GitHub热门项目 | A feed-forward 3D foundation model for reconstructing scenes from streaming data | Stars: 7,993 | 372 stars today | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | NumPy & SciPy for GPU | Stars: 11,351 | 172 stars today | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | FluidVoice - Fastest macOS Offline Dictation app - Voice to Text fully Local. One ⭐ takes us a long way :)) | Stars: 3,289 | 264 stars today | 语言: Swift

In the previous article on hosting a Next.js app on a VPS , I'd left the deployment pipeline as a rough sketch: four lines to say "it ships to production on its own when you push." That's the piece I want to open up here, because it's what separates a VPS you fuss over by hand from infrastructure you can forget about. There's a stubborn myth that CI/CD is a big-company thing, with a dedicated DevOps team and six-figure tooling. Not true. The pipeline that deploys this portfolio fits in two YAML files, you can read it in five minutes, and it gives me back exactly the comfort I liked about Vercel: I push to master , I go grab a coffee, the app is live when I'm back. The one thing I gained along the way is knowing precisely what happens between the git push and the running container. Four steps, in this order Deployment is a chain. On every push to master , GitHub Actions runs lint, security scan, image build, and deploy. What matters is the needs : as long as a step fails, the following ones don't start. A critical vulnerability caught by the scan, and the image never gets built. At all. jobs : lint : # ESLint runs-on : ubuntu-latest # ... security : # Trivy scan (reusable workflow) uses : ./.github/workflows/security.yml build-push : # build the Docker image → push to GHCR needs : [ lint , security ] # ... deploy : # SSH to the VPS → docker compose pull && up -d needs : [ build-push ] # ... Lint first, because it's the cheapest step and there's no point building an image if ESLint is already screaming. The scan next, as a barrier. Then the build, which produces the Docker image and pushes it to GHCR, GitHub's container registry (private, in my case). And finally the deploy, which connects over SSH to the VPS, pulls the new image and restarts the container. Four links, each blocking the next. That's the whole secret. The security scan is in the path, not in a review "for later" This is the one I won't budge on. Dependency security, in a lot of projects, is a Dependabo

Let's be honest — standard GitHub profiles are a bit... static. As a Full Stack Developer & AI/ML Specialist, I wanted a way to showcase my contributions that actually felt alive. I didn't just want a grid of green squares; I wanted a universe. So, I built GitPulse. What is GitPulse? GitPulse is a cinematic, interactive web application that transforms standard GitHub profiles and repository logs into glowing, animated contribution universes. Instead of just seeing numbers, you experience your code history visually. The Tech Stack I wanted this to feel premium, fast, and visually stunning without relying on heavy frontend frameworks if I didn't need to. Canvas API & GSAP: For buttery-smooth micro-animations and physics. Glassmorphism UI: Using CSS backdrop-filters to create a modern, deep aesthetic. Vanilla JavaScript: Keeping the core logic incredibly fast and lightweight. The "Stellar Duel" Feature One of the coolest features I added was the Stellar Duel mode. I thought: What if you could compare your GitHub activity with a friend, but instead of a boring chart, it looked like a sci-fi dashboard? Stellar Duel Using the GitHub API, GitPulse fetches the data and renders a live, side-by-side visual duel of your commit history, stars, and PRs. It’s highly interactive and honestly, just really fun to look at. The Biggest Challenge: Performance Rendering thousands of data points (commits) visually on a canvas can crash a browser if you aren't careful. To solve this, I had to heavily optimize the animation loop. Instead of manipulating the DOM for every star/commit node, I used HTML5 Canvas to batch render the visual elements. I also implemented requestAnimationFrame properly to ensure the animations pause when the user switches tabs, saving CPU cycles. See it in Action I've integrated GitPulse directly into my main portfolio. You can try it live here: GitPulse Live Demo And if you want to see more of the projects I build (especially in the AI/ML and Computer Vision space

Living in the UAE means constantly Googling numbers: what is the visa fee now, how much zakat do I owe, what is today's fuel price, how is my gratuity calculated. The answers online are usually outdated. So I built Adad , a free set of 15 calculators that pull from official UAE government sources and refresh every 24 hours. No sign-up, works in 8 languages. A few that people use most: Visa fees: real GDRFA and ICA rates Zakat: gold, silver, savings DEWA bills: estimate before the bill lands Gratuity: UAE labour-law end-of-service It is at adad.ae if it is useful to you. Happy to answer how the data pipeline stays current.

