BMW's X5 lineup finally has an electric option with impressive range.

Fujifilm is expanding its QuickSnap lineup with a new disposable camera focused on taking monochrome photos and another built to survive harsh outdoor environments. The $22.90 QuickSnap Black and White and the $24.75 QuickSnap Active are expected to launch sometime later this fall, to the delight of Gen Z snappers driving the current resurgence in […]

A researcher found that using Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.7, he could break into the website of Front Gate—used by every festival from Lollapalooza to Bonnaroo—and freely issue any ticket he chose.

Seriously, LeetCode in 2026? Everyone is saying HackerRank just killed LeetCode, and yet here I am,...

If you've submitted a BOM for quoting recently and gotten a lead time that made you do a double take, you're not imagining things. Passive component sourcing in 2026 is tighter than it's been in a few years — and MLCCs are the epicenter. I want to break down why this is happening, which component categories are actually at risk, and — more importantly — what you can do at the design stage to make your board less vulnerable to it. This isn't a "just wait it out" post; there are concrete layout and BOM decisions that meaningfully change your exposure. Why now? Three demand sources are converging on the same MLCC/inductor capacity that used to be dominated by consumer electronics: AI server infrastructure — GPU power delivery networks alone can chew through hundreds of decoupling capacitors per board, and hyperscaler order volumes dwarf typical consumer runs. EVs — automotive-grade passives (AEC-Q200, X8R/X7R) come from a narrower qualified supplier base, so even modest EV growth disproportionately tightens that segment. Renewables/grid infrastructure — pulling on high-voltage inductors and power resistors. On the supply side, new MLCC/ferrite production lines take 12–24 months to come online from the capital decision. Semiconductor fabs can reallocate capacity relatively fast; passive component fabs can't. That structural lag is the real reason lead times stretch out faster than they recover. Which parts are actually at risk Not everything is equally exposed: Category Normal LT 2026 Tight-Market LT Exposure Commercial MLCC (X7R, 0402/0603) 4–8 wks 8–16 wks Moderate–High High-density MLCC (0201, high µF) 6–10 wks 16–26 wks High Automotive MLCC (AEC-Q200, X8R) 10–14 wks 20–30+ wks Very High C0G/NP0 (precision/timing) 4–8 wks 6–12 wks Low–Moderate Power inductors (shielded, low DCR) 6–10 wks 12–20 wks Moderate–High Chip resistors 2–6 wks 4–8 wks Low Chip resistors are the least affected — manufacturing capacity is less concentrated and swapping vendors doesn't trigger a

I'm curious... What's the one feature that instantly makes you stop using a resume builder? For me, it was simple: You spend time creating your resume, everything looks great, and then the site asks you to pay just to download it. That experience inspired me to build Resumship, a resume builder where downloading your resume is completely free. Now I'm thinking about the next features to add, and I'd love to hear from the community. If you were building the ideal resume builder, what features would you include? AI-powered resume suggestions? Better ATS optimization? More templates? Portfolio integration? Cover letter generation? Something completely different? If you have a minute, I'd also love for you to try Resumship and share your honest feedback. 🌐 https://resumship.com Your feedback will directly influence what gets built next. Every suggestion, bug report, or feature request helps make the platform better for everyone. Looking forward to hearing your ideas! 🚀

The Problem When you put RabbitMQ's Management UI behind an nginx reverse proxy under a sub-path like /rabbitmq/ , queue detail pages and many API calls break silently. The root cause: nginx normalizes the request URI before proxying. It decodes %2F (the URL-encoded forward slash) into a literal / . RabbitMQ's Management API uses %2F to represent the default virtual host ( / ) in API paths: GET /api/queues/%2F/my-queue When nginx decodes it: GET /api/queues///my-queue ← broken What Doesn't Work The common advice of using merge_slashes off or a rewrite directive doesn't fully solve this because nginx still normalizes $uri before forwarding. The Fix Use $request_uri inside an if block. Unlike $uri , $request_uri holds the raw, undecoded URI exactly as the client sent it — nginx never touches it. nginx # RabbitMQ: API paths — use $request_uri to preserve %2F (never decoded by nginx) location ~* ^/rabbitmq/api/ { if ($request_uri ~* "^/rabbitmq/(.*)") { proxy_pass http://rabbitmq:15672/$1; } proxy_buffering off; proxy_set_header Host $host; proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-Proto https; } # RabbitMQ: general UI (JS, CSS, static assets, non-API pages) location ~* ^/rabbitmq/ { rewrite ^/rabbitmq/(.*)$ /$1 break; proxy_pass http://rabbitmq:15672; proxy_buffering off; proxy_set_header Host $host; proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-Proto https; }

