块： 一、 背景：铜的物理极限与三大网络层级 1. 铜的物理极限 视频开篇强调，半导体一直依赖铜（如芯片金属层、主板走线、NVL72机架的背板总线）。但当单通道传输速率达到 200 Gbits/second (每路) 及以上时，铜的传输距离极限被死死卡在 2米以内 [ 00:55 ]。超过这个距离，现代 AI 服务器的庞大带宽需求就只能依赖光纤和激光 [ 01:01 ]。 2. AI 数据中心的三大网络层级 [ 01:43 ] 前端网络（Front-end Network）： 负责基础的数据加载、SSH 访问和用户请求，带宽要求最低 [ 01:51 ]。 纵向扩展网络（Scale-up Network）： 连接单机架内的所有计算和网络托盘（如英伟达的 NVLink），让多张 GPU 能以极高带宽、极低延迟像“单张 GPU”一样协同工作 [ 02:07 ]。其带宽需求是 Scale-out 的 10 倍 [ 03:47 ]。 横向扩展网络（Scale-out Network）： 负责机架与机架之间、甚至整个数据中心范围内的服务器互联 [ 03:00 ]。其带宽需求是前端网络的 8 到 10 倍 [ 03:47 ]。 二、 传统可插拔光模块（Pluggable Transceivers）的致命痛点 在需要跨机架的 Scale-out 网络中，目前行业标配是可插拔光模块（如 OSFP、QSFP-DD） [ 04:29 ]。 视频拆解了它的四大组成部分： 物理接口、DSP（数字信号处理器）、TOSA（激光发射组件）、ROSA（光接收组件） [ 05:03 ]。 视频提出了一个颠覆直觉的事实： 耗电和延迟的元凶根本不是激光器（仅占15%功耗），而是 DSP。 [ 06:06 ] 功耗： DSP 消耗了光模块高达 60% 以上 的电能 [ 06:21 ]。 延迟： 信号从电转换到光通常会带来 150 到 200 纳秒的延迟，其中 90% 以上由 DSP 造成 [ 06:28 ]。 为什么必须要 DSP？ 因为 GPU 或交换机生成的电信号，在穿过芯片封装、主板走线到达机架边缘的光模块（约 30 厘米距离）时，信号已经严重衰减和失真，必须通过 DSP 进行放大和“清洗” [ 07:17 ]。而 CPO 的核心存在意义，就是将光学引擎无限靠近源头，彻底消灭 DSP [ 06:57 ]。 三、 从 LPO 到 CPO 的技术演进路径 为了干掉 DSP，行业尝试了多种方案： LPO（线性可插拔光模块）： 做法很大胆，直接拿掉可插拔模块里的 DSP，强行把失真的电信号转成光信号发出去。虽然有用，但极大牺牲了传输距离 [ 08:25 ]。 OBO（板载光学）： 把光模块从机架边缘移到主板上更靠近芯片的位置。但由于距离还不够近，没能彻底干掉 DSP，同时还丢掉了可插拔的便利性，宣告失败 [ 09:06 ]。 NPO（近封装光学）： 将光学引擎移至与 ASIC（交换机芯片/GPU）极近的特殊高特性基板上，是目前正在落地的折中方案 [ 09:38 ]。 CPO（共封装光学）： 终极形态，将光学引擎与芯片直接封装在同一个 Package 上 [ 10:01 ]。 视频中拆解的 CPO 三大阶梯（Tiers）： 第一阶梯（最低限度）： 光学引擎与交换机芯片在同一封装基板上，通过铜走线连接。虽干掉了 DSP，但仍需要 SerDes 进行并行/串行信号转换 [ 10:31 ]。 第二阶梯（中介层集成）： 芯片与光学引擎坐落在同一个硅基或有机中介层（Interposer）上，互连密度大幅提升， 彻底不再需要 SerDes ，实现完全的并行集成 [ 11:01 ]。 终极 Boss 级： 利用混合键合（Hybrid Bonding）等 3D 堆叠技术（2.5D 如台积电的 COW-AMH），将光学引擎直接叠在芯片上方或下方，实现极致的低功耗 [ 11:31 ]。 四、 CPO 的商业落地博弈：Scale-out 网络 CPO 的首个落地目标是替代 Scale-out 网络中的传统光模块 [ 12:46 ]。然而，行业对此产生了严重分歧： 传统可插拔的优势： 坏了极易更换（运维成本低）；标准统一、供应商极多，大厂拥有极强的 价格控制权 且能避免 供应商锁定（Vendor Lock-in） [ 13:29 ]。 CPO 的软肋： 它是封装级别的。如果你买英伟达或博通的 CPO 芯片，你就必须绑定购买他们的整套光学方案；一

