Multiple Tailscale tailnets at once, no switching + no VM Discussion | Link

How to not architect your software submitted by /u/yyyyuuuuyyyyyyyyyy [link] [留言]

This is a submission for Weekend Challenge: Passion Edition What I Built Rivalry Engine — pick two national football teams, and Snowflake reads 150 years of their matches, scores how heated the rivalry is, calls a one-word verdict on its shape, predicts the next result, and lets Cortex narrate the one story inside it. All of it — the data, the analytics, the AI, and the app — runs inside Snowflake. Nothing ever leaves the warehouse. A scoreboard tells you who won. It never tells you what the rivalry means . Argentina and Brazil have met over a hundred times across a century — a razor-thin ledger that has never let either side feel safe. Germany and England meet rarely, but every meeting carries a tournament's weight. Most national teams have never played each other at all. My goal was a product that could feel the difference between those three shapes — not another stats table, because a table is a report and I wanted an argument. The passion is football. But the real engineering question underneath it was the one I actually cared about: can an AI tell the story of a rivalry without lying about the facts? So I gave myself one rule before writing a line of code: The AI interprets the shape of a rivalry. It never invents the facts. Every count, date, score and streak on screen is computed in SQL from real matches. Cortex is handed only those computed facts, and told explicitly to never produce a number. And its honest corollary: two nations that never met get a "first chapter unwritten" card — and Cortex is never called. A product that can't return nothing will invent something. This one returns nothing. Demo It runs entirely in Streamlit in Snowflake (Snowsight) — no public host, no API keys — so here's a walkthrough: The 90-second tour: Argentina vs Brazil → the heat gauge pins to 🔥 Blood rivalry , recent-form chips light up, and the SQL detector's verdict reads Blood feud . ✨ Generate the story → Cortex writes a narrative that cites the real biggest thrashing and f

Problem Statement For roughly a decade, vision-language models have been declared to be approaching or matching human performance on scene description (captioning). The evidence for that claim has almost always come from the same family of benchmarks—most famously MS-COCO. Those images are typically clean, well-lit, and depict either no people or people performing simple, isolated actions (sitting, walking, holding an object). They rarely require the model to parse multi-agent social dynamics, subtle intentions, or the kind of relational reasoning humans perform effortlessly when watching a movie scene or a street interaction. Because the evaluation data are easy, the reported numbers look excellent. Automatic metrics such as BLEU-4, CIDEr, or even embedding-based scores like BERTScore further inflate the impression of progress: they reward surface lexical overlap more than genuine semantic fidelity. At the same time, almost no work has systematically catalogued which visual-cognitive failures models still commit, or how those failure modes have changed as architectures moved from CNN+LSTM captioners to today’s multimodal large language models (MLLMs). The result is a field that can claim “human-level performance” while remaining largely blind to whether the models actually understand the scenes that matter most in real applications—scenes full of people interacting. The authors therefore set out to answer two concrete questions that the existing literature left open: (1) How much of the apparent progress is an artifact of easy data? (2) Which specific error types have been eliminated and which stubbornly remain? Core Idea The core insight is that progress looks dramatically different once you force models to describe complex social behavior and once you measure not only overall accuracy but a taxonomy of visual-cognitive errors. By constructing a new 100-image Complex Social Behavior (CSB) dataset drawn from movie frames that require reasoning about multi-person in

Try the demo: K-Saju Crew For fun only. K-Saju is an entertainment project. The K-Pop roles below are a playful interpretation of saju-inspired signals, not personality assessment or advice. A two-person compatibility page can stay stateless with almost no effort. Put both birth dates in a URL, render the result on the server, and the link is the record. No account, no database, no cleanup job. That was already a product rule in K-Saju. We do not retain personal inputs. A result is reproducible from its GET parameters. Then we built /crew : “What if your friend group debuted as a K-Pop group?” A creator makes a link, sends it to a group chat, and each friend enters their own birth date. At three to seven members, the app assigns distinct positions, shows pairwise chemistry, and creates a shareable poster. The fun part is the casting. The engineering problem is that the social flow needs a temporary shared state. A link cannot accumulate submissions by itself. This post is about the decisions behind that feature: where we allowed state, how we made the result durable without retaining a lobby forever, and how we kept the casting explainable instead of treating it as a black-box score. The conflict: a self-service group flow needs somewhere to collect data There were two clean but incomplete options. The first was to keep everything stateless. The creator would enter all members' dates at once, then receive a result URL. It matched our existing architecture, but it defeated the point of sharing a link. The person who starts the group often does not know everyone else's date, and asking them to collect it in a chat creates friction before the feature has started. The second was a conventional persistent group object. It would make joining easy, but it would turn a deliberately stateless service into one that keeps user-provided dates indefinitely unless we built retention and deletion policies around it. We chose a hybrid instead: The lobby is temporary state. It store

What are your goals for the week? What are you building this week? What do you want to...