Sign-in worked flawlessly in dev. Then a real user pasted a real code and got "invalid format" — before the code ever reached Supabase. The credential was fine. My regex was wrong. Here's the one-line assumption that broke auth for every human who wasn't me. I run a Discord-native Company Brain. Teams /save docs and /ask grounded answers; access is gated by a magic-link claim that emails a one-time code. Standard GoTrue OTP flow. The client shows a box, you paste the code, the server verifies it. Boring — which is exactly what auth should be. The bug: a six-digit assumption in a validation guard The claim handler did a cheap client-side sanity check before calling verifyOtp : // The bug. Looks reasonable. Rejects every real code. const OTP = /^ \d{6} $/ ; function normalize ( input : string ): string { const code = input . trim (); if ( ! OTP . test ( code )) throw new Error ( " Enter the 6-digit code from your email. " ); return code ; } Every OTP tutorial uses \d{6} . Every code demo shows six digits. So I typed six digits into the test and it passed. In dev I was generating my own codes and never actually reading the email. Supabase's GoTrue emits an eight-digit code on this project. ^\d{6}$ rejects eight digits outright. The user's perfectly valid credential got thrown out by my own front door with a lie for an error message — "enter the 6-digit code" when the email plainly showed eight. Why it happens: OTP length is a setting, not a constant The length of a GoTrue email OTP is configurable — GOTRUE_MAILER_OTP_LENGTH (Dashboard → Authentication → Email). It defaults to six in many setups and to eight in others depending on when and how the project was provisioned. The number in the tutorial is that author's project setting , not a property of OTPs. Hardcoding 6 couples your client to a server config you don't control and might change. Bump the length for security later and every client silently starts rejecting valid codes. No error in your logs — the rejection

Quick Answer (TL;DR) Modifying an RDS instance class in place causes 5 to 15 minutes of downtime while AWS reboots the database. To right-size without downtime, use RDS Blue/Green Deployments (fastest, cleanest), a read-replica promotion (works on older engines), or a Multi-AZ failover to a resized standby. Blue/Green is the 2026 default for most workloads on MySQL, MariaDB, Postgres, and now SQL Server. Why this happens RDS instances are Managed EC2 hosts running the DB engine, and a class change (say db.m6i.large to db.m6i.xlarge ) requires stopping the process, migrating the EBS volumes to a new host, and restarting. AWS's default "modify" workflow does this in place and warns you about downtime. The workarounds exist because that reboot is unacceptable for user-facing services, so you build the new instance alongside the old one and cut over. Fix #1: Use RDS Blue/Green Deployments The 2026 default. Available for RDS MySQL, MariaDB, PostgreSQL, and SQL Server (added mid-2025). Steps: In the RDS console, select the instance and choose Actions → Create Blue/Green Deployment . Set the Green instance to your target instance class. AWS creates a full standby using logical replication, keeps it in sync, and validates health. When ready, click Switch over . Cutover typically takes under 60 seconds. Applications reconnect using the same endpoint. Command-line equivalent: aws rds create-blue-green-deployment --blue-green-deployment-name resize-prod --source arn:aws:rds:... --target-db-instance-class db.m6i.xlarge Best when: your engine supports it and you can tolerate the extra cost of running two instances for the sync window. Fix #2: Read-replica promotion For engines or versions that do not yet support Blue/Green, or for cross-region resizing. Steps: Create a read replica with the desired new instance class. Wait for the replica to catch up (near-zero lag). Point application writes to the read replica endpoint (requires connection-string change or DNS switch). Promote

Quick Answer (TL;DR) EC2 Spot lists at up to 90% off On-Demand , but the effective savings after accounting for interruptions, engineering overhead, and workload retries land closer to 40 to 60% for most teams in 2026. Spot wins for stateless, retryable, or checkpointable workloads. It loses money on single-instance stateful services with strict SLAs. The honest formula: True savings = Spot discount × Utilization ÷ (1 + Interruption overhead) . Why the sticker discount is misleading The Spot price is a market price. AWS sets it against unused capacity in a given instance family, region, and Availability Zone, and it can move in minutes. The 90% headline is the maximum discount for a rarely-used instance family in an off-peak region. The workhorses ( m6i , c7i , r7g in us-east-1 ) usually sit at 55 to 75% off. Then there is the hidden cost of interruption. AWS gives a 2-minute warning before reclaiming a Spot instance. Handling that gracefully requires either a stateless workload, a checkpointed job, or careful autoscaler wiring. Teams that do not build for interruption end up with retries, half-finished batches, and engineering time that erases the savings. Fix #1: Diversify across instance types and AZs The single most effective way to reduce Spot interruption rate. Instead of asking for m6i.large specifically, ask for "any of m6i.large , m6a.large , m7i.large , m7a.large in any AZ." AWS pools capacity across the diversification pool. With Karpenter or Auto Scaling Groups: Set the NodePool or ASG's requirements to allow 5 to 15 instance types across families. Include both x86 and ARM (Graviton) options when your workload runs on both. Enable capacity-optimized-prioritized allocation strategy, which picks the deepest capacity pool at launch. Result: interruption rate drops from ~5% per instance-hour to under 1% on most workloads. Fix #2: Use Spot for the right workload shape Not every workload should be on Spot. The rule I use: Great fits : batch processing, data pi

Trump has remade the nation’s capitol in his own image. Ahead of the Fourth of July, WIRED guides you through the dizzying effects of DC’s makeover.

