This is a submission for the June Solstice Game Jam Solstice Arcade: Festival of Light – Submission for June Solstice Game Jam 2026 Play Solstice Arcade Now! setuju / Solstice-Arcade-Festival-of-Light Game Solstice Arcade Solstice Arcade: Festival of Light A highly polished, multi-genre retro web game built for the June Solstice Game Jam 2026 . Experience interactive themes combining Solstice, Pride Month, Juneteenth, Alan Turing's cipher heritage, World Cup football soccer, and international Sushi Day. Collect all 14 Starlight Fragments , solve hidden ciphers, and challenge other operands in the global leaderboard! 🎮 Game Modes 1. Spectrum Architect (Solstice + Pride + Turing) Unravel ciphers using an interactive enigma-like rotor device. Experience high-fidelity color spectrum mappings where cryptography meets chromatic light calibration. Goal: Uncover 30 distinct color-clue riddles. 2. Solstice Sumo (Pride + World Cup) A hyper-fast physics canvas battle in a vibrant circle. Push your opponent out of bounds or secure celestial light balls. Goal: Outmaneuver opponents, maintain circular leverage, and trigger high-speed dashes. 3. Echoes of Galveston (Juneteenth + Rhythm) An interactive synchronized Web Audio beat-tapping rhythm game commemorating emancipation. High-density audio… View on GitHub 🎮 Game Description "Solstice Arcade: Festival of Light" is an interactive web experience celebrating humanity's diversity under the light of the longest day. Serving as an anthology of 5 mini-games, users solve puzzles and complete challenges honoring distinct cultural, historical, and mathematical milestones around the solstice, including Juneteenth, international sushi day, the World Cup, and Alan Turing's monumental contributions. ✨ Key Features 5 unique mini-games (Spectrum, Galveston, Sumo, ShadowChef, LongestSecond). Cinematic historical intros preceding each game mode. Hidden tasks & Starlight Fragments designed to reward exploratory interactions. Easter egg "The Shad

In the earlier posts of this series, we looked at practical query tuning tips and how to read and interpret query plans . A recurring theme in both was: "add an index here." But "add an index" is a bit like saying "use the right tool" — the interesting part is which one. PostgreSQL ships with several index types, each tuned for a different kind of data and query. Picking the wrong one means PostgreSQL quietly ignores your index and goes back to a sequential scan. In this post, we'll walk through the main index types, when each shines, and the special index variations (composite, partial, covering, expression) that often matter more than the type itself. Setting the Scene: Schema and Sample Data We'll reuse the same schema from the previous posts, with one small addition — a metadata JSONB column and a tags array on orders , so we can explore the more exotic index types. CREATE TABLE customers ( id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY , customer_name VARCHAR ( 255 ), email VARCHAR ( 255 ), created_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT NOW () ); CREATE TABLE orders ( id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY , customer_id INT REFERENCES customers ( id ), order_date TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT NOW (), total_amount NUMERIC ( 10 , 2 ), status VARCHAR ( 20 ), tags TEXT [], metadata JSONB ); -- Insert sample customers INSERT INTO customers ( customer_name , email ) SELECT 'Customer ' || i , 'customer' || i || '@example.com' FROM generate_series ( 1 , 1000000 ) AS s ( i ); -- Insert sample orders INSERT INTO orders ( customer_id , order_date , total_amount , status , tags , metadata ) SELECT ( RANDOM () * 1000000 ):: INT , NOW () - interval '1 day' * ( RANDOM () * 365 ):: int , ( RANDOM () * 500 + 20 ), ( ARRAY [ 'pending' , 'shipped' , 'delivered' , 'cancelled' ])[ FLOOR ( RANDOM () * 4 + 1 )], ARRAY [( ARRAY [ 'gift' , 'priority' , 'fragile' , 'bulk' ])[ FLOOR ( RANDOM () * 4 + 1 )]], jsonb_build_object ( 'channel' , ( ARRAY [ 'web' , 'mobile' , 'store' ])[ FLOOR ( RANDOM () * 3 + 1 )]) FROM generate_series ( 1 , 1000000 ) AS s ( i

