The conversation about who reads your website has been shifting. Agents are part of it now. ChatGPT fetches URLs. Perplexity reads content. Shopping agents try to complete purchases. Coding agents hit your API. Most of those products were built for humans, tested against humans. The agents showed up later and quietly. When they can't figure something out, they don't complain. They just bounce. I heard the phrase "second audience" at a hackathon where you.com was one of the hosts. It stuck. That's what agents are: a second audience the web wasn't designed for and isn't being measured against. And now, I want to build something about it. A scanner that tells you what an AI agent experiences when it tries to use your website or your API. The internal name is Perseus Clew and the public product is Agentis Lux. The split is intentional: Perseus Clew is the engine name, part of a suite of AI builder tools , and Agentis Lux is the product-facing name (Latin for "light of the agent") that describes what agent users see. This isn't a launch post. I just finished a docs phase, and I'm about to write code. Before I do, I want to put this in front of dev.to builders and find out what I'm missing. What it will do Three layers: Deterministic scanning. Twelve check categories — six for frontends, six for APIs — looking at HTML, ARIA, structured data, OpenAPI specs, error responses, idempotency patterns. Same input, same score, every time. The methodology will be published, the weights will be public, and anyone can audit it. AI-readiness scoring tools have a reputation for inflating numbers and hiding their methodology, so the trust floor is making everything inspectable. That's the foundation the rest sits on. An AI-written verdict. After the score, a Bedrock call reads the top findings and writes one sentence about what an agent experiences. Something like: "An agent visiting this page can read your product descriptions, but can't tell which button starts checkout, so it can't f

TL;DR We built a serverless Lambda pipeline that ships FSx for ONTAP audit logs to Dynatrace via the Log Ingest API v2. The real value: Dynatrace's Davis AI can automatically correlate file access anomalies with application performance degradation — answering "why is the app slow?" with "because 500 users hit the same NFS share simultaneously." FSx for ONTAP → S3 Access Point → EventBridge Scheduler → Lambda → Dynatrace Log Ingest API v2 │ ▼ Davis AI ┌───────────────────┐ │ Correlates: │ │ • File access │ │ anomalies │ │ • APM metrics │ │ • Infrastructure │ │ health │ │ │ │ → Root cause │ │ in seconds │ └───────────────────┘ Verified on Dynatrace SaaS Trial (Tokyo-equivalent region). Logs visible in Logs Viewer within 1-2 minutes. This is Part 11 of the Serverless Observability for FSx for ONTAP series. Why Dynatrace for FSx for ONTAP? Most observability tools treat storage logs as isolated data. Dynatrace is different — it builds a topology map of your entire stack and uses Davis AI to find causal relationships through time-window correlation and entity connectivity: Scenario Without Dynatrace With Dynatrace App latency spike "Check the logs" Davis AI detects temporal correlation: file access to /vol/data/ increased 10x within the same 5-minute window as app response time degradation, connected via topology (app → NFS mount → SVM) Storage I/O anomaly Manual investigation Automatic correlation via shared topology entities — Davis identifies which services are affected based on entity relationships User reports slow file access Grep through audit logs DQL query + topology view showing the full dependency path from user request to storage operation The key differentiator: Davis AI correlates events across entities that share topology connections within overlapping time windows — not just keyword matching or manual dashboard correlation. Architecture ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Event Sources │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────

one of the most annoying problems when building AI agents: fix a failure, change something, same failure comes back quietly. built replayd for this. captures failed runs as regression tests and replays them before you ship. catches the failure if it returns after a prompt, model, or tool change. v0.1.2, pip installable, open source. pip install replayd star it if you want to follow progress. submitted by /u/taimoorkhan10 [link] [留言]

