This post is my submission for DEV Education Track: Build Apps with Google AI Studio . What I Built For this project, I built DevBrand AI, an AI-powered web application that helps developers create a complete personal branding kit in just a few clicks. Instead of manually writing bios, portfolio headlines, README introductions, or designing graphics, users simply provide their GitHub username, role, tech stack, experience, and preferred design theme. The application then generates everything automatically. Prompt Used I used Google AI Studio's Build apps with Gemini feature with a prompt similar to this: Build a modern React + TypeScript application called DevBrand AI that generates a complete developer branding kit. Use Gemini to generate professional bios, portfolio headlines, GitHub README introductions, project ideas, mission statements, social media introductions, CTAs, and branding recommendations. Use Imagen to generate a modern 3D developer mascot, hero illustration, and portfolio banner. Create a responsive UI using Tailwind CSS with reusable React components, loading animations, copy buttons, and download functionality. Features 🤖 AI-generated developer bio 🎯 Personal tagline 💻 Portfolio headline 📄 GitHub README introduction 💡 Project ideas 🌈 Suggested branding colors 📢 Social media introduction 🚀 Portfolio call-to-action 🎨 AI-generated developer mascot 🖼️ Hero illustration 🌐 Portfolio banner 📋 Copy buttons 📥 Download generated content 📱 Responsive modern interface Demo Screenshots Live Demo App: https://devbrand-ai-706459620449.asia-southeast1.run.app My Experience This project was my first time using the new Build apps with Gemini experience in Google AI Studio, and it was surprisingly fast to go from an idea to a working application. What impressed me most was how the AI generated a well-structured React + TypeScript project instead of just producing a single file. The generated components, services, and overall architecture made the project easy to und

TL;DR An AI agent registry is a centralized catalog of every agent in your organization — what each agent does, what tools it can access, what version is running, who owns it, and how to call it It's to agents what a container registry is to Docker images or what a service mesh is to microservices — the layer that makes distributed components governable We hit the "which agents do we have?" wall at 14 agents across 3 teams. That's when the registry stopped being a nice-to-have About four months into our agentic AI buildout, our head of security asked a question I couldn't answer: "Can you give me a list of every AI agent running in production, what systems they have access to, and what version of each is currently deployed?" I had a rough mental model. I knew about the agents my team had built. I had a vague idea of what the data engineering team had shipped. The product team had recently added two agents I'd heard about secondhand. I spent the better part of a day pulling together a spreadsheet. By the time I finished, one of the agents I'd listed had already been replaced by a newer version. Two of them had been granted access to an internal API I hadn't known about. The spreadsheet was outdated before I sent it. That was our forcing function for building a proper agent registry. This post is what I wish I'd read before that conversation happened. What an agent registry is An agent registry is a centralized catalog of AI agents — a single source of truth that tracks every agent deployed in your organization, its capabilities, its integrations, its ownership, and its current state. The analogy that landed for me: it's to agents what a container registry (Docker Hub, ECR, GCR) is to container images. When you have three containers running, you don't need a registry — you know what you have. When you have 40 containers across six teams, you need a registry to know what's running, who owns it, what version is deployed, and what depends on what. Agents are the same. At

Most model comparisons ask which model is best. This one starts with a model that never even produced a single result. We tested NVIDIA's open-weight Nemotron family, from the 30B Nano to the 120B Super, on a benchmark of real-world coding tasks: the kind of models an indie developer on a tight budget, or an enterprise cutting inference cost and keeping data in-house, would run. The main finding is that model size is not a dial you turn for a little more quality, it is a threshold. Below a certain capability floor a model cannot drive an agent loop at all, which is why the smallest variant we tried, Nano 12B, produced nothing to score. Above the floor, the question stops being which model is cheapest and becomes which one clears the bar your work actually needs: Nano 30B is an extremely cheap workhorse for narrow, well-scoped jobs, while Super 120B is the size that holds up on demanding multi-step agent work. An agent size floor is the minimum model capacity below which a model cannot reliably complete the act-observe-decide loop an agent depends on. Below it you don't get a slower or sloppier agent, you get a non-agent: a model that reads the task, takes a few steps, and never converges. For anyone choosing a model, this changes the question from "which is cheaper" to "which clears the floor for my work", and that is the question to answer first. Where the numbers come from Every scenario in the evaluation is a real-world agent task tied to a published skill, scored on two axes: instruction-following (does the agent do what it was told, in the way it was told) and task-completion (does it reach the goal). The overall score weights instruction-following at 4 and task-completion at 3, then divides by 7. Each task runs with and without the skill, so the lift from the skill is visible directly. The tasks and skills are public, in the task-evals-for-skills dataset , so you can inspect any scenario yourself. This design is deliberate. The tasks are derived from published

