Please post your personal projects, startups, product placements, collaboration needs, blogs etc. Please mention the payment and pricing requirements for products and services. Please do not post link shorteners, link aggregator websites , or auto-subscribe links. -- Any abuse of trust will lead to bans. Encourage others who create new posts for questions to post here instead! Thread will stay alive until next one so keep posting after the date in the title. -- Meta: This is an experiment. If the community doesnt like this, we will cancel it. This is to encourage those in the community to promote their work by not spamming the main threads. submitted by /u/AutoModerator [link] [留言]

Testing a food delivery app is hard. Testing an on-demand logistics app is harder. Food delivery has...

AI is changing how we build software, but I think a lot of developer tools are solving yesterday's...

Shared mailboxes for teams and AI agents Discussion | Link

https://www.gnosyslabs.com/case-studies/safety-classifier-sparse-labels Gnosys is an autonomous model engineer: it improves prompts and classifiers when ground truth is too sparse for conventional optimization. On ToxicChat, a public safety benchmark, under realistic label scarcity, it improved a classifier past both the team's starting point and GEPA (a standard prompt optimizer), across two runs of our current method. This note describes what we did, what we found, and where the method underperformed. Results We report harm caught : the share of harmful messages flagged, holding the false positive rate fixed at 5% (one in twenty) for every method, so a difference reflects additional harm caught at the same cost rather than a change of threshold. Both runs below are scored on a held-out set the system never saw. Headline run (3,000) Prior run (1,000) Gnosys 0.777 0.909 Starting classifier 0.731 0.788 GEPA 0.702 0.848 In both runs, Gnosys improved on both the starting classifier and GEPA. In the headline run GEPA not only trailed Gnosys but fell below the starting classifier (0.731 to 0.702); in the prior run it improved on the starting point. This inconsistency is the central difficulty under sparse labels: optimization sometimes helps and sometimes harms, and without trustworthy measurement there is no way to tell which has happened. The comparison is intentionally conservative: both approaches use the same underlying optimizer. The only difference is that Gnosys engineers the objective the optimizer works against. The problem Teams running high-stakes AI classifiers, in content moderation, fraud, claims review, and risk scoring, share one constraint: the ground truth they need is a human judgment that is expensive, slow, and sometimes never arrives. They can verify only a small set of examples while decisions accumulate on everything else. Tuning the model against the few labels on hand is where the difficulty concentrates. Here "few" is literal: about 200 verifi

Every few months, a new AI model is released, and the same question comes up: "Will AI replace software developers?" My answer is simple: No, but it will change what it means to be a developer. AI Is Already Changing the Way We Work Today's AI tools can write code, explain complex functions, generate tests, fix bugs, and even review pull requests. They're incredibly useful, and they've made developers more productive than ever. But writing code is only one part of software engineering. Developers still need to: Understand business requirements Design scalable systems Make architectural decisions Communicate with stakeholders Review trade-offs Debug production issues Think critically about security and performance These responsibilities require context, judgment, and experience—things AI still struggles with. Coding Isn't the Hard Part Many people think programming is mostly about typing code. In reality, coding is often the easiest part. The challenging work is figuring out: What problem should be solved? What's the best approach? What are the risks? How will this scale in the future? How do different systems work together? AI can generate solutions, but it doesn't truly understand your business, your users, or your long-term goals. Developers Who Use AI Will Have an Advantage The biggest shift isn't developers versus AI. It's developers who use AI effectively versus those who don't. The best engineers are already using AI to: Generate boilerplate code Create documentation Write unit tests Learn unfamiliar frameworks Prototype ideas quickly Automate repetitive tasks This allows them to spend more time solving meaningful problems instead of repetitive ones. What Skills Will Matter More? As AI becomes better at generating code, developers will need stronger skills in areas that AI can't easily replace. These include: System architecture Problem-solving Communication Product thinking Cloud infrastructure Security Performance optimization Leadership and mentoring The va