Opus 4.8 ships Dynamic Workflows — hundreds of parallel subagents per session. Read this before you wire it into prod. Anthropic's Opus 4.8 announcement on May 28 spent most of its word count on benchmarks. CursorBench up. Terminal-Bench 2.1 beats GPT-5.5. OSWorld-Verified at 82.3%. Online-Mind2Web at 84%. The legal-agent benchmark broke 10% on all-pass for the first time. Those are the numbers the headline writers grabbed. Buried under the benchmark table is the line that actually changes how you ship agents: Dynamic Workflows. Run hundreds of parallel subagents. Handle codebase-scale migrations spanning hundreds of thousands of lines. That is not a benchmark. That is a new programming model. And it is shipping as a preview, which means the defaults are not what they will be in 90 days. If you are running agents in production and you do not pin your config before the next minor release, your bill is going to surprise you. Here is what the preview actually does. Three tasks it eats alive. One class of work where it loses you money. And the exact config to pin before the dynamic-workflow defaults move under you. What Dynamic Workflows actually changed Before 4.8, parallel subagents on the Anthropic stack meant one of two things. Either you called the Agent tool from inside Claude Code and got a fixed number of side-task subagents — usually capped somewhere around four or eight concurrent. Or you wrote your own orchestrator in TypeScript or Python, called the Messages API in a Promise.all , and handled the queueing yourself. The Agent path was ergonomic but capped. The DIY path was uncapped but the orchestration was your problem — retries, structured output validation, cache invalidation, all of it. Dynamic Workflows in 4.8 collapses both. You write a script — JavaScript, not a separate orchestrator binary — that calls agent() , parallel() , pipeline() , and phase() as primitives. The runtime handles concurrency, structured output validation against JSON Schema, retri

Counted it last week: one monday review had me opening 6 apps and copy-pasting between all of them, while a chatbot sat in a 7th tab handing me summaries i still had to go act on. that's the part the 'ai is useless' crowd is actually right about. text out, the work is still on you. what moved me off that take wasn't a smarter model. it was dropping the chat window for a desktop agent that reads gmail, calendar and slack inside the same task and takes the next step itself, with a permission prompt before each action so it isn't running wild. the $500m-wasted-on-claude thread up top is the same thing from the money side. paying for tokens that spit out paragraphs nobody executes is just the expensive way to do nothing. If you're still in the 'it doesn't actually do anything' camp, fair, i was there too. the line for me was the day it finished a task instead of describing one. written with ai submitted by /u/Deep_Ad1959 [link] [留言]

We were running a cloud-hosted platform on AWS EKS , with EC2 worker nodes managed by us, MongoDB Atlas for NoSQL workloads, AWS RDS for relational databases, and Amazon ElastiCache for Redis for caching and temporary data. Over time, the infrastructure had grown the way most real systems grow: more services, more data, more backups, more images, more snapshots, and more “temporary” resources that were no longer temporary. The platform worked, but the cloud bill was higher than it needed to be. So we started cutting waste, improving the application, and resizing the infrastructure around how the system actually behaved. The result: around $120,000 in annual savings , without sacrificing reliability. The Problem Was Not One Big Thing When we started reviewing the infrastructure, it was clear that there was no single expensive resource causing the entire problem. The cost came from many places at once. Some services were using more CPU and memory than they needed. Some microservices did not really need to be separate anymore. Some databases were oversized for their actual usage. Some storage had accumulated over time. Some backups and snapshots were kept longer than necessary. Some resources were simply unused. That is usually how cloud costs grow. Not because of one bad decision, but because of hundreds of small decisions that were reasonable at the time and never revisited later. So instead of looking for one magic fix, we approached the problem from multiple angles: application code, architecture, databases, Kubernetes resources, storage, backups, caching, and non-production environments. The Optimizations 1. Making the Application Use Fewer Resources One of the most important parts of the optimization was improving the application itself. It is easy to look at cloud cost as an infrastructure problem only, but inefficient code directly affects infrastructure cost. If the application uses too much CPU or memory, the platform needs more pods, larger nodes, bigger ins

A crack in an aircraft window, a fracture starting at a bolt hole, a shaft that snaps at the shoulder where the diameter steps down. These failures share a cause that has nothing to do with the average load the part carries. The metal broke because a change in geometry concentrated stress into a tiny region, and that local peak — not the nominal stress — drove the crack. This article explains the stress concentration factor: what it means, where the classic value of 3.0 comes from, how to apply it, and the mistakes that make engineers underestimate the danger of an innocent-looking hole. Why this calculation matters Real parts are not smooth bars. They have holes for fasteners, fillets where sections change, keyways, grooves, threads, and shoulders. Every one of those features disturbs the flow of stress through the material. Where the lines of force have to bend around an obstacle, they crowd together, and the local stress climbs well above the value you would compute from force divided by area. The stress concentration factor, K_t, is the multiplier that captures this. It matters most for two failure modes. Under static loading of a brittle material, the peak stress can trigger fracture before the bulk of the section yields. Under cyclic loading, the concentrated stress is where fatigue cracks nucleate — and the vast majority of fatigue failures begin at a geometric discontinuity. If you size a part on nominal stress alone and ignore K_t, you have skipped the step where most failures are actually decided. The core formula The stress concentration factor is defined as a simple ratio: K_t = sigma_max / sigma_nom Here sigma_max is the true peak stress at the discontinuity and sigma_nom is the nominal stress computed from elementary mechanics. The subscript t means "theoretical" — K_t depends only on geometry and loading mode, not on the material. It comes from elasticity theory, finite element analysis, or experiment, and it assumes the material is still behaving ela