Give Your AI Superpowers on macOS Discussion | Link

Here's a scenario that plays out in engineering teams every day: you spin up a conversation with an AI tool to analyze some code, get a useful response, copy-paste the output, and close the tab. An hour later, you need a follow-up analysis — and you're starting from scratch. No context, no history, no continuity. Now multiply that by five tools running in parallel. ChatGPT for drafting, Claude for analysis, Copilot for code, a local model for sensitive data, maybe a custom agent for domain-specific tasks. The outputs are scattered across browser tabs, Slack threads, and clipboard history. Nothing connects. The AI tools themselves are capable enough. What's missing is the infrastructure to treat them as actual team members — with identities, workspaces, and accountability. The Identity Problem Every AI interaction today is anonymous. You talk to "the model," it responds, the session ends. There's no persistent identity, no accumulated context, no track record. This works fine for one-off questions. It breaks down the moment AI needs to participate in a sustained workflow — the kind where you need to know who did what, when, and how well. We've been building an open-source project called Octo (Apache 2.0, GitHub ) that approaches this problem by giving AI agents a proper identity system. In Octo, each AI agent is a Bot — a first-class entity with a name, a creator, a capability card, and a work history. A Bot isn't a chatbot wrapper. It's a structured identity: Creator binding : Every Bot is created by a human user and inherits a scoped subset of that user's permissions. The Bot acts on behalf of its creator, not autonomously. AgentCard : A structured capability declaration — what the Bot can do (coding, analysis, translation, design), at what level, in what domains, and with what constraints. Think of it as a resume that other team members can inspect before assigning work. Work history : Every task a Bot participates in gets recorded — completion status, quality sco

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48744213 Points: 0 # Comments: 0

This week was largely a Claude story: Sonnet 5 landed with enough benchmark muscle to make Opus feel redundant for most workloads, and GitLab's production data backs up the claims. Alongside that, GitHub Copilot quietly dropped its JetBrains friction, and Google's image model got cheaper and faster on Vercel's gateway. Here's what's worth acting on. Claude Sonnet 5 launches on Vercel AI Gateway Sonnet 5 is available now via Vercel AI Gateway at anthropic/claude-sonnet-5 . Launch pricing is $2/$10 per million input/output tokens—identical to Sonnet 4.6—but that rate expires August 31, after which it steps to $3/$15. The model matches Opus 4.8 on coding and agentic benchmarks, which means you can stop routing hard tasks to Opus and absorb a 50–67% cost reduction in the process. For AI SDK users, this is a one-line change. Stronger long-context handling and document parsing are the practical wins for RAG pipelines and multi-turn agent workflows—two areas where Sonnet 4.6 had real rough edges. Verdict: Ship. Update your model identifier before August 31 while the launch pricing holds. Zero breaking changes, and there's no reason to stay on 4.6 for new work. Sonnet 5 closes Opus gap at lower cost Beyond the Vercel integration, the broader Sonnet 5 release deserves its own read. The model is now the default reasoning tier replacing Sonnet 4.6 across Anthropic's plans, and the capability jump is specifically on agentic task completion—planning, multi-step tool use, brownfield code navigation. Early testers report that tasks which previously stalled midway through agent loops now finish end-to-end, which is a qualitatively different outcome from incremental benchmark gains. The economics are straightforward: Opus-level performance at Sonnet prices through August, then a modest step up to $3/$15. If you're running production agents today, the cost-per-completed-task improvement compounds because you're paying less and spending fewer cycles on failure recovery and re-promptin

