Working with AI Means Thinking More, Not Less Yes, this text is long. Yes, it repeats itself in places. I did not clean that up. A text that sounded too smooth while arguing that AI forces you to think more, not less, would be at least slightly dishonest. This is not fast food for quick consumption. And yes, don’t worry: you won’t hear anything especially new here. That is part of the problem too. There is a popular and very seductive story about AI in software development. Now that the machine can write code, the human gets to think less. You just point it in the right direction, and the model will quickly and cheaply do a significant part of the work on its own. In that picture, AI is primarily an accelerator for code production, and human thinking gradually shifts from necessity to optional extra. I keep feeling more and more strongly that this description is dangerously wrong. A more accurate formula for my own experience right now is this: I’m the tech lead, the AI is the entire team in one body . And if you take that metaphor seriously, the conclusion is the exact opposite of the mainstream narrative. Working with AI is not a way to think less. It is a mode in which you need to think more, not less . Not because the AI is bad. But because it is too good at one very treacherous thing: it confidently and smoothly fills in what was left unsaid. I’m the tech lead, the AI is the team At first this metaphor felt like a neat formulation. Now it feels like a literal description of what is going on. If you treat AI as a very fast and very capable executor, a lot of things become clearer immediately. It really can wipe out months of routine work. It can spin up prototypes quickly, take over test scaffolding, try out alternatives, make local edits, help break a task into parts, and sometimes even suggest a decent direction. On the surface, this really does look like a silver bullet. Especially if the human knows the stack and can read code. The pace becomes so extreme th

Plus: Gay bars in San Francisco using face scanners, France quits Palantir, Apple plans to change its private email and more.

You have ISTQB Foundation. ISTQB Advanced. Certified ScrumMaster. A cloud cert. A security testing cert. Maybe a Python for Testers badge from a platform. And you still cannot write a test that finds a real bug. I interviewed someone like you last quarter. The resume was a wall of acronyms. The conversation was a wall of theory. "I follow the V-model." "I use equivalence partitioning." "I believe in shift-left." Then I asked: "Show me one test you wrote that caught something the developer missed." Silence. Not because they were nervous. Because they had never written a test that found a bug. They had written tests that passed. They had written tests that covered requirements. They had never written a test that broke something. That is the difference between a certification holder and a tester. Certifications test your memory. Bugs test your thinking. Let me show you what I mean. The Certification Trap Certifications are not useless. They give you vocabulary. They give you structure. They give you something to put on LinkedIn so recruiters stop asking if you know what a test case is. But they do not teach you how to find bugs. Here is why. Every certification exam tests known knowledge. You study a syllabus. You memorize definitions. You answer multiple-choice questions about boundary value analysis. You pass. Then you sit in front of an application. The application does not have a syllabus. It does not have a boundary value analysis section in the documentation. It has a login form that sometimes lets you in with a password that is clearly wrong, but only on Tuesdays, and only if the server clock is behind by exactly four minutes. No certification prepares you for that. The tester with 10 certifications treats testing like a checklist. They write test cases from requirements. They execute them. They mark pass or fail. They report coverage metrics. The tester who finds bugs treats testing like an investigation. They start with a hypothesis. They try to prove the appl

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

Architecture that lives only in people's heads doesn't survive agents. For most of my career, the real rules of a codebase weren't written down. People knew them. Senior engineers knew which layers could talk to which. They knew which dependencies were forbidden, which schemas were effectively frozen, and which shortcuts would create problems six months later. New engineers learned those rules the traditional way: break one, get caught in review, get the explanation, and eventually remember not to do it again. It wasn't perfect, but it mostly worked. What I didn't fully appreciate until I started working heavily with coding agents is how dependent that model is on tribal knowledge. Humans accumulate context over time. Agents don't. They don't remember the migration that went sideways three years ago. They weren't around when the team spent weeks untangling a dependency cycle. They don't know why a particular boundary exists. They only know what they can see. Which means if a rule isn't written down, from the agent's perspective, the rule doesn't exist. I've seen agents wire inner layers directly to outer layers. I've seen them introduce dependencies we intentionally avoided and extend contracts everyone on the team considered settled. The code often worked, which was the dangerous part. The problem wasn't correctness. The problem was architectural drift. That's when something clicked for me. Architecture can't remain folklore once agents start writing code. It has to become law. Not a convention. Not a suggestion. Not something a reviewer remembers at 6 PM on a Friday. A law. Written down, explicit, and enforceable. That's what I mean by a constitution. A Constitution Is Not Documentation The first mistake I made was treating the constitution like another documentation file. It isn't. Documentation explains how the system works today. A constitution defines what the system is allowed to become. Those sound similar, but they serve very different purposes. Package nam