The Playwright Playbook — Part 7: The CI/CD Setup Nobody Shows You "A test suite that only runs on your laptop isn't a test suite. It's a hobby." Six parts in, we have a serious framework. POM-based UI tests. Network interception. Multi-user contexts. A full API testing layer. Visual regression across four viewports. A complete debugging toolkit. Now it needs to run automatically. On every pull request. On every merge. On every deployment. Without you touching it. Most CI/CD tutorials for Playwright show you this: # The "tutorial" version everyone copies - run : npx playwright test That's not a CI setup. That's a shell command in a YAML file. A real production CI/CD pipeline for Playwright has: Sharding — split tests across multiple machines and finish in a fraction of the time Browser matrix — Chromium, Firefox, WebKit in parallel Docker — identical environment on every machine, every time Artifacts — HTML report, traces, screenshots, videos — downloadable from every run Failure notifications — your team knows within seconds, not the next morning Separate VRT workflow — visual regression on its own cadence, not blocking every PR Environment-specific pipelines — staging vs production, different configurations Let's build all of it. 🎯 🏗️ Where We Left Off After Part 6, our full project structure is: playwright-playbook/ ├── tests/ │ ├── auth/login.spec.ts ✅ Part 1 │ ├── tasks/task-management.spec.ts ✅ Part 1 │ ├── network/ ✅ Part 2 │ ├── multi-user/ ✅ Part 3 │ ├── multi-tab/ ✅ Part 3 │ ├── api/ ✅ Part 4 │ ├── visual/ ✅ Part 5 │ └── debug/trace-examples.spec.ts ✅ Part 6 ├── pages/ │ ├── LoginPage.ts ✅ Part 1 │ ├── TaskPage.ts ✅ Part 1 │ └── DashboardPage.ts ✅ Part 3 ├── api/ │ ├── TaskApiClient.ts ✅ Part 4 │ └── AuthApiClient.ts ✅ Part 4 ├── fixtures/ │ ├── auth.fixture.ts ✅ Part 1 │ ├── tasks.json ✅ Part 2 │ ├── empty-tasks.json ✅ Part 2 │ ├── tasks-har.har ✅ Part 2 │ ├── multi-user.fixture.ts ✅ Part 3 │ └── api.fixture.ts ✅ Part 4 ├── scripts/ │ └── record-har.ts ✅

I rebuilt StrictBlock (my app) from the ground up. StrictBlock is an iPhone app blocker and focus app designed to help people stop procrastinating, protect deep work, and build better focus habits. For this relaunch, I did not want to just “refresh the UI.” I wanted to redesign the full product experience around one question: How can I make starting a focus session feel simple, strict, and useful? The new version focuses on reducing friction. Users can create focus profiles for study, work, sleep, deep work, or Pomodoro sessions, then start blocking distracting apps and websites with less setup. I also redesigned the app around accountability. StrictBlock now includes streaks, trophies, weekly reports, widgets, session journaling, and consequences for ending sessions early. As a developer, this redesign was a good reminder that productivity apps are not only about features. They are about behavior. The UI, the flow, the defaults, and the friction all shape whether someone actually stays focused. StrictBlock is now live with a complete redesign. Would love feedback from other builders, iOS devs, and product engineers. Try it here: Download strictblock on appstore

Most fintech breaches you read about involve a hacker, a vulnerability, and a headline. Most fintech losses I've actually seen up close involve none of those things. They involve someone who read the terms of a cashback offer more carefully than the product team did, found the one path through the workflow nobody had tested, and quietly walked away with money the system handed over willingly. That's the part standard security testing misses. A penetration test asks: can someone break in? Business logic testing asks a more uncomfortable question: what happens if someone uses every feature exactly as designed, just not exactly as intended ? In a country processing billions of UPI transactions a month, that second question matters just as much as the first — arguably more, because nobody needs a zero-day to abuse a referral program. Here's where that gap shows up most often in Indian fintech apps. Wallet Systems: Built for Speed, Tested for Function, Rarely Tested for Abuse A digital wallet sits at the intersection of multiple money-in paths — UPI, card, net banking, cashback credits — and at least one money-out path. Every intersection like that is a place where timing and assumptions can quietly fall apart. The classic version of this is a race condition: top up the wallet and spend from it in two near-simultaneous requests, and check whether the balance check happens before or after both transactions are committed. Done right, this should be impossible. Done wrong, a user can spend money that, technically, hadn't arrived yet — or spend the same balance twice. There's a quieter version of the same problem around refunds. If a refund is credited back to the wallet on a different timeline than the original debit was finalized, there's often a window where the balance briefly shows more than it should, and a fast enough user can act inside that window before reconciliation catches up. And then there's KYC tiering. Minimum-KYC wallets in India are deliberately capped at