Every developer has that one project. The passion build that sits in the back of your mind for months—or even years—before you finally sit down, crack your knuckles, and make it a reality. For me, that project was building a modern, open-access bilingual digital lexicon bridging English and Assamese: AssameseDictionary.org . While it started as a personal milestone dream, it quickly turned into a massive data engineering and architecture challenge. Here is how I tackled parsing a massive vocabulary database and serving it globally with near-zero latency. 🏗️ The Core Challenge: Scale vs. Speed A dictionary isn't like a standard SaaS app or landing page. It lives and dies by its database depth. To make this a truly definitive tool, I compiled, cleaned, and programmatically validated an extensive vocabulary index mapping over 293,000 words . The dataset doesn't just hold simple translations; it maps complex bidirectional lookups, phonetic transliterations, advanced English definitions, context usage examples, and cross-linked synonym tokens. If I threw this massive dataset into a traditional relational database hooked up to a standard server setup, I ran into immediate roadblocks: Latency: Heavy search queries on a dataset this size can cause noticeable lag. Cost/Overhead: Maintaining and scaling database servers for unpredictable public traffic gets expensive fast. I wanted the search utility to snap back instantly. To achieve that, I had to ditch traditional server paradigms entirely. ⚡ The Architecture: Serverless Edge Caching To keep things ultra-lightweight, highly cost-effective, and blazing fast, I built the platform around an edge-computing topology: The Runtime: I offloaded the backend logic entirely to Cloudflare Workers . Instead of routing traffic to a centralized origin server, queries are intercepted and executed at serverless edge locations physically closest to the user. The Data Layer: Instead of an active SQL database bottleneck, I mapped the data mat

Introduction: Unveiling the Critical Vulnerability The recently identified CVE-2026-8037 vulnerability in Progress Kemp LoadMaster represents a critical threat to enterprise infrastructure. This remote code execution (RCE) flaw, stemming from an uninitialized heap issue , enables pre-authentication exploitation, allowing attackers to bypass initial security barriers without valid credentials. The root cause lies in the failure to initialize dynamically allocated memory regions, creating an exploitable condition where untrusted input can corrupt critical data structures. Attackers leverage this memory corruption to redirect program execution to malicious payloads, achieving full system compromise—from data exfiltration to operational disruption. Technically, the vulnerability arises during the software’s handling of untrusted input. When memory chunks in the heap are allocated but not properly initialized, they retain residual data or undefined states. Attackers exploit this oversight by crafting inputs that overwrite function pointers or control-flow structures, hijacking the program’s execution path. The causal sequence is precise: uninitialized heap → memory corruption → arbitrary code execution → system compromise. The pre-authentication nature of the exploit exacerbates the risk, as attackers require no prior access to execute their payload, rendering perimeter defenses ineffective. The implications are severe for enterprises relying on Kemp LoadMaster for load balancing and application delivery. Unpatched systems are exposed to infiltration, data theft, and ransomware deployment. Beyond the technical failure, CVE-2026-8037 exposes systemic deficiencies: insufficient input validation in software design and inadequate security testing during development. Organizations further amplify risk through delayed patch management , creating a critical window of opportunity for attackers. Immediate remediation is imperative to prevent catastrophic breaches that could under

Author: Erwin Wilson Ceniza Published: July 2, 2026 Tags: GraphQL | HotChocolate | BatchDataLoader | CQRS | Outbox Pattern | Apollo Federation | .NET | Architecture | EMR | API Design GraphQL Query & Mutation Architecture - A Production Deep Dive Code-first GraphQL with HotChocolate, BatchDataLoader, CQRS, and a transactional outbox pattern, with real examples from a production EMR system serving three portals from a single schema. Table of Contents Interactive Data Traversal The Architecture at 30,000 Feet Why GraphQL Won for Healthcare Data Shapes Simple Queries vs. Complex REST, The Comparison That Sold Me The Resolver Layer, Code-First, Schema-Last How GraphQL Smoothly Orchestrates the Application Services N+1 Is the Silent Killer, How BatchDataLoaders Eliminate It Mutation Architecture - CQRS + Transactional Outbox Security at the Resolver Level, Custom Middleware Attributes Type Extensions, Why I Stopped Writing DTO Mappers Projections, Filtering, Sorting, and Paging Apollo Federation, Future-Proofing the Graph GraphQL Client on Mobile, Sharing Query Logic Across Portals Why I Chose Ionic for the Patient Mobile App The Retrospective, What I'd Keep and What I'd Change A step-by-step walkthrough of how the app consumes (reads) and creates (writes) data through the services. interactive <script type="module"> const C = document.currentScript.parentElement; C.style.cssText='width:100%;font-family:system-ui,-apple-system,sans-serif'; const S = document.createElement('style'); S.textContent=` .gv *{box-sizing:border-box;margin:0;padding:0} .gv{background:var(--bg-secondary,#111);border-radius:12px;overflow:hidden;border:1px solid var(--border,#333);min-height:440px} .gv-tabs{display:flex;border-bottom:1px solid var(--border,#333);background:var(--bg-card,#1a1a1a)} .gv-tab{flex:1;padding:12px 8px;font-size:11px;font-weight:700;text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.5px;cursor:pointer;border:none;background:none;color:var(--text-muted,#666);transition:all .2s;border