Vercel m'a longtemps convenu. Tu pousses ton code, trente secondes plus tard c'est en ligne avec un certificat valide, un CDN et des previews par branche. Pour démarrer un projet, je ne connais rien de plus confortable. Le problème arrive après, quand le projet vit. La facture grimpe avec le trafic et les fonctions serverless, certaines fonctionnalités propriétaires deviennent compliquées à reproduire ailleurs, et tu finis par ne plus vraiment savoir où ni comment ton app tourne. C'est un excellent point de départ, et un piège dès qu'on veut maîtriser son coût et son infra. Pour ce portfolio comme pour plusieurs projets clients, j'ai pris le chemin inverse. Un VPS à quelques euros par mois, une image Docker, un reverse proxy, un pipeline maison. L'idée n'est pas de revenir à l'âge de pierre du déploiement par FTP : je garde le « git push et c'est en ligne », mais sur une machine que je contrôle de bout en bout. Voici comment c'est câblé, et les deux ou trois endroits où je me suis fait avoir. L'image Docker : tout repose sur le mode standalone La pièce qui change tout, c'est output: "standalone" dans next.config.ts . Au build, Next trace exactement les fichiers nécessaires au runtime et les recopie dans .next/standalone/ . On passe d'une image d'environ 1 Go à environ 200 Mo. Sans ça, tu traînes tout node_modules dans ton conteneur de prod pour rien. Le Dockerfile est multi-stage : une étape pour installer les dépendances, une pour builder, une dernière qui ne garde que le strict nécessaire. # deps : installe les dépendances (cache Docker optimal) FROM node:22-alpine AS deps WORKDIR /app COPY package.json yarn.lock .yarnrc.yml ./ RUN corepack enable && yarn install --immutable # builder : build l'app FROM node:22-alpine AS builder WORKDIR /app COPY --from=deps /app/node_modules ./node_modules COPY . . RUN corepack enable && yarn build # runner : image finale, non-root FROM node:22-alpine AS runner WORKDIR /app ENV NODE_ENV=production RUN addgroup -g 1001 nodejs && a

The problem: agents forget your project every session If you pair with a coding agent, you have lived this: a new session starts and the context is gone. The agent re-discovers your auth flow, re-guesses why a decision was made, re-reads the same files to rebuild a mental model you already explained yesterday. Project knowledge — the why behind your systems, the runbooks, the "don't touch this, here's the reason" — lives scattered across wikis, code comments, and people's heads. None of it travels with the code, and none of it survives a fresh context window. CLAUDE.md helps, but it's for standing instructions , and it gets loaded wholesale into every prompt. Auto-memory captures what an agent picked up, but it's implicit, per-agent, and not reviewed. A wiki is for humans and needs exporting. There's a gap: curated team knowledge that's structured, versioned with the code, and readable by any agent or person. What OKF is Open Knowledge Format is an open, vendor-neutral format (announced by the Google Cloud Data Cloud team in June 2026, Apache-2.0) that represents knowledge as a directory of markdown files with YAML frontmatter . That's the whole idea. No schema registry, no runtime, no SDK. If you can cat a file you can read it; if you can git clone a repo you can ship it. A bundle looks like this: .okf/ ├── index.md # progressive disclosure (root carries okf_version) ├── log.md # ISO-dated change history, newest first ├── services/auth-api.md # one concept = one file; path is its ID ├── datasets/orders-db.md ├── decisions/use-okf.md ├── runbooks/payment-failures.md └── metrics/checkout-conversion.md Each concept needs exactly one thing to be conformant: YAML frontmatter with a non-empty type . Everything else is optional. --- type : Service title : " Auth API" description : " Issues and verifies short-lived access tokens." resource : https://github.com/acme/auth tags : [ auth , platform ] timestamp : 2026-06-14T10:00:00Z --- # Endpoints | Method | Path | Descriptio