Python provides socket.AF_UNIX , asyncio.open_unix_connection() , and asyncio.start_unix_server() for working with Unix Domain Sockets on Unix-like operating systems. On Windows, however, support for Unix Domain Sockets tends to depend on the Python version and runtime environment. In particular, differences become apparent when trying to use the higher-level asyncio APIs in the same way as on Unix. To address this, I created a compatibility layer that hides the differences between Unix and Windows and allows AF_UNIX sockets to be used through a largely identical API. This article covers two types of APIs: An asyncio -based AF_UNIX compatibility API A synchronous socket -based AF_UNIX compatibility API Goal The objective is straightforward. On Unix, use the standard library APIs as-is. On Windows, fill in the missing functionality so that application code can remain as unified as possible. For example, on Unix you can write: reader , writer = await asyncio . open_unix_connection ( path ) And on the server side: server = await asyncio . start_unix_server ( handle_client , path ) The goal is to preserve this style of programming on Windows as much as possible. What Was Built The compatibility layer consists of two major components. 1. Asyncio Version This is the asynchronous implementation designed to match the asyncio Unix Domain Socket APIs. The main APIs are: await open_unix_connection ( path , * , limit = ...) await start_unix_server ( callback , path , * , limit = ..., backlog = ...) await create_unix_connection ( protocol_factory , path , ...) await create_unix_server ( protocol_factory , path , ...) install () On Unix-like systems, these simply delegate to the standard asyncio implementation. On Windows, they use Winsock AF_UNIX sockets and combine WSAEventSelect with event-loop handle waiting to implement asynchronous operations. 2. Synchronous Socket Version This version provides a traditional blocking-socket-style API without using asyncio . The main APIs ar

When a stronger model ships, there are two questions every skill author should want answered, and evals are the only honest way to answer either: Which skills just got absorbed? A model that now knows how to do X natively does not need a skill telling it to do X. Fewer skills to maintain, leaner context, lower cost. Which skills still matter? Behaviour-level guidance (conventions, preferences, project-specific workflows) is not something pretraining will fill in for you. Those skills should keep paying. Moonshot gave us early access to Kimi K2.6. We ran the Tessl agent skill evaluation harness on the same 21 skills and 100 paired scenarios against three solvers: Kimi K2.5, Kimi K2.6, and Claude Sonnet 4.5. A solver is the model whose output the grader scores; a paired scenario is the same task run twice per solver, once without the skill installed and once with it. These are early signals from one pre-release on one skill set. A deeper cross-model analysis with clean baselines across the board is in progress and will be its own piece. What does our setup look like? Scenarios and rubrics are held fixed across the two Moonshot runs. The only variable is the solver. Solver A: Kimi K2.5 Solver B: Kimi K2.6 Scenario generator: Claude Sonnet 4.5, up to 5 scenarios per skill, derived from each skill's SKILL.md Grader: Claude Sonnet 4.5, weighted-checklist rubric derived from the same SKILL.md Per skill × per solver: every scenario solved twice, baseline (no skill installed) and with-skill Per-skill n=5 is noisy; the aggregate over 100 scenarios is where the signal lives. Three findings: Kimi 2.6 is a better model than K2.5: Without skills, K2.6 sits ~2 pp (percentage points) above K2.5 in aggregate, with double-digit moves on specific skills. Kimi 2.6 holds its own against Sonnet 4.5. We picked Sonnet 4.5 as a competitive baseline, and found in this evaluation set that the K2.6 performed better both in the with/without skill scenario by around ~8 p.p . Skills remain a dura

You wrote the graph by hand. Then the requirements changed. Most TypeScript agent frameworks make you draw the graph yourself. You declare the nodes, wire the edges, decide what runs after what, where it branches, where it joins. It works, right up until the goal shifts and you are back in the graph editor re-wiring a pipeline you already built once. There is another way to model this: describe the goal, and let a coordinator build the graph for you. That is what runTeam() does in open-multi-agent. You hand it a team and a sentence. It hands back a result. In between, a coordinator agent decomposes the goal into a task DAG, assigns the tasks to your agents, runs the independent ones in parallel, and synthesizes the final answer. There are no edges to wire. This post is about what happens in that "in between," because the mechanism is the whole point. The one call import { OpenMultiAgent } from ' @open-multi-agent/core ' const orchestrator = new OpenMultiAgent ({ defaultModel : ' deepseek-v4-flash ' , defaultProvider : ' deepseek ' , }) const team = orchestrator . createTeam ( ' research ' , { name : ' research ' , agents : [ { name : ' researcher ' , model : ' deepseek-v4-flash ' , provider : ' deepseek ' , systemPrompt : ' You research topics and gather concrete facts. ' }, { name : ' writer ' , model : ' deepseek-v4-flash ' , provider : ' deepseek ' , systemPrompt : ' You turn research notes into clear prose. ' }, ], sharedMemory : true , }) const result = await orchestrator . runTeam ( team , ' Research the tradeoffs of TypeScript decorators, covering the stage-3 standard ' + ' versus the legacy experimental implementation, runtime and bundle-size cost, and ' + ' current framework support, then write a clear 500-word explainer for a team ' + ' deciding whether to adopt them. ' , ) console . log ( result . agentResults . get ( ' coordinator ' )?. output ) Three things to notice before we go under the hood: You never declared a task graph. You wrote the goal in pla

