Ask better questions, live on every call Discussion | Link

Andrej Karpathy, OpenAI co-founder and former Tesla AI director, called Claude Tag the third major...

AI swim coach with Apple Watch tracking & smart workouts Discussion | Link

One of the main challenges related to web development is maintaining state across the client and the server and most web applications have to solve this somehow. Because of this reason, so-called sync engines have become available as they can own a large part of data synchronization. In his MSc thesis, my student Mikael Siidorow looked into the space to find out the limits of generalized sync. He did his study through multiple methods including literature review, interviews, and a case study. In

Leave a comment below to introduce yourself! You can talk about what brought you here, what you're...

The biodegradable material can help improve healing after surgery—or an avocado-related accident.

OSS extensible K8s shadow environment submitted by /u/arnonrgo [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Successful_Bowl2564 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/cake-day-on-feb-29 [link] [留言]

One-time passcodes are everywhere: sign up for a service, log in from a new device, confirm an action, and a six-digit code lands in your email. A human glances at it and types it in. An automated flow, a signup script, an end-to-end test, or an AI agent connecting to a third-party service, can't glance at anything. It has to pull the code out of the mailbox programmatically, and that's a surprisingly fiddly job: the code arrives seconds after a trigger, it's buried in a templated email, and every sender formats it differently. This post covers extracting verification codes from two angles: the nylas CLI , which does it for you in one command, and the Email API pattern you build when it's part of a larger flow. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I just need the code. Two ways to get the code There are two paths depending on what you're building. For terminal workflows, local testing, or scripting a login, the CLI has a dedicated nylas otp command that finds the latest code in a mailbox and hands it to you. For an application or an agent that reacts to incoming mail, you build the extraction into your own flow: catch the message when it arrives, pull the body, and parse the code out. The difference is who drives. The CLI is pull-based: you ask for the latest code when you need it. The API pattern is push-based: a webhook tells you a message arrived, and your code extracts the value as part of handling it. Both end at the same place, a string of digits you feed into whatever's waiting for it, but the CLI is the fast path for a developer and the API pattern is the durable path for a product. In practice you use both: the CLI to learn which sender and code format you're dealing with during development, then that same understanding baked into the application pattern for production. Grab the latest code from the CLI When you've just triggered a code and want it now, nylas otp get finds the most recent one in your default accoun

A webhook endpoint is a public URL sitting on the internet, and anything on the internet can send it a POST . If your app acts on whatever lands there, an attacker who guesses the URL can forge events: fake an inbound email, trigger a workflow, or feed your system garbage. The fix is to confirm two things before you trust a request, that you own the endpoint and that Nylas actually sent the payload, and both are built into how webhooks work. This post covers verifying webhooks from two angles: the HTTP mechanics your endpoint implements, and the nylas CLI for testing a signature without standing up a server. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I'm debugging a signature mismatch. Two layers of webhook trust There are two separate checks, and they happen at different times. The first is a one-time endpoint challenge: when you register or activate a webhook, Nylas sends your URL a request with a challenge value you echo back, proving you control the endpoint. The second runs on every notification afterward: each delivery carries a cryptographic signature you verify against a shared secret, proving the payload is genuine and wasn't tampered with. You need both because they defend against different things. The challenge stops you from accidentally registering an endpoint you don't own and confirms the URL is live. The signature stops anyone else from posting forged events to that URL once it's known. Skip the signature check and your public endpoint will trust any POST that reaches it, which is the most common webhook security mistake. Pass the endpoint challenge The first time you set up a webhook or flip one to active , Nylas sends a GET request to your endpoint with a challenge query parameter. Your endpoint has to return the exact value of that challenge in the body of a 200 OK response, within 10 seconds, or the webhook won't verify. It's a quick handshake that proves the URL is yours and reachable. // Express: echo the ch

Every Nylas request you make on a user's behalf needs one thing first: their permission. Before you can list a mailbox, send on someone's behalf, or read a calendar, the user has to authorize your application through their provider, and that authorization is what's called a grant. Doing the OAuth dance yourself means registering with Google and Microsoft separately, handling each provider's consent screen, token exchange, and refresh quirks. Hosted OAuth collapses that into one flow that works the same across every provider. This post walks through connecting an account from two angles: the HTTP API your web app uses in production, and the nylas CLI for connecting a test account from the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I need a grant to develop against. What a grant is A grant is an authenticated connection to a single user's account. When a user authorizes your application, Nylas stores the connection and hands you a grant_id , a stable identifier you pass on every subsequent request to act on that user's email, calendar, or contacts. The grant is the unit of access: one user who connected one mailbox is one grant, and everything you build addresses /v3/grants/{grant_id}/... . Keep two credentials distinct here. Your API key authenticates your application to Nylas and goes in the Authorization header on every request; the grant_id identifies which connected user that request acts on. The API key is yours and stays on your backend, while a grant_id is minted per user when they connect. The grant is also where provider differences disappear. A Gmail grant and a Microsoft grant have different OAuth scopes and token mechanics underneath, but once connected, both are just a grant_id you use the same way. That's the point of hosted OAuth: you run one flow, the user picks their provider, and you get back the same kind of identifier regardless of who hosts the mailbox. Hosted OAuth supports Google, Microsoft, Yahoo,