You ask the AI for a bibliography. It hands you a title, authors, a journal, a year, a well-formed DOI. Everything is plausible, everything is clean. And one reference in two doesn't exist. Not "approximate": nonexistent. The DOI resolves to nothing, the paper was never written. The reflex is to ask the model again: "are you sure this source is real?" It says yes. Always. You just asked the forger about the authenticity of his forgery. Hallucination is plausible by construction An LLM doesn't store a database of publications. It generates likely sequences of words. A citation, to it, is a shape: a surname, an initial, two more names, a capitalized journal, a recent year, ten DOI digits. It produces that shape perfectly, because that's exactly what it's good at. The content doesn't need to be true to be plausible, it just needs to resemble. That's why a hallucinated reference is so vicious: it doesn't look like an error. A wrong calculation jumps out. An invented citation looks like a real one, until you click. Don't ask the culprit The golden rule fits in one sentence: never ask the model that hallucinated a citation whether that citation is real. For two reasons that compound. First, it doesn't have the information: it has no access to a registry, it can only regenerate something plausible. Second, even if it doubted, its self-evaluation bias pushes it to confirm what it already produced. You get a "yes" worth nothing. Verification has to come from elsewhere. From a source the model neither controls nor can invent: a metadata API. Three filters: existence, credibility, fidelity In my pipeline for writing technical dossiers, no reference enters the document before clearing three filters, in this order. Existence. The DOI must resolve. It's binary, and it's free. Crossref exposes its whole database: curl -s "https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1145/3290605.3300233" \ | jq '.message.title[0], .message.author[0].family, .message["published"]' If the API returns a title a

You ask Claude to review your code. It says "looks good, clean, well factored". Of course it does. It wrote that code five minutes ago. You just asked the author to grade his own paper, and he gave himself an A. Having an AI review code works. But not by asking the one who just wrote it. Quality doesn't come from a smarter model, it comes from an architecture where no role checks itself. The self-preference bias This isn't a hunch, it's measured. A model evaluating its own output rates it higher than others' at equal quality: the self-preference bias , documented by Panickssery and co-authors in 2024, and it's causal, not correlational. The model recognizes its own style and prefers it. In practice that means the naive loop "write, then review what you just wrote" is broken by construction. You don't get a review, you get a justification. The agent already decided its code was good the moment it produced it; asking again only confirms. The blind reviewer So the first rule: the reviewer is never the author. In my config, the review agents run in a clean context . They don't see the implementation prompt, they don't know what constraints the author set, they meet the diff like a colleague on Monday morning. And when the author is a known model, the reviewer is from a different family , to break style recognition. One detail matters as much as the rest: the developer's name never enters the reviewer's prompt. No "this was written by a senior", no "review this model's work". The author's identity is exactly the information that triggers the bias. We take it off the table. No finding without a receipt The second trap is the opposite of the first. An AI reviewer, especially in a clean context, tends to over-flag: it invents problems to look useful, it flags "vulnerabilities" that aren't. A review that cries wolf on every line is no better than a complacent one: either way, you stop listening. Hence the receipt rule. Every finding must cite a file:line and pass a check bef

You ask the AI for tests. It hands you twelve, all green. CI passes. You merge. Three days later a bug ships, on a function those tests were supposed to cover. You reopen the test file and it clicks: it ran, it passed, and it tested nothing. A green test isn't a proof. It's a hypothesis. And an AI, left to its own devices, is very good at writing hypotheses that can never be disproved. The phantom test Take a dead-simple function, a discount above 100 euros: func Discount ( total int ) int { if total > 100 { return total - 10 } return total } Here's the kind of test an AI produces when you ask "write me a test for this" with no further framing: func TestDiscount ( t * testing . T ) { got := Discount ( 150 ) if got < 0 { t . Errorf ( "result should not be negative" ) } } This test is green. It does run the discount branch (so your coverage climbs). But look at the assertion: got < 0 is never true, whatever Discount does. Replace total - 10 with total + 10 , with total * 2 , with 42 : the test stays green. It doesn't check behavior, it checks that the lights are on. Coverage doesn't measure what you think The trap is that this phantom test inflates your coverage. Coverage counts lines executed , not assertions that bite . A line crossed by a test that asserts nothing useful counts as much as a line genuinely verified. So a 90% coverage report can hide half a suite of tests that will never fall, even if you break the code on purpose. That's exactly an LLM's playground. Its reward signal is "the tests pass". Not "the tests catch a bug". With no external oracle to stop it, it drifts toward the shortest path to green: soft assertions, mocks that test themselves, cases that never exercise the risky branch. The red-check: break the code, demand the red The counter is one move, and it's as old as TDD: before trusting a test, check that it knows how to fail. Mutate the line it's meant to protect, rerun, and expect to see it go red. If it stays green, it's vacant. On our funct