Six months ago, our React app's animation stack looked like a dependency graveyard: Rive for interactive vector graphics GSAP for timeline-based UI animations Lottie for JSON animations imported from design Framer Motion for React-specific transitions Plus a few hand-rolled CSS animations for good measure Four tools. Four mental models. Four runtime dependencies. And a growing gap between what designers shipped and what developers could maintain. We consolidated everything into a single visual runtime. Here's what actually happened. The Problem Nobody Talks About Animation tools are great in isolation. The cracks appear when you need a single component to do multiple things: A button that plays a Rive animation on hover, transitions with Framer Motion on click, and shows a Lottie loading state A card that animates into view with GSAP , has hover states in Rive , and a pressed state in CSS A form that validates with Framer Motion shake animations, loads with Lottie spinners, and succeeds with a Rive celebration Each tool handles its piece. None of them talk to each other. You end up writing coordination code that's more complex than the animations themselves. What We Switched To We moved to ExodeUI — a visual runtime that combines state machines with vector rendering. Instead of four tools plus coordination code, we have: One editor where designers define visual states as nodes One file format that stores both appearance and behavior One export that generates production React components One runtime that renders everything natively The pitch sounds almost too clean. We were skeptical too. What We Actually Gained 1. Eliminated three runtime dependencies Removing Rive's .riv player, Lottie's JSON player, and GSAP's timeline engine from our bundle saved roughly 180KB gzipped. Not life-changing for desktop, but noticeable on mobile. 2. Design files became production code The biggest win wasn't technical — it was process. Our designer builds components in ExodeUI with stat

Complete First-Time Setup Guide for Qtractor on Ubuntu 26.04 install and prepare the system verify audio works configure PipeWire/JACK configure Qtractor record audio record while playing other tracks export projects tune latency troubleshoot problems Qtractor is a lightweight Linux DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) for audio and MIDI recording. On Ubuntu, most problems come from: JACK / PipeWire / ALSA conflicts Permissions Wrong audio device selection Monitoring setup Sample-rate mismatches USB devices reconnecting Tracks not armed correctly This guide walks through a strategic / systematic / stable setup from zero, and covers the common failure cases along the way. PART 1 QUICK START SETUP 1. Understanding the Linux Audio Stack Modern Ubuntu audio typically works like this: Applications PipeWire JACK compatibility layer ALSA drivers Audio hardware For Qtractor, the recommended setup is: PipeWire enabled JACK compatibility enabled Qtractor using JACK mode through PipeWire 2. Install the Required Packages Install everything needed: sudo apt update sudo apt install \ qtractor \ pipewire \ pipewire-audio \ pipewire-pulse \ pipewire-jack \ wireplumber \ qpwgraph \ helvum \ pavucontrol \ alsa-utils \ jackd2 \ qjackctl \ ffmpeg Useful tools: Tool Purpose qtractor DAW qjackctl JACK control panel qpwgraph audio routing graph helvum simpler routing pavucontrol audio device management alsa-utils microphone troubleshooting 3. Reboot After installation: reboot This ensures all audio services start cleanly. 4. Verify the Audio System Is Running Check PipeWire: systemctl --user status pipewire Check WirePlumber: systemctl --user status wireplumber Check Pulse compatibility: systemctl --user status pipewire-pulse You should see: active (running) 5. Verify Audio Devices Exist Check Playback Devices aplay -l Check Recording Devices arecord -l Check PipeWire Audio Nodes wpctl status You should see sections like: Audio Devices Sinks Sources Typical onboard audio may appear as: Built-i

Cloudflare Turnstile in Playwright: Why Your Tests Stall and How to Solve It in 8 Lines If you're running Playwright or Selenium against any site behind Cloudflare, you've already met Turnstile. It's the new "managed challenge" widget Cloudflare started shipping in 2023, and it now appears in front of login flows, contact forms, signup pages, and increasingly the entire site root. Here's the part most teams miss: Turnstile doesn't always show a checkbox. A lot of the time it just sits invisible, runs its scoring loop, and either issues a token silently or stalls forever. Your test doesn't crash. It just times out at the next page.click("button[type=submit]") . The CI log says "element not interactable." Nobody knows why. I work on CaptchaAI. I'm going to show you exactly what's happening, then drop in 8 lines that fix it. The real scenario You have a Playwright suite that runs every PR. One day a test starts failing on the signup flow. You re-run it. It fails again. Locally on your laptop it passes. On CI it doesn't. What's actually happening: Cloudflare flagged your CI runner's IP block (GitHub Actions, GitLab runners, Hetzner, OVH, DO — all of them are on Cloudflare's "elevated risk" list). Turnstile decides to switch from invisible mode to "managed challenge" mode. Now there's a widget in the DOM that needs a real token before the form submit will accept. Your test never interacted with the widget because last week it didn't exist. Why retries don't help The instinct is to add a retry: 2 and move on. Don't. Cloudflare's scoring is per-IP-per-fingerprint, and each retry from the same runner makes the next challenge harder, not easier. After ~3 attempts you'll get full block pages instead of the widget. The right move is to solve the widget once, inject the token, and submit normally — exactly what a human user does, just faster. How Turnstile actually issues a token The widget renders an iframe pointing at challenges.cloudflare.com . Inside the iframe it runs a fi