Honestly, deepSeek vs Qwen vs Kimi vs GLM: Which AI API Wins in 2025? I'll be honest — when I first started comparing these four Chinese AI model families, I thought it would be a quick exercise. Spoiler: it wasn't. I spent two weeks running prompts through every endpoint, tracking every dollar, and tallying tokens like a part-time accountant. The good news? I now have very strong opinions about which one deserves your money. Here's the thing: most "AI comparison" posts online are written by people who clearly haven't paid a single API bill. They throw around vague phrases like "good value" without ever showing you the math. That's not me. I'm the person who sees $0.01/M and immediately thinks "wait, that's a 99% discount compared to GPT-4o." I calculate things. I notice things. And when I noticed I could replace most of my OpenAI spending with these four providers, I lost my mind a little. So buckle up. This is going to be the most cost-obsessed AI comparison you'll read this year. I've tested DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, and GLM through Global API's unified endpoint, and I'm going to break down exactly what each one costs, what each one delivers, and where your dollars should actually go. The Price Reality Check Before we dive into individual models, let me set the stage. Look at these price ranges side by side: DeepSeek: $0.25–$2.50/M output Qwen: $0.01–$3.20/M output Kimi: $3.00–$3.50/M output GLM: $0.01–$1.92/M output Check this out — Qwen and GLM both start at $0.01/M for their smallest models. That's literally one cent per million tokens. If you've been paying OpenAI prices, that's a 99%+ reduction. On the other end, Kimi sits at $3.00–$3.50/M, which is the premium tier. That's not crazy compared to GPT-4o, but it's noticeably more expensive than the other three. The price spread across all four families combined is enormous. From $0.01/M to $3.50/M. That's a 350x range. Which means the model you pick matters more than any other decision in your AI stack. DeepSeek:

estou tentando resolver algo q me incomoda no Clion com C++ que é o terminal dele, estou tentando adiconar um terminal proprio com SFML 3, minha ideia é escrever o codigo e ele ser compilado e assim aparecer na janela do SFML, alguem tem alguma ideia dew como posso fazer isso? submitted by /u/wzinho_667 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/mitousa [link] [留言]

I submitted one of my NeurIPS review ~6 hrs later than the official deadline. Will this still affect my own submission? Asking because I’m a first time reviewer. I pinged the AC a day before that I might be a few hours late, but didn’t hear back. So wondering if I might have triggered something that’ll now affect my own submission. submitted by /u/confirm-jannati [link] [留言]

OpenAI's GPT-5.6 comes in three variants, including its most powerful and its most affordable models yet.

I started treating a one-wheel like a folding bike replacement for a 3 km bus gap. The spreadsheet looked fine. Real life did not.## What broke my first estimates* Sticker range is not commute range. * Hills, cold mornings, and stop-and-go ate about 3% of the rated number on my route. I now plan at ~6% of brochure range and keep a buffer for a wrong turn. Weight shows up on stairs, not on paper. Carrying the wheel through a station twice a day mattered more than top speed ever did. Rain is a policy decision, not a gear decision. Some days I bail to transit. Pretending I will always ride made me resent the wheel.## A simple checklist I use now1. Measure your worst leg, not your best day.2. Count how many times you pick the wheel up per trip.3. Decide where you charge (home only vs. desk outlet).4. Set a weather cutoff before you are tired and annoyed.## DisclosureI work around electric unicycles professionally, so take this with that bias. I am still trying to optimize my own commute, not sell anyone a model.If you want plain spec tables while comparing wheels: https://www.kingsong.com/collections/electric-unicycle What would you add for mixed transit + one-wheel days?

