Hey developers! 🚀 I wasted too much time setting up dummy backends just to test my frontend designs. So, I built Stardust API Engine — a completely free, serverless mock server. What it does: Instant live endpoints for /users and /products (Ready to fetch() ). In-built Custom JSON Data Generator to structure your own schemas. 100% serverless, zero login friction, and lightning fast. Check it out here: https://stardustofficial.github.io/stardust-api/ Feedback is highly appreciated! Built with 🌌 by Zishan.

In the world of Generative AI, there is a massive difference between asking for a "pancake recipe" and asking for "eligibility criteria for phase III immunotherapy trials." In specialized fields like healthcare, a standard vector search often fails because medical terminology is dense, specific, and unforgiving. 🏥 Today, we are building a High-Precision Medical RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) engine. We will move beyond simple semantic search by implementing Hybrid Search (Dense + Sparse vectors) using the powerhouse BGE-M3 model, storing it in Qdrant , and fine-tuning the results with FlashRank . This approach ensures that technical medical terms (like EGFR L858R mutation ) aren't lost in the "vibe" of a vector space. Keywords: Hybrid Search , Medical RAG , BGE-M3 Embeddings , Qdrant Vector Database , Clinical Trial Retrieval . The Architecture: Why Hybrid Search? Traditional RAG relies on "Dense Vectors" (semantic meaning). However, in clinical trials, keywords matter. A patient searching for "Pembrolizumab" needs that exact drug, not just "something related to cancer." By using BGE-M3 , we get the best of both worlds: Dense Retrieval : Captures the context and intent. Sparse Retrieval (Lexical) : Captures specific keywords and medical codes. Reranking : Re-evaluates the top hits to ensure the most clinically relevant document is on top. graph TD A[User Query: Medical Case] --> B{BGE-M3 Encoder} B -->|Dense Vector| C[Qdrant Collection] B -->|Sparse Vector| C C --> D[Hybrid Search Results] D --> E[FlashRank Reranker] E --> F[Top K Relevant Documents] F --> G[LLM: Final Synthesis] G --> H[Actionable Clinical Insight] Prerequisites 🛠️ Before we dive in, make sure you have your environment ready: Qdrant : Our high-performance vector database. BGE-M3 : A state-of-the-art embedding model that supports dense, sparse, and multi-vector retrieval. FlashRank : An ultra-fast, lightweight reranking library. LangChain : To orchestrate our RAG pipeline. pip install qdrant-c

I’m building ScriptTap, a no-root Android automation app for user-controlled phone workflows. The app lets people create scripts with taps, swipes, routines, screen-aware checks, OCR/text detection, image/pixel checks, variables, logic, and AI-assisted script creation. The technical side is hard, but the trust side may be harder. ScriptTap needs Android Accessibility permission because user-authored input automation requires it. That is a powerful permission. I do not want to minimize it, hide it behind vague onboarding copy, or expect people to click through without understanding what they are enabling. That creates a product-design problem. If the copy is too soft, it feels dishonest. If the copy is too warning-heavy, a legitimate automation tool can feel suspicious before the user even understands what it does. The explanation I am trying to make clear is: ScriptTap is no-root. Scripts are created and controlled by the user. Screen capture is user-controlled. It does not bypass Android permissions, lock screens, app security, or consent flows. Accessibility is required for overlay/input automation, so users should understand why it is being requested. The short version I keep coming back to is: ScriptTap uses Accessibility so your scripts can interact with the screen the way you tell them to. This is a powerful permission. You should only enable it if you understand and trust what the app is doing. For developers who have built apps with sensitive permissions: How did you explain the permission without either hiding the risk or scaring users away from a legitimate feature?

A few weeks ago, I started exploring the Afriex MCP server. The setup was surprisingly straightforward. Connect your MCP client. Configure your API key. Verify the connection. Done. But then I ran into a different problem. Not a technical problem. A prompt problem. The Blank Prompt Problem Once everything was connected, I found myself staring at an empty prompt box. What should I ask? Sure, I could retrieve balances. I could create customers. I could generate virtual accounts. But what were the most useful workflows? What were the prompts that would actually help developers build real products? This isn't a problem unique to Afriex. It's becoming a common challenge across the entire MCP ecosystem. The infrastructure exists. The tools work. But many developers don't know where to start. MCP Changes How We Build Traditionally, integrating a payment API looked something like this: Read documentation Find the endpoint Write HTTP requests Parse responses Build business logic With MCP, the workflow looks very different. You can simply tell your AI assistant what you want to build. For example: Create a customer onboarding flow that: - Collects customer details - Generates a virtual account - Displays payment instructions Build it using Next.js and TypeScript. Instead of manually stitching everything together, the AI can interact with infrastructure through the MCP server. That's incredibly powerful. But only if you know what to ask. The Idea That's what led me to build the: Afriex MCP Prompt Cookbook A collection of practical, production-oriented prompts designed specifically for developers building with Afriex MCP. The goal is simple: Copy. Paste. Build. Instead of starting from scratch every time. The cookbook is open source and available on GitHub: https://github.com/SonOfUri/afriex-mcp-cookbook Feel free to explore the prompts, use them in your own projects, and contribute new recipes. What's Inside The cookbook is organized around real-world use cases. Not API endpoi