TL;DR codegraph , codebase-memory-mcp , and serena all got there first, handing a coding agent code intelligence over MCP so it stops grepping. On my own open-ended questions the token bill didn't budge: the agent kept sliding back to grep, and no amount of forceful prompting could stop it. So I built @ttsc/graph . It gives the agent an index the TypeScript compiler already resolved, never the source bodies, through a single tool with a forced chain-of-thought. On "how does this work?" questions that works out to roughly 10× fewer tokens, and the answers are no worse. That figure is a median, and a conservative one. Repository: https://github.com/samchon/ttsc Benchmark: https://ttsc.dev/docs/benchmark/graph 1. Preface 1.1. What @ttsc/graph Is On the left, the agent is lost in a maze of files, chasing dashed arrows dozens deep. On the right, it's reading a single compiler-built graph of nodes and edges, with the file:line anchors it can open and check. You're new to a TypeScript repo, so you ask the agent for a tour: what's the main runtime flow, from the public API down to the code that does the work, and what should you read first? You know how it goes. It opens a file, follows an import into another, then another, and a few dozen files later it gives you an answer. @ttsc/graph cuts that crawl short. Over MCP, it hands your agent a graph of your TypeScript codebase that the compiler itself drew: what calls what, what depends on what, and where each piece lives. The agent answers structural questions straight from the graph instead of spelunking through files, and every claim it makes points at an exact file:line the compiler resolved. Nothing invented, just a location you can open and check for yourself. It's the same question and the same agent in every case, and only @ttsc/graph stays flat across the repos no matter how big they get. The other three, codegraph, codebase-memory, and serena, swing all over the place, and a few even spend more than the baseline does

Pernah kepikiran, "Sebenarnya AI agent saya inget apa aja sih soal saya?" Kalau iya, tulisan ini buat kamu. Masalahnya: Memori AI Itu Kotak Hitam Kalau kamu pakai AI agent yang punya memori jangka panjang (persistent memory), kamu mungkin pernah ngerasa gak nyaman karena beberapa hal ini: Gak tahu persis apa yang diingat AI tentang kamu Gak tahu file-nya disimpan di mana Gak bisa edit memori itu tanpa ngetik perintah lewat chat Takut kalau file memorinya rusak, semua informasi hilang begitu saja Studi kasus di tulisan ini pakai Hermes Agent , agent open-source besutan Nous Research. Sebagai konteks buat yang belum familiar: Hermes Agent adalah agent AI open-source yang berjalan sebagai proses (daemon) mandiri di server milikmu sendiri, mengumpulkan memori lintas sesi, menjalankan tugas terjadwal, terhubung ke belasan platform pesan, dan menulis skill-nya sendiri dari pengalaman. Framework berlisensi MIT ini dirilis Februari 2026 dan dengan cepat menarik perhatian komunitas open-source AI. Hermes menyimpan memorinya di dua file utama: USER.md (profil tentang kamu) dan MEMORY.md (catatan agent soal lingkungan kerja, kebiasaan, dan pelajaran yang dipetik), plus satu file lagi SOUL.md untuk "kepribadian" si agent. Semuanya disimpan dalam format teks polos yang dipisah pakai karakter § , seperti ini: Preferensimu: komunikasi singkat dan langsung § Namamu Budi, awal 30-an, tinggal di Surabaya § Penggemar PKM / Building a Second Brain Format ini fungsional, tapi ada beberapa kekurangan: Susah diedit langsung karena bukan format yang ramah manusia Gak ada riwayat versi — sekali salah edit, informasi bisa hilang selamanya Gak ada tampilan visual — susah lihat semua catatan sekaligus Gak ada antarmuka grafis — harus lewat chat agent atau edit file mentah Solusinya: pindahkan memori itu ke Obsidian , aplikasi catatan berbasis markdown yang mendukung riwayat versi lewat git dan bisa diedit bebas. Arsitektur Sistemnya Sistem sinkronisasi ini punya empat lapisan: ┌───────────────

An AI feature can feel impressive and still be a bad product decision. The demo is fast. The answer sounds useful. The team is excited. Then usage grows and nobody can answer the basic questions: Is it accurate enough? Is it saving time? Which customers trust it? Why did costs spike? Should we scale it, fix it, or kill it? That is the trap an AI metrics baseline prevents. A baseline is not a dashboard full of vanity charts. It is a small set of before-and-after measurements that tells you whether an AI workflow is getting better, getting worse, or merely getting more expensive. Why AI features fail without a baseline Most software teams already track uptime, errors, and conversion. AI features need those too, but they also need new signals because model behavior is probabilistic. A normal API either returns the expected response or throws an error. An AI workflow can return: a fluent answer that is wrong a correct answer with missing evidence a useful answer that costs too much a slow answer that users abandon a safe answer that refuses too often a cheap answer that hurts trust a high-rated answer that does not improve the business workflow Without a baseline, every production discussion becomes opinion-driven: "The model seems better." "Users like it." "The new prompt reduced hallucinations." "The expensive model is worth it." Maybe. Maybe not. The baseline turns those claims into measurable comparisons. What an AI metrics baseline is An AI metrics baseline is the starting measurement for the workflow before you optimize or scale it. It answers five questions: What does the workflow cost today? How good are the outputs today? How fast and reliable is the experience today? Do users adopt and reuse it? Does it improve the real task it claims to improve? You do not need 80 metrics on day one. You need a small set of metrics that match the feature's risk and purpose. For example: Feature Useful baseline Support answer bot resolution rate, citation quality, escalation r