One morning I pasted four principles into my CLAUDE.md , the global instruction file Claude Code reads at the start of every session. "Think before you code", "simplicity first", that kind of maxim you see fly by on X, credited to Andrej Karpathy. I felt clever for about a day. Then I watched Claude read the file, nod, and carry on exactly as before. A CLAUDE.md is a suggestion box. The model nods, then does whatever it wants. If I wanted it to code my way, writing it down wasn't going to cut it. I had to enforce it. What follows is what that frustration turned into: a config in four layers, reinstallable in one command, and a discovery that runs through everything else. The only rigor that counts is the one a model can't grant itself. Four layers, and only one really changes the behavior My config has four floors, from softest to hardest. The brain is CLAUDE.md : how I work, not the docs for my code. The rule that sums it up lives inside it: "what not to add: anything Claude rediscovers by reading the code." It holds my design principles, my stance on orchestrating subagents (I size up, I delegate, I verify: "I stay the brain, they're the hands"), and one line that becomes the thread running through the whole thing. The references : a go-best-practices.md file the brain points to in plain text whenever Go is involved. The skills : ten of them. A skill is a folder with a playbook that Claude loads on demand for a specific job: review code, write an article, distill a book. Mine are packaged as a marketplace, in a public GitHub repo , with a changelog and a version number. That's the real differentiator: versioned tooling, not just rules scribbled in a file. The guardrails , finally. And this is the only layer that reliably changes behavior. The first three, the model can read and ignore. The fourth, it can't. The four config layers, from softest (the model can ignore) to hardest (the model is bound by the guardrail) Brain CLAUDE.md: how I work References go-best-pra

I am looking for a permanent solution to streamline my business communications - sending bulk messages, handling customer chats, creating tickets like in any crm and possibly to integrate calling option as well. I have found gupshup.ai but they are not catering to small businesses. submitted by /u/Recent_River_7934 [link] [留言]

Why Knowledge Alone Doesn't Create Judgment Karpathy's LLM Wiki is brilliant. You dump raw material in, an LLM extracts concepts and links them together, and you get a personal knowledge base that actually works. I built one. 100+ pages. It's great. But I hit a wall that made me rethink everything. The Wall I asked my AI to act as a programming tutor. It could recite every concept perfectly. Student: "I don't understand Promises." AI: "A Promise is an object representing the eventual completion or failure of an asynchronous operation..." Wrong answer. The right answer was: "Do you understand callbacks first? What about synchronous execution? What have you tried so far?" The AI had knowledge. It had zero judgment. And then I realized why: every single page in my wiki was the same type of knowledge. One Type vs Four LLM Wiki 1.0 stores declarative knowledge — facts, definitions, summaries. Things that answer "What is this?" But think about what makes a human expert different from a textbook: A great programming mentor doesn't just know what Promises are. They know why you teach callback → Promise → async/await in that exact order — and never the reverse. That's not a fact. It's a reasoning path. A master astrologer doesn't just know what each star represents. They know why you check 命宮 first, then 三方四正, when to prioritize 格局, when a palace is a consequence rather than a cause. That's not a fact either. It's a decision sequence. And here's the kicker: even knowing the reasoning path isn't enough. We annotated Anderson's (1972) Socratic tutoring dialogues — full 41-turn and 30-turn conversations, labeling every decision point. Knowing the 23 Socratic rules (the reasoning path) is one thing. Reading a complete dialogue — watching the expert set a trap, wait 15 seconds in silence, break their own rules when the student gets frustrated — is something else entirely. Knowing the recipe ≠ having watched the chef cook. And there's still one more type. Student says: "I have no