Most engineering reading lists are optimized for knowledge accumulation. Modern engineering rewards bottleneck elimination. Last week, a junior engineer showed me a "Top 10 Books Every Engineer Should Read" list. It looked almost identical to the lists I saw ten years ago. The same classics. The same process books. The same assumption: Read enough books and you'll become a better engineer. That's not how most high-performing teams learn. The best engineers I know don't build learning plans around books. They build learning plans around constraints. The Problem with standard reading lists Most reading lists assume that knowledge is universally valuable. In practice, engineering value is highly contextual. A backend engineer struggling with database contention does not need another chapter on Agile. A team spending thousands of dollars per month on LLM inference does not need a generic software craftsmanship book. A startup fighting latency issues does not need a leadership framework. They need solutions to the bottleneck directly in front of them. Reading lists rarely account for this. They optimize for completeness. Engineering rewards relevance. The Shift Most Engineers Miss The fundamentals still matter. Distributed systems matter. Databases matter. Networking matters. Operating systems matter. They are not obsolete. But they are no longer sufficient. Modern systems introduce constraints that barely existed a few years ago: AI inference costs Context window limitations Agent orchestration Evaluation pipelines Semantic caching Non-deterministic workflows Model routing Human-in-the-loop systems Many traditional reading lists never touch these problems. Yet these are exactly the problems teams are solving every day. The challenge is no longer simply writing correct software. The challenge is building reliable systems on top of components that are inherently probabilistic. What Changed For decades, engineers mostly worked with deterministic systems. Given the same inp

Originally published on MRTD.NET — fast, sourced news on crypto security, cyber & SEO. The uncomfortable first lesson You built a clean site, submitted a sitemap, maybe pinged IndexNow — and Google still shows nothing. Here's the part most guides skip: getting indexed by Google and getting indexed by everything else are two different problems , and conflating them wastes weeks. We separate what actually moves Google in 2026 from the folklore that just feels productive. Bing, Yandex and ChatGPT are the easy half If you've set up IndexNow , you've largely solved discovery for Bing, Yandex, Naver, Seznam and Yep — you POST your new/changed URLs to one endpoint and they get notified instantly. And because ChatGPT Search retrieves from Bing's index , confirmed Bing indexing effectively gates your visibility in ChatGPT's web results. That's a big chunk of the modern search surface handled with one integration. The catch: Google does not use IndexNow. It has said so repeatedly. So every "instant indexing" claim that leans on IndexNow is talking about Bing's world, not Google's. For Google, you need different levers. What actually gets you into Google There are really only two fast paths, plus one slow one. 1. Google Search Console — the only direct lever. Verify your domain (a private DNS TXT record; it does not trigger penalties or "re-evaluation," a common fear), submit your sitemap.xml , then use URL Inspection → Request Indexing on your key pages. There's a soft daily cap (~10–12 URLs), so spread a new site's pages over a few days. GSC is also the only place you can see whether a domain carries an inherited problem — essential if you bought an aged or expired domain. 2. Links on pages Google already re-crawls hourly. Googlebot's crawl budget for a brand-new, zero-authority domain is tiny. The fastest way to get a new URL discovered is a link to it from a page Google visits constantly — Reddit, Hacker News, Medium, established communities. These links are usually nofoll