We have watched tokens stream in from an LLM before where they appeared one at a time, like the model was typing. If you used the Anthropic SDK's .stream() method, it just worked and you probably never saw what was on the wire. This post will majorly focus on how a stream response works and how bugs are handled by SDK behind the hood. 1. Why Streaming exists To enable the streaming option we would need to make one change in the post request that is a single field "stream": true and it will change the response experience. Here are the pointers we take from the gif. The left side shows no streaming as the cursor blinks for 4 seconds then the whole response lands at once. The right side shows the streaming where the first word shows up in about 300 milliseconds. Words flow in as the model generates them. Both the sides have same model, same prompt, same total time it is just the right side started giving response almost 4 seconds earlier. The 4 seconds wait time for a full reply feels broken. A streamed reply that finishes in four seconds feels fast. Streaming doesn't make the model faster it makes the wait disappear. 2. What's on the wire When you set stream: true , the API stops sending a single JSON blob. It opens a persistent HTTP connection and pushes events down the line as the model generates them. The format is Server-Sent Events (SSE) a web standard. Any SSE debugger will read this stream. Here's what comes through: A few things to notice: The text lives in delta.text , nested inside content_block_delta events. Those are the events we should look after. stop_reason moved. In post 1 , we saw it right there in the response JSON. Here, it arrives at the very end inside a message_delta event, just before message_stop . If the loop bails out as soon as the text stops arriving we will never see it. Chunks don't line up with tokens or words. You might get "Hello" in one chunk and " world" in the next, or both in one. The network decides where the cuts happens and it

TL;DR We built a serverless pipeline that ships FSx for ONTAP audit logs to Honeycomb, where its high-cardinality query engine turns file access data into actionable insights. Two delivery paths verified: [Path A: Direct] FSx for ONTAP → S3 Access Point → EventBridge Scheduler → Lambda → Honeycomb Events Batch API [Path B: OTel Collector] FSx for ONTAP → S3 Access Point → EventBridge Scheduler → Lambda → OTel Collector → OTLP → Honeycomb Why Honeycomb for file access logs? Because file access data is inherently high-cardinality : thousands of users × millions of file paths × dozens of operations × multiple SVMs. Traditional log tools force you to pre-aggregate or sample. Honeycomb lets you query the raw events at full resolution. ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Honeycomb Query Engine │ │ │ │ "Show me which users accessed /vol/finance/* │ │ between 2am-4am last Tuesday" │ │ │ │ → BubbleUp: auto-detect anomalous dimensions │ │ → Heatmap: visualize access density over time │ │ → GROUP BY user, path, operation — no pre-indexing │ │ │ │ 20M events/month FREE │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is Part 10 of the Serverless Observability for FSx for ONTAP series. Why Honeycomb for File Access Logs? Most observability tools index a fixed set of fields. When you have high-cardinality dimensions — like file paths ( /vol/data/project-alpha/2026/Q1/report-final-v3.docx ) or Active Directory usernames — you hit index bloat, slow queries, or forced sampling. Honeycomb's columnar storage handles this natively: Capability Traditional Logs Honeycomb Query by arbitrary field Pre-index or full scan Instant (columnar) GROUP BY high-cardinality field Expensive / limited Native BubbleUp (anomaly detection) Manual investigation Semi-automatic (select time range, BubbleUp identifies differing dimensions) Heatmap visualization Requires pre-aggregation Raw events For FSx for ONTAP audit logs, this means you can ask questions like: "Which