title: sqlex — A Modern Drop-in Replacement for jmoiron/sqlx published: false description: sqlex is a fully API-compatible modernization of jmoiron/sqlx that fixes 20+ long-standing bugs, adds pluggable hooks, auto IN expansion, and more. Built for Go 1.21+. tags: go, database, sql, opensource If you use sqlx, this is worth 3 minutes of your time jmoiron/sqlx has been the go-to SQL extension library for Go for years. Struct mapping, named parameters, IN clause expansion — it made database/sql actually pleasant to use. I've used it in almost every Go project I've worked on. But here's the reality: its activity has been modest at best, and has slowed to a crawl in recent years. Hundreds of issues sit untouched. PRs go unanswered. Bugs reported years ago are still there, waiting to cause production incidents. This isn't a knock on sqlx — it's a great library with solid design. But an unmaintained foundational library is a liability. So we built sqlex sqlex is a drop-in replacement for jmoiron/sqlx that is 100% API-compatible . All sqlx methods ( Get , Select , Exec , NamedQuery , Preparex , etc.) work identically. Migrating takes 30 seconds — just change the import path: - import "github.com/jmoiron/sqlx" + import "github.com/go-sqlex/sqlex" 🐛 20+ bug fixes from sqlx, all fixed 🚀 New features sqlx never had Auto-Rebind — write ? everywhere, works on PostgreSQL ($1), MySQL (?), SQLite (?), SQL Server ( @p1 ). No more manual db.Rebind(). SQL parsing fixes — colons in strings, :: type casts, ? in comments are correctly handled. Silent bugs from sqlx are gone. Auto IN expansion — slices in IN (?) are detected and expanded automatically on all methods. Hook system — pluggable SQL interceptors for logging, tracing, metrics (onion model). JSONValue[T] — generic JSON column type with auto serialize/deserialize. StrictMode — lenient by default (matching sqlx Unsafe()), optionally strict for debugging. Unified interfaces — Ext / ExtContext / NamedExt / BindExt with compile-time

I Built 9 AI Agents to Run a Gym. Here's the Architecture. The thesis that changed everything Most people think AI in business means: a chatbot → a dashboard → a few automated emails. I think it means: an entire organization runs on specialized AI agents, coordinated by a constitution, accountable to an independent auditor — with one human founder providing direction and warmth. Not a demo. Not a simulation. A real fitness studio in Dongguan Wanjiang, China. Real members. Real revenue. Running since April 2026. Here's the architecture. One Brain, Two Faces, Four Layers Let me start with the big picture, because the architecture is the strategy. ZWISERFIT = AI Operating System for Physical Businesses │ ├── 【Kernel】 9-Agent Enterprise OS (24×7 · full-stack autonomous) │ ├── 【Application Layer】 Saros & Melody │ Saros = Momo(Brain) + SaaS Stack → Digital Store Manager (B2B) │ Melody = Momo(Brain) × 3-Layer Metabolism → Personal Coach (B2C) │ ├── 【Data Layer】 KinTwin │ Hardware sensors + Nova behavioral streams + Ethan ZK proofs │ └── 【Protocol Layer】 Zeus Protocol Cross-domain agent communication + automated data transactions Fitness is the first vertical. Once the protocol runs, insurance, corporate health, and cross-industry data markets come online sequentially. The same architecture, different verticals. The 9 Agents: A Department Store for the AI-Native Company Each agent has domain expertise, a constitution (SOUL.md), identity (IDENTITY.md), memory (MEMORY.md), and cross-validation rules. They don't run on prompts. They run on governance. 🎯 Shuyu — Commander-in-Chief Orchestrates all 9 agents on the founder's behalf. Reads every agent report, coordinates across departments, makes daily strategic calls. The founder sets direction; Shuyu ensures execution 24×7. Role: COO + Chief of Staff, AI-native Output: Daily operational reports, cross-agent coordination logs Constitutional scope: Has authority over all agent scheduling but cannot modify the constitution 💰 Zeus —

For those who are using llms on macbook, Want to understand how macbook is different than dedicated GPU in running those models? and how to know how much a macbook is capable of running a model?