AI Agent 的记忆系统通常只解决一个问题：「记住」。gbrain 存知识图谱，Hindsight 存向量，Memory tool 存偏好。三个仓库堆满数据，但你问 Agent「我上周看的那篇关于 Agent memory 的文章说了什么？」——它答不上来。不是因为记不住，是因为它的记忆系统没有「采集」这一层。 这就是 Knowledge-and-Memory-Management（KMM）的定位：不是另一个记忆数据库，而是一个 知识采集 → 精炼 → 召回 → 同步 的全链路插件。v0.0.2 把这条链路做完了。 架构思路：把「采集」和「记忆」解耦 KMM 不做记忆存储，它只做三件事： 采集 — 从 40+ 工具把原始知识拉进来 精炼 — 把原始材料变成结构化笔记 + 知识图谱节点 同步 — 写 OneDrive，让所有设备共享同一个知识池 下方是三层采集管线示意： 层 工具数 代表工具 网页 9 Scrapling (CF 绕过)、Chrome DevTools Protocol、GStack Browser 视频 12 抖音批量转录、yt-dlp、Whisper ASR (99 语种) 文档 9 SenseNova PDF/PPT/Word 引擎、MinerU、book_cache (710+ 本) 3 层召回：不让任何一条知识掉队 搜索时先查本地 FTS5（毫秒级），没命中就走 Hindsight 向量（语义近似），再不中就落 gbrain 知识图谱（关联推理）。三层兜底，基本不存在「查不到」的情况。 代码片段：rclone 做云盘双向同步 KMM 的 CloudSyncEngine 不造轮子，直接用 rclone 做统一同步层。核心代码很直白： class CloudSyncEngine : def __init__ ( self ): self . _check_rclone () def _check_rclone ( self ): result = subprocess . run ([ " rclone " , " version " ], capture_output = True , text = True ) if result . returncode != 0 : raise RuntimeError ( " rclone not installed " ) def bidirectional_sync ( self , local_path , remote_path ): """ 双向增量同步，每 4h 自动执行 """ cmd = [ " rclone " , " bisync " , local_path , remote_path , " --resync " ] return subprocess . run ( cmd ) 这没什么黑科技，关键是架构决策：用 rclone 支持 12+ 云盘（OneDrive / 阿里云盘 / 百度云盘 / Dropbox / Mega / 天翼云等），不需要为每个云盘写专属 SDK。一份配置，双向同步，cron 每 4 小时自动执行。 一个完整的采集流 用户丢过来一个抖音视频链接 → collect_video() 自动走三条线并行： yt-dlp 下音频 → Whisper ASR 转文字 → PaddleOCR/EasyOCR 提关键帧文字 。输出汇总后 → generate_note() 写结构化笔记 → create_note() 入 gbrain 知识图谱 → sync_to_cloud() 推 OneDrive。全自动，零人工参与。 踩过的坑 不要用 Python 重写云盘同步 。KMM v0.0.1 试过直接调各云盘 REST API，token 刷新、分片上传、断点续传全要自己处理，维护成本极高。v0.0.2 切到 rclone bisync 后问题归零。 视频分析不只看语音 。抖音很多技术号用字幕 + PPT 画面讲内容，语音只占信息量的 60%。必须 OCR 做画面补充，否则丢失大量知识。 去重不做在采集层 。采集层只管拉，去重交给 gbrain 的 content_hash 和 nightly_maintenance 的 orphan compaction，职责分离更干净。 适用场景 如果你的 AI Agent 已经跑了一段时间，积累了几千条笔记 / 几百个知识图谱节点，但你还是觉得「它好像什么都不懂」——问题很可能出在知识摄入链路上。KMM 适合你已经有一套记忆系统，缺的是一个自动化的知识采集和同步层。 仓库： github.com/mage0535/Knowledge-and-Management ，MIT 协议，PR

GitHub added a tiny field to the Copilot usage metrics API this week that is going to create a lot of very confident spreadsheets. Enterprise and organization admins can now see ai_credits_used in the user-level Copilot usage reports. One field. Per user. Available for single-day and 28-day reports. It is not the invoice, and GitHub is careful to say it is a consumption signal rather than a billed total. Still, the shape is obvious. Now AI usage can sit next to adoption, activity, team, department, cost center, and whatever else the company already exports into a dashboard. That is useful. It is also exactly how a tool metric becomes a management metric. And once that happens, the question is no longer "can we measure AI usage?" The question is "what weird behavior will this metric create?" every useful metric becomes a temptation I understand why this field exists. If a company is paying for Copilot, especially with usage-based pieces attached to more expensive models and premium features, it needs some way to understand consumption. Platform teams need budget signals. Engineering leaders need adoption signals. Procurement needs something more concrete than "people seem to like it." Finance will eventually ask why one org burns through credits much faster than another. That is normal. The problem starts when a consumption signal is treated as a productivity signal. High AI credit usage might mean a developer is doing valuable work with agent mode, code review, test generation, refactoring, or research. It might also mean the developer is stuck, repeatedly asking the model to solve the wrong problem, generating code that gets deleted, or using a heavyweight model where a small one would have been fine. Low AI credit usage might mean a developer does not need much help. It might mean the work is mostly design, review, debugging, incident response, mentoring, or architecture. It might mean the codebase is small and well understood. It might mean the developer is skept