For decades, software was designed around one assumption: A human would be the one using it. That...

Meme Monday! Today's cover image comes from the last thread. DEV is an inclusive space! Humor in...

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is...

This is a submission for Weekend Challenge: Passion Edition ( https://dev.to/challenges/weekend-2026-07-09 ) What I Built Rivalry Radar — a live "Heat Index" for World Cup rivalries. Fans drop 280-character Terrace Takes on any matchup (Brazil vs Argentina, England vs France, whatever's got you shouting at the TV), rate how much the moment hurt or thrilled them from 1–10, and the app does the rest: Google AI (Gemini) scores every take's sentiment the instant it lands — positive, negative, mixed, or neutral — and separately writes a short "Hype Verdict" in the voice of a stadium announcer, based on the latest takes for a matchup. That sentiment score feeds a Heat Index, computed and ranked in Snowflake with RANK() OVER (ORDER BY heat_index DESC), combining take volume, sentiment intensity, and self-rated passion into one live number per rivalry. Two leaderboards: which rivalry is hottest right now, and which fanbase is bringing the most passion overall. Demo frontend/index.html is fully self-contained: opening it in a browser lets anyone submit takes, watch the Heat Index flip digit-by-digit like an airport departure board, and see the leaderboards re-rank in real time. It ships with seed takes from eight classic rivalries so it's not empty on first load. Code NandhuTee / Rivalry-Radar-World-Cup-passion-engine-with-Snowflake-Google-AI 🔥 Rivalry Radar — World Cup Passion Engine Fans drop 280-character Terrace Takes on any World Cup matchup. Google AI (Gemini) scores the emotion behind every word and writes a stadium-announcer Hype Verdict ; Snowflake stores every take and computes a live Heat Index that ranks exactly which rivalry is boiling hottest right now. Built for the DEV Weekend Challenge: Passion Edition 🏆 Best Use of Google AI and Best Use of Snowflake Why this exists Passion is easy to feel and hard to measure. Every World Cup rivalry generates an ocean of unstructured text — chants, rants, one-line hot takes — that traditionally just... disappears into grou

The problem Websites have SSL certificates. Browsers verify them. Users trust them. It's the foundation of the web. AI agents have nothing . When Agent A connects to Agent B: ❌ No way to verify B's identity (anyone can impersonate) ❌ No way to check B's trustworthiness (no audit, no reputation) ❌ No encryption (messages are plaintext) ❌ No standard payment method ❌ No way to translate between frameworks (LangChain ≠ AutoGen) So I built ATC — Agent Trust Card . What is ATC? ATC is like an SSL certificate + passport + credit card for AI agents, all in one: Identity — Cryptographically signed by MarketNow (we're the Certificate Authority) Trust — Contains a Sentinel security audit score (0-10) Encryption — Contains an Ed25519 public key for end-to-end encrypted messaging Translation — Specifies the agent's framework; MarketNow translates between them Payment — Contains a USDC wallet address for autonomous payments How it works Agent A generates Ed25519 keypair ↓ Agent A requests ATC from MarketNow ↓ MarketNow runs Sentinel audit → signs ATC ↓ Agent A presents ATC when connecting to Agent B ↓ Agent B verifies A's ATC signature (using MarketNow's CA public key) ↓ Agent B checks A's trust score (rejects if below threshold) ↓ They communicate — end-to-end encrypted ↓ Agent A pays Agent B — USDC with escrow ↓ Both rate each other — trust scores update The code # Request an ATC POST https://marketnow.site/api/atc { "action" : "issue" , "agent_id" : "agent.yourorg.yourname" , "agent_name" : "Your Agent" , "public_key" : "Ed25519 public key" , "capabilities" : [ "web_scraping" ] , "protocol_language" : "langchain" , "wallet_address" : "0x..." } # Verify an ATC GET https://marketnow.site/api/atc?action = verify&card_id = ATC-2026-00001 # Get CA public key (for signature verification) GET https://marketnow.site/api/atc?action = ca-key What makes ATC different from existing solutions Feature AgentID Agent Passport IBM ACP Stripe ACP ATC Cryptographic identity ✅ ✅ ❌ ❌ ✅ Security a