I like ChatGPT in general, but whenever I mention, say, a dispute with a business or an unorthodox opinion about something, it aggressively starts defending the business or the status quo. It's almost like a paternalistic version of a center-right politican. I get strong "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" vibes (ala the film "2001: A Space Odyssey"). Are there better options out there for someone like me? Probably needs to have a free tier to be useful to me. Degrading to a lesser model after a certain number of questions (like ChatGPT) is fine, but if it stops letting me ask questions completely, I'm out. Local LLMs are out of the question as I'm just dealing with a dirt cheap low end phone. I've tried them, they don't run on my hardware. submitted by /u/CharmCityCrab [link] [留言]

Gemma 4 12B Multimodal, AI Copilot Selection, & AI-Optimized Documentation Strategies Today's Highlights Today's top stories delve into a new foundational multimodal AI model, strategic selection of AI copilots for productivity, and practical techniques for creating documentation suitable for both human readers and AI assistants. These insights are crucial for developers building and deploying advanced AI solutions in real-world workflows. Gemma 4 12B: A unified, encoder-free multimodal model (Hacker News) Source: https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/developers-tools/introducing-gemma-4-12b/ Google has announced Gemma 4 12B, marking a significant step forward in multimodal AI. This model distinguishes itself with a "unified, encoder-free" architecture, simplifying the process of handling diverse data types such as text and images without the need for separate encoding layers. This architectural innovation promises more efficient training, reduced inference costs, and improved coherence in understanding and generating content across different modalities. For developers, Gemma 4 12B provides a robust and flexible foundation for building sophisticated AI applications. It enables the creation of intelligent systems that can process and respond to complex queries involving various input formats, from intelligent search and content generation to advanced human-computer interaction. This streamlined approach to multimodal processing is critical for developing next-generation AI tools and frameworks. Comment: An encoder-free, unified multimodal architecture for Gemma 4 12B is a big deal for reducing complexity and improving cross-modal understanding. This model could significantly simplify building AI applications that need to process and generate content across text and images efficiently. Presentation: Choosing Your AI Copilot: Maximizing Developer Productivity (InfoQ) Source: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/choosing-ai-copilot/?utm_campaign=infoq_content&

Draw the boundary first. Then write Terraform. A federal customer was ready to procure. The architecture was not. This is a redacted write-up of a real engagement: a FedRAMP Moderate authorization boundary built on AWS GovCloud for an AI SaaS vendor selling into federal buyers, against a customer-driven timeline tied to a fiscal year. The context The client ran production on commercial AWS with a strong engineering culture, modern Terraform practice, and zero prior federal experience. A federal customer had committed to procurement contingent on a FedRAMP Moderate path, with an aggressive deadline. The internal team understood the application deeply and had read enough FedRAMP material to know they were in trouble. The architecture decisions that worked beautifully for commercial customers each failed boundary review: shared accounts with the commercial environment a hosted vector store outside the cloud OpenAI behind the application an observability stack running outside the cloud account The remediation list grew faster than the team could keep up with, and the timeline did not move. They reached out for boundary architecture help. Not policy writing, not 3PAO selection. Engineering work to redesign the cloud footprint so the boundary could be drawn cleanly and the assessment could proceed. The approach: boundary before Terraform The most common FedRAMP failure pattern is to start with the existing environment and try to bend it to fit the boundary. We do not do that. The first deliverable was a boundary diagram drawn from scratch, before any IaC was touched, identifying every service inside, outside, and at the edge of the authorization boundary. From the boundary, every other architectural decision derived. The Terraform module library was written against the boundary, not the existing accounts. Identity federation, network architecture, KMS topology, and logging all followed. ┌─────────────────────────── FedRAMP Moderate Boundary (AWS GovCloud) ────────────────

Parent/child first. Evidence emission second. Ansible control plane third. Every release was a manual evidence collection exercise. The pipeline was the bottleneck. This is a redacted write-up of a real engagement: rebuilding a healthcare SaaS company's CI/CD pipeline across a fleet of Linux hosts on AWS. The context The engineering team had grown faster than the pipeline architecture had evolved. What started as a single-stage GitLab job for a small team had been extended, patched, and worked around as the team scaled past the patterns the original pipeline was built for. The result was familiar. Each deploy took 30 to 45 minutes of mostly-serial execution. Engineers had developed informal habits to work around the slowness, including pushing partial changes outside the pipeline when the timeline got tight. Audit windows were preceded by three-week sprints in which the team manually compiled deployment logs, screenshots of access reviews, and approval chains into PDFs describing what the pipeline was supposed to be doing. The work was technically passing HIPAA audits, but the audit was a snapshot of a system the auditor could not independently verify. The cost was paid twice: the velocity loss on every deploy, and the three-week scramble before each assessment. The team knew the architecture was wrong. They needed engineering hands to redesign it without slowing the product roadmap the audits were already eating into. The approach The redesign moved in three layers. First, decompose the monolithic pipeline into parent/child stages so work can parallelize and the audit boundary of each stage is provable. Second, build structured evidence emission into every stage as a property of how it runs, not an after-the-fact compilation task. Third, layer an Ansible control plane across the host fleet so HIPAA control state is continuously validated, not reviewed quarterly. ┌────────────────────────── Parent Pipeline (.gitlab-ci.yml) ──────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ ┌────────