As software engineers, we often architect solutions in a virtual ideal: fast networks, elastic resources, and servers that never physically degrade. But what happens when your carefully crafted systems need to interact with the messy, unpredictable physical world? Think factory floor monitors, real estate camera networks, or remote tracking devices. Suddenly, those cloud assumptions about infinite uptime and perfect connectivity crumble. My journey, particularly architecting and maintaining a continuous 24/7 camera livestream for a real estate group over six years, has been a masterclass in this reality. It's revealed that true reliability in the physical realm demands a hybrid approach – one that intelligently merges the power of edge computing with the scalability and data insights of the cloud. This isn't just about connecting devices; it's about building resilience into the very fabric of your architecture. In this article, I'll share the battle-tested strategies and design principles that enable systems to not just survive, but thrive, despite the harsh realities of physical deployment. 1. The Core Strategy: Smart Edge, Simple Cloud One of the most common pitfalls in hybrid architecture design is treating the edge device as a mere 'dumb' terminal, solely responsible for streaming raw data to a powerful cloud backend. This approach creates a critical single point of failure: if the network drops, the entire system grinds to a halt. Instead, I advocate for a Smart Edge, Simple Cloud architecture. This principle establishes a clear division of responsibility: The Edge : This is where the magic happens locally. The edge system should be robust enough to handle local processing , data filtering , buffering , and immediate hardware control . Critically, it must be capable of operating autonomously for extended periods without an active cloud connection. Think of it as a mini data center, designed for self-sufficiency. Benefits of a Smart Edge : Reduced bandwidth cost

I've wanted easy trunk-based development for Salesforce for years. Short-lived branches, frequent merges, small pull requests, and CI fast enough that developers aren't afraid to commit. The same practices that engineering teams use everywhere else. Every time I tried to make it work, I hit the same wall: Apex tests require an org. That single dependency turns every validation run into an infrastructure problem. Before a test can execute, you need authentication, environment provisioning, metadata deployment, test execution, and cleanup. The result is feedback loops measured in minutes instead of seconds. I got tired of waiting and built Nimbus, a local Apex runtime that executes Apex tests without an org. This is what I learned while trying to make trunk-based development actually work for Salesforce. Why trunk-based development is hard in Salesforce Trunk-based development depends on fast feedback. If validation takes seconds, developers make smaller changes, merge more frequently, and keep branches short-lived. If validation takes fifteen minutes, behavior changes. Pull requests get larger, unrelated work gets batched together, and validation stops happening continuously because validation itself becomes expensive. Salesforce has always had a structural challenge here because Apex only runs inside Salesforce. A typical validation pipeline looks something like this: sf org login jwt sf org create scratch sf project deploy start sf apex run test sf org delete scratch There is nothing inherently wrong with these steps. The problem is that most of them have nothing to do with testing. They're infrastructure management. The actual validation of business logic is only one part of the process. The longer I worked with Salesforce CI, the more obvious it became that the bottleneck wasn't Apex itself. The bottleneck was everything required to create an environment where Apex could run. The solutions I tried first Before building a local runtime, I tried solving the problem

I did the math and it turns out YOU are the reason AI isn't smarter yet Erin T Erin T Erin T Follow Jun 20 I did the math and it turns out YOU are the reason AI isn't smarter yet # ai # humour # hottakes 10 reactions Add Comment 2 min read

I know it sounds strange, but I am in my first year in CS Major, and I don't like posting things on social media, but I found lately that companies are more likely to hire people who are active on social media like X (Twitter). For me, I genuinely post my projects on LinkedIn, but not sharing things like today I learned something new etc... What's your opinion about that? Or How can I manage that?

Submarius started as just a dashboard for diving conditions, but I quickly realized that there is simply no API for water clarity, nor even a simple way to calculate it. Divers call it viz, and it is one of the most consequential factors for a diving experience. So I dove the viz rabbit-hole. I landed on a state-augmented ensemble kalman filter. More details on the /clarity page. My question for the HN audience is if anyone knows of a better way of doing this? There is a ton of satellite data to

A notes app that lives in your MacBook's notch. Discussion | Link