Line AI Chatbot In Production: A CTO's Honest Breakdown Three months ago I was staring at our infrastructure bill wondering where the hell our runway went. We'd been running a customer-facing chatbot powered by a popular "enterprise" AI provider, and the cost curve looked like a hockey stick in the wrong direction. Every new sign-up bled money. I knew we had to make a change before our next board meeting, but I also couldn't afford a six-week migration that would tank our product velocity. What I found surprised me. After running the numbers, testing 184 models through Global API, and stress-testing everything at scale, I cut our inference costs by more than half without touching quality. This isn't a theoretical comparison from a vendor whitepaper. These are the real numbers from my production stack, with my actual users, in my actual platform. If you're a CTO weighing your options for 2026, here's everything I wish someone had told me before I started. Why The Line AI Chatbot Approach Matters Now Most chatbot guides treat AI integration like a toy problem. Send a prompt, get a response, ship the demo. That's fine for a hackathon, but it's not how you run a production system. The questions I care about are different: What's my cost per active user? How do I avoid vendor lock-in? Where's the single point of failure? How fast can I iterate on model choice when something better drops next Tuesday? The Line AI Chatbot framework flips the typical approach. Instead of treating the model as a black box you can't replace, you build a thin abstraction layer over a model-agnostic API. That single architectural decision is what unlocked every other win I describe below. If you're not thinking about model portability on day one, you're going to pay for it later. I learned this the hard way. In 2026, the market has matured to a point where you genuinely have 184 models to choose from, with input prices ranging from $0.01 to $3.50 per million tokens. That's not a marketing line.

Introduction "Build and run agents you can see, understand, and trust." This is article #104 in the Open Source Project of the Day series. Today's project is AgentScope 2.0 — Alibaba DAMO Academy's open-source production-ready agent framework. The agent framework space is crowded. LangChain centers on chain-based orchestration. AutoGen centers on multi-agent conversation. CrewAI centers on role-based collaboration. AgentScope's differentiation is in its design philosophy: when LLM reasoning is strong enough, the framework should step back rather than constraining the model's decision space with rigid pipelines. AgentScope 2.0 adds the production infrastructure that philosophy requires: event system, permission controls, multi-tenant isolation, sandbox execution, middleware hooks. The goal is not a demo that runs — it's a system that ships. What You'll Learn AgentScope 2.0's design philosophy: why "model-led" over "fixed pipeline" The five core systems: Event / Permission / Multi-tenancy / Workspace / Middleware Agent Team pattern: how the Leader-Worker architecture handles complex tasks Permission system fine-grained control: tool call approval and boundary configuration Positioning differences vs. LangChain and AutoGen The full ecosystem: AgentScope Runtime, ReMe, OpenJudge, Trinity-RFT Prerequisites Familiarity with LLM agent concepts (tool use, reasoning loop) Basic Python async programming Experience with LangChain or AutoGen helps with positioning comparison Project Background What Is AgentScope? AgentScope 2.0 is a production-ready agent framework — "an agent development platform with essential abstractions, designed to work with rising model capability, with built-in production support." The core problem it addresses: traditional agent frameworks constrain LLMs with rigid pipelines and opinionated prompt templates. As LLM reasoning capability has improved rapidly, that constraint has become a bottleneck. AgentScope shifts to "letting the model's native reason

Implementation at 8:41 submitted by /u/PeterBrobby [link] [留言]

Dein bestes Google-Ranking ist wertlos, wenn die Antwort schon vor dem Klick gegeben wurde. Genau das passiert gerade: Nutzer fragen ChatGPT, Claude oder Perplexity – und bekommen eine fertige Antwort mit drei, vier zitierten Quellen. Bist du nicht darunter, existierst du in diesem Moment nicht. Kein Ranking, kein Klick, keine zweite Chance. Die Disziplin, die das adressiert, heißt Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) . Und sie ist – anders als der Marketing-Lärm vermuten lässt – zu großen Teilen ein Engineering-Problem. Crawler-Zugang, Rendering, strukturierte Daten. Lauter Dinge, über die ein Entwickler entscheidet, nicht das Content-Team. SEO optimiert auf den Klick. GEO optimiert auf das Zitat. Der Unterschied ist nicht kosmetisch. Klassisches SEO will, dass du auf Platz eins rankst, damit jemand klickt. GEO will, dass ein Sprachmodell deinen Absatz wörtlich in seine Antwort übernimmt – inklusive Quellenangabe. Der Klick ist nur noch Bonus. Daraus folgt ein anderer Tech-Stack an Signalen: Aspekt Klassisches SEO GEO / KI-Sichtbarkeit Ziel Top-10 in Google Zitat in ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity Relevante Bots Googlebot, Bingbot GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot Index-Hinweis sitemap.xml llms.txt + sitemap.xml Strukturierte Daten Rich Snippets Entity-Linking ( Organization , sameAs , @graph ) Rendering Google rendert JS (verzögert) viele KI-Bots rendern kein JS → SSR Pflicht Erfolgskontrolle Search Console, Rank-Tracker Citation- & Mention-Tracking in LLMs Die Hebel überschneiden sich – sauberes HTML, schnelle Antwortzeiten, valides Markup helfen beidem. Aber die Bots, die Index-Signale und die Erfolgskontrolle sind eigenständig. Wer GEO als „SEO mit neuem Namen" abtut, übersieht genau die Stellen, an denen es klemmt. Schritt 1: Lass die Bots überhaupt rein Bevor du über Content-Qualität nachdenkst, klär die banale Frage: Kommt der Crawler durch? Erstaunlich oft lautet die Antwort nein – und niemand merkt es, weil ein Browser die Seite ja problemlos lädt. Die drei Use