The agent brand is irrelevant; the work item is everything. I have watched teams argue about Copilot Studio versus Claude Code versus Codex as if the model decides whether their build succeeds. It does not. Your agentic development power platform effort lives or dies on one thing: whether the Azure DevOps work item you hand the agent is a machine-readable spec or a vaguely worded wish. Swap the agent all you want. If the requirement is unstructured, every agent guesses, and every guess is a different guess. This article is opinionated on exactly one point and neutral on everything else. Neutral on the tool. Ruthless about the spec. Why "AI-assisted" Power Platform dev stalls on real teams The agent guesses intent because the acceptance criteria live in a stale wiki, a Teams thread, or someone's head. That is the whole failure. Switching from one agent to another does not close the gap. The missing spec does. Prompt-by-prompt building has a second problem that shows up later and hurts more. One maker gets a working flow out of a chat session, but nobody else can reproduce it and no one can audit it. You have a solution that exists and a rationale that evaporated. For teams doing serious dynamics 365 ai development , that is not acceleration. That is a single point of failure wearing a productivity costume. Frame the cost honestly. Say a rework cycle caught in UAT runs roughly 5x the cost of the same fix at design time. Illustrative; calibrate against your own data, actuals vary. Under that assumption, the line item bleeding your budget is the improvised requirement, not the agent license. You are paying to rediscover intent three environments too late. Takeaway: if your requirement is not structured, your agent is improvising, and the brand of agent does not matter. Make the ADO work item the single source of truth An agent reads fields. It does not read the room. So the work item has to carry everything the agent needs in a shape a parser can trust every single time

📚 Series: Databricks on AWS (Part 0, prologue) The Target Architecture ← you are here Building a Databricks AI Platform on AWS RBAC with Function-Role Groups Compute Governance: Pools, Policies, Clusters The BOOTSTRAP_TIMEOUT Mystery Fixing It with AWS PrivateLink How We Structure the Terraform Before the build story, here's the destination. This is the target-state data architecture we designed the whole platform toward — the three principles that shaped every later decision, and the Unity Catalog governance model that keeps production data safe from human hands. The rest of this series is a build log: workspaces, RBAC, compute, the networking rabbit hole, the Terraform layout. But every one of those decisions was made in service of a target picture we drew first . This post is that picture — the "to-be" architecture, not the scaffolding we happened to have up on any given week. It's built on three things Databricks basically hands you if you lean into them: the Lakehouse (one store, ACID tables, no separate warehouse to sync), the Medallion architecture (raw → cleaned → integrated → business, each layer a promotion), and Unity Catalog as the single governance plane across all of it. The interesting part isn't reciting those three buzzwords — it's the specific way we wire them so that prod, dev, and analyst sandboxes never step on each other. Three principles, and everything follows Almost every concrete rule later in this series is a consequence of one of these three. 1. Nobody touches production by hand. Create, update, delete in prod data happens only through an automated, code-reviewed pipeline running as a service principal. Human accounts don't get write on prod — not analysts, not engineers, not admins. The blast radius of a bad afternoon is capped at whatever a person can do with read-only. This one principle is why the whole "promote" flow later exists. 2. Never copy production to look at it. If an analyst wants to explore the gold layer, they read it in p