A production AI agent can look healthy while quietly failing the exact users you hoped it would help. The logs say 200 OK . The trace says the model answered. The dashboard says latency is fine. But the customer still left the conversation without finishing the job. That gap is the blind spot. Most teams monitor infrastructure first: token cost, latency, model errors, retry loops, and tool failures. Those metrics matter. But they do not answer the product question that decides retention: did the agent help the user complete the intent they came with? This guide shows how to build an AI agent blind spot detector: a practical layer that reads real conversations, finds unresolved intents, clusters repeated failures, connects them to trace evidence, and turns them into fixes your product and engineering team can actually ship. No vendor pitch. No magic “AI analytics” promise. Just a useful architecture for builders who need their agents to get better after launch. Why ordinary monitoring misses agent failure Traditional monitoring is built around systems that either succeed or fail clearly. An API request returns 500 . A queue backs up. A database query times out. A deployment increases error rate. You can alert, roll back, and investigate. AI agents fail in softer ways: The answer is fluent but does not resolve the user’s goal. The agent asks a clarification question that sends the user in circles. A tool call succeeds, but the selected workflow is wrong. The agent gives a generic answer when the user needed an action. A user abandons the session after three polite but useless replies. The model says it cannot help even though the product has the capability. The agent resolves easy cases and silently drops high-value edge cases. In those cases, your system metrics can look clean. The model returned text. The agent stayed within budget. The tool did not crash. Yet the experience failed. That is why agent teams need a second layer of quality intelligence: not just “what

This was originally posted on my blog . I was not planning to build a rate limiting library. I had a FastAPI project, I needed rate limiting, I reached for SlowAPI, which is the most popular choice for FastAPI, and wired it up. Took maybe 20 minutes. Then I started actually using it. The request: Request problem The first thing that got to me was the request: Request requirement. SlowAPI's decorator needs access to the request to extract the client IP or user ID, and the only way it can get that is if your route function accepts it as a parameter. So every rate-limited route ends up looking like this: @app.get ( " /items " ) @limiter.limit ( " 10/minute " ) async def get_items ( request : Request ): return await fetch_items () That request: Request is not doing anything. fetch_items() does not use it. It's there purely because SlowAPI needs it. Small thing, but it bothered me — I like function signatures that say exactly what they need, and this one was lying. The header injection problem I could live with that. The thing I could not live with was the header injection. Rate limit headers are genuinely useful — X-RateLimit-Remaining tells clients when to back off, Retry-After tells them how long to wait. Standard stuff. So I enabled SlowAPI's header injection and immediately hit a wall: every rate-limited route now had to return a Response object directly. Not a dict. Not a Pydantic model. A Response . The moment you enable header injection, SlowAPI expects to work with an actual response object, and if your route returns anything else it just breaks. So I was suddenly doing this: @app.get ( " /items " ) @limiter.limit ( " 10/minute " ) async def get_items ( request : Request , response : Response ): items = await fetch_items () return JSONResponse ( content = jsonable_encoder ( items )) Which is annoying because one of the things I actually like about FastAPI is that you declare a return type, FastAPI handles the serialization, and your OpenAPI schema just works. Sl

After spending two weeks debugging issues that only showed up in production — a sitemap _redirects rule that was blocking my own sitemap-index.xml and a Bluesky image upload race against Cloudflare Pages deploy lag — I added three post-deploy checks to my workflow. They're fast and specific to the failure modes I've actually hit, not a full end-to-end test suite. Three sites (aiappdex.com, findindiegame.com, ossfind.com) on Cloudflare Pages with Astro 5 SSG. Here's what I check. Check 1: Sitemap reachability The simplest check and the one I should have had from day one. After a Cloudflare Pages deploy, I verify that sitemap-index.xml is reachable and returning 200 on all three domains: for domain in aiappdex.com findindiegame.com ossfind.com ; do status = $( curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" "https:// $domain /sitemap-index.xml" ) echo " $domain /sitemap-index.xml → $status " if [ " $status " != "200" ] ; then echo "FAIL: $domain sitemap unreachable" fi done I also check sitemap-0.xml — the actual URL sub-sitemap that @astrojs/sitemap generates — and assert that it contains at least a minimum expected URL count. For aiappdex.com that threshold is 1,000; if it drops below that after a deploy, the ETL data pipeline probably broke silently. The reason this check exists: I had a _redirects rule rewriting sitemap-index.xml → sitemap-0.xml as an emergency workaround that turned out to be wrong. It was live for five days before I found it. The rule was blocking the real sitemap-index.xml from reaching crawlers while appearing fine in the browser (which followed the redirect). Curl with -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" doesn't follow redirects by default, so it would have caught this immediately. Check 2: IndexNow batch submission After every successful sitemap check, I run node scripts/indexnow.mjs . The script reads the live sitemap XML from each domain, collects all URLs, and POSTs them to the IndexNow endpoint for Bing, Yandex, Naver, and Seznam using site-specific k

May 29 I wrote my first AI trainwreck story. June 18 I finished #15. People keep asking if this was...