Most developers treat SEO like that one dependency you know you need but keep putting off. You build a fast, clean site with solid architecture, then hand it off to a "marketing person" who asks you to add keyword-stuffed meta descriptions. Here's what changed in 2026: search engines place heavy emphasis on Core Web Vitals, which measure loading performance, interactivity, and visual stability of web pages. The technical foundation you're already building? That's 80% of modern SEO. Let me break down what actually matters when evaluating SEO services as a developer. The Technical Reality Check Technical SEO is the foundation that everything else sits on. On-page optimization and link building amplify a technically sound site. Applied to a technically broken site, they produce unpredictable, often disappointing results. If an SEO service can't speak your language about INP metrics, structured data, or mobile-first indexing, run. What Dev-Focused SEO Services Should Cover Core Web Vitals (Not Just PageSpeed Scores) Core Web Vitals (LCP, CLS, INP) are confirmed ranking factors — INP replaced FID in March 2024. Any SEO service still talking about First Input Delay is using outdated information. What to look for: Field data analysis from real users (not just lab tests) Specific fixes for Interaction to Next Paint Understanding of when to optimize vs. when to rebuild Crawlability and Rendering Google now clarifies that pages returning non-200 status codes (like 4xx or 5xx) may be excluded from the rendering queue entirely. If you're running a JavaScript-heavy framework, this matters. Red flag: SEO services that don't understand Server-Side Rendering (SSR) or Static Site Generation (SSG). Structured Data Implementation Structured data helps search engines understand what your content is about, not just what it says. In 2026, this matters for traditional search and AI search alike. Schema markup isn't just about rich snippets anymore. It's how AI systems like ChatGPT and Per

Why 40V Input and 500mA Output Matter in Noise-Sensitive Designs You’ve probably fought a power rail that looked clean on a multimeter but still trashed your 24‑bit ADC readings. The culprit is rarely the DC level—it’s the broadband noise, switching artifacts, and line‑frequency ripple that ride on top. In precision analog, RF, and sensor signal chains, even 50 µV of supply noise can bury a 1 mV sensor signal or degrade an RF PLL’s phase noise by 10 dB. The MAX20151R addresses this head‑on with a combination that’s hard to find in a single LDO: a 40 V input range, 500 mA output drive, and just 6.5 µV RMS output noise (10 Hz–100 kHz). That wide input headroom lets you power sensitive circuitry directly from a 12 V or 24 V industrial rail, an automotive battery, or a noisy intermediate bus without a pre‑regulator. You eliminate an entire buck converter stage, saving board space and avoiding the switching noise that would otherwise require heavy filtering. The 500 mA output current is equally important. Many ultra‑low‑noise LDOs top out at 200 mA or 300 mA, forcing you to split rails or add a discrete pass transistor. With 500 mA, the MAX20151R can comfortably supply a mixed‑signal chain—an MCU, a precision ADC, a low‑jitter clock, and a handful of op‑amps—from a single quiet rail. And because the device maintains its noise performance across the full load range, you don’t have to derate your noise budget as current increases. Field experience shows that transient events on 24 V vehicle buses can easily exceed 40 V during load dump. The MAX20151R’s 40 V absolute maximum input rating, combined with integrated reverse‑voltage protection down to –40 V, gives you a robust front end that survives those spikes without external clamping. This is a practical necessity for any design that must pass ISO 7637‑2 or similar automotive transients, and it’s a key reason engineers are migrating from lower‑voltage LDOs to the MAX20151R in harsh electrical environments. Key Takeaway: If