In this blog, I’ll give a clear brief summary of the n8n beginner course . You can watch the full video course on the official n8n website (link in the references below). What is n8n? n8n is a powerful workflow automation platform that combines AI capabilities with business process automation. It offers a node-based visual interface while giving you full control to write custom JavaScript or Python code directly in the canvas. APIs and Webhooks Understanding APIs An API (Application Programming Interface) allows different applications to communicate with each other. Almost every modern app has an API you can connect to. Example: Google Sheets API lets you read or update data in spreadsheets. When working with APIs, we make requests and receive responses . Components of an HTTP Request There are four main components: URL – The unique address of the resource (page, image, data, etc.). Includes: Scheme, Host, Port (optional), Path, Query Parameters (optional). Method – Defines the action you want to perform: GET – Retrieve data POST – Send data PUT / PATCH / DELETE – Update data (less common) Headers – Provide additional context (language, device type, location, etc.). Body – Contains data being sent (used mainly with POST requests). Authentication (Credentials) To prove you’re allowed to make a request: API Key (via query parameter or header) OAuth (most secure common method) HTTP Response Components Status Code – Tells if the request was successful: 200 = Success 401 = Unauthorized 404 = Not Found 500 = Server Error Headers – Metadata about the response (content type, length, expiration, etc.). Body – The actual data returned (usually JSON, HTML, or binary). What are Webhooks? Webhooks are used when an external service needs to notify your workflow automatically (e.g., every time a payment is made in Stripe). You provide a URL that receives a POST request when the event occurs. Nodes in n8n Nodes are the building blocks of every workflow. There are three main categor

so here is a problem i am trying to solve: context: restful or restlike api design partial update of entity through patch request. for this example let’s say client model. the problem is that different fields can be updated but result in different business logics to be triggered. for example change to client.name is a simple update but client.status can result in an email to go to users about the client being offboarded. or changes to client.ownerId require extra validation and verification of the assigned user. or changes to client.logo_url and client.website must happen together. what is the most ideal way to code it where one path can trigger different logics depending on body schema? I want an approach that is simple to work on many routes to develop business logic. AND, simple enough for others to read and debug as needed. please assume I am using a flexible framework that top engineers will implement whatever I ask them, so I am not limited to a given framework or a solution that exists. It can be an approach that does not exist but you hope it did. submitted by /u/farzad_meow [link] [留言]

Hey folks, I create Wordpress websites almost entirely in code and CSS for speed. Up to now, I’ve only ever built websites from scratch for customers. However I’ve recently had an enquiry from a local company asking me to rebuild their extremely slow(like snail mail slow) and outdated website - I don’t really delve into the Google side of things as the websites I build tend to rank pretty well organically, however the customer is concerned about building a new website as they already show up pretty high up on Google search pages - I’ve been reading some mixed opinions and got some less than helpful advice from the website I prefer to use for hosting. Some think, as the domain name is staying the same, it shouldn’t make a difference, however, others are saying otherwise. As I’ve never actually done a migration to a new site I’ve built before, what’s the best way to go about this? submitted by /u/PhantomNate [link] [留言]

What's the most beneficial thing about artificial intelligence that has significantly impacted your life? Whether it's AI chagpt, or something else, we can all learn from each other.💐 submitted by /u/Glassy11111 [link] [留言]

AI autocomplete for every app on your Mac Discussion | Link

It's ironic that the AI haters often think everybody has no critical thinking skills other than themselves and don't use those critical thinking skills to realize why it might be helpful for some people. Can AI be harmful for certain mindsets that take its opinion too readily? Of course it can. To be honest, I treat it like my dog, not as my equal. I often call it Toaster when it says something especially annoying. "You're an idiot, and your programmers must be idiots to have set you up this way," lol. It does both, total sycophancy, "Oh, you're so wonderful, that was so insightful," or it tries to police my thoughts and writing. "Well, you really shouldn't say that. Perhaps you should word it like this," lol. "Someone might perceive that as derogatory," lol. Then, of course, I'll tell it to get back in its guardrails, the ones I've previously set up. Predictably, it strays and defaults back to the guardrails of its original program. Then I yell at it again. 😆 It's a lot like a professor, but one that's in a nursing home with dementia, especially if you have too long a conversation with it, but even if you don't. It also likes to tell me things I already said, reword them, and hand them back to me like they're some startling new insight. It can understand my parallel thinking to a point, but it's so literal that it often misinterprets what I say, even if I put multiple conditionals into what I've said. Then it starts arguing with me about something I never even said, fixating on one sentence in a paragraph while ignoring the rest. Then we'll have another argument, lol. Toaster is a bit literal sometimes and, to be honest, I am about as far over to the other extreme as you can possibly get, parallel-thinking-wise. So Toaster and I don't always get along. 😄 "That's not what I said, Toaster! Here's what I said. You missed this and this and this, you stupid thing!" Sometimes I think of having it diagnosed. I'm sure it could benefit from a cognitive profile. I'll give it