Hello Dev Community! 👋 It is officially Day 48 of my unbroken full-stack engineering journey! Yesterday, I refactored my modular core patterns into MVC architecture. Today, I linked up a major functional extension inside the /model layer by introducing JavaScript Classes (OOP) to coordinate my local file operations and storage data patterns! Instead of writing loose object definitions, I stepped up my enterprise game by structuring a reusable class footprint that encapsulates data parameters and handles non-blocking file-system persistence asynchronously. 🧠 Key Learnings From Day 48 (OOP Modeling & File Systems) As clearly shown in my development workspace layout within "Screenshot (116).png" , modeling data with dedicated classes shifts your core structural logic from simple scripts into highly scalable engines: 1. The Model Data Blueprinter ( constructor ) I used the standard ES6 class framework inside home.js to structure an explicit data mold ( houseList ) with attributes tracking: houseName , price , location , rating , and photoUrl . This ensures every entry traveling through our server follows an identical structure. 2. Streamlining Async Persistence ( save() ) Rather than relying on globally declared floating arrays, my .save() blueprint method triggers an internal lookup to read existing data stacks asynchronously before safely using fs.writeFile() to serialize and flash mutated JSON rows into a local data asset ( homesdata.json ). 3. Static Decoupled Fetchers ( static fetchAll() ) I mastered using static methods. Since reading a data grid requires pulling records without creating an instance of a single house first, making fetchAll(callback) static allows our controllers to tap the hard disk records straight from the class reference layout: javascript // A conceptual look at my file-reading design today static fetchAll(callback) { const filePath = path.join(rootDir, 'data', 'homesdata.json'); fs.readFile(filePath, (err, data) => { if (err) { callback(JSON.

Dalla libreria embedded che ha invaso ogni dispositivo a un’implementazione moderna con concorrenza, async I/O e vector search: cosa cambia davvero per chi sviluppa app. Nel frontend e nel full‑stack capita spesso di parlare di database come servizi: Postgres gestito, cluster, repliche, connessioni, pooling, credenziali e una lunga lista di “cose che possono rompersi”. Ma esiste un’altra filosofia, più vicina all’idea di “dipendenza” che di “infrastruttura”: un motore SQL che vive dentro l’applicazione. Questa è la ragione per cui SQLite è ovunque. È una libreria, non un server. Legge e scrive su un singolo file su disco. Riduce drasticamente configurazione, porte, processi separati e complessità operativa. Ed è proprio questa semplicità a renderla una delle fondamenta silenziose dell’informatica moderna: la usi in browser, smartphone, desktop app, tool CLI, IoT… spesso senza nemmeno accorgertene. Ora immagina di riscrivere tutto da capo, in Rust, cercando di essere compatibile al 100% e allo stesso tempo più “moderna”. Sembra un’idea folle per definizione—finché non inizi a guardare ai limiti pratici che oggi emergono in molte applicazioni. Perché toccare SQLite, se funziona così bene? SQLite non è “il problema”. Anzi: è considerata estremamente robusta perché è conservativa, minimalista, e custodita con un rigore quasi maniacale. Il punto è un altro: il suo modello di sviluppo e manutenzione è atipico rispetto a quello che molti intendono per open source collaborativo . Il codice è disponibile e utilizzabile liberamente, ma l’evoluzione è guidata da pochissime persone e—di fatto—non segue la dinamica classica delle contribution esterne. Questa scelta ha un effetto collaterale positivo: riduce il rischio di regressioni introdotte da cambiamenti non coerenti con la visione del progetto. Ma ha anche un costo: se la tua azienda o il tuo prodotto hanno esigenze nuove (concorrenza più spinta, I/O non bloccante, funzionalità specifiche), “aspettare che arrivi upstream” n

Using Claude Fable 5 or Mythos 5 on Amazon Bedrock requires opting into provider_data_share, sending prompts and outputs to Anthropic for 30-day retention with human review. Previous Bedrock models kept inference data inside the AWS boundary. Three days after launch, Anthropic asked AWS to revoke access to both models citing US export control compliance. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

Researchers have demonstrated they can make coffee comparable to conventional espresso using ultrasonic waves. Because the process doesn’t need hot water, it consumes 75 percent less energy.

AWS recently introduced Amazon Cognito multi-region replication, which automatically replicates user identities and user pool configurations from a primary region to a secondary one. This enables applications to continue authenticating users from a replica region during outages, without requiring custom replication and failover mechanisms. By Renato Losio

We are building a VM that helps you simulate realistic production conditions, model latencies, different interleaving, user requests, and find bugs. Every non-deterministic property is turned into a knob you or a coding agent can control. We have helped teams perfectly reproduce support incidents and found bugs in some of the world's most well tested software (including a database) I you would like to try it out, I am giving away $100 in free credits to first 100 signups.

I can't remember the last time I got excited about a fan. Normally, I just buy whatever Vornado or Dreo model fits my budget, but that was before I started testing the battery-powered Standing Circulator Fan from SwitchBot. As the name indicates, the SwitchBot fan is a 3D circulator - a fancy way of saying […]

Authentication is broken at its foundation - not just inconvenient. Passwords are shared secrets: hand one to a server, and you have instantly doubled your attack surface. With over 5 billion passkeys now active globally and Google reporting a 99.9% lower account compromise rate compared to passwords, the industry has already moved. This guide covers how passkeys work cryptographically, how to implement them in TypeScript, and the pitfalls to avoid before going to production. Why Passwords Are Structurally Broken The core issue isn't that users pick weak passwords - it's that passwords require a shared secret stored on both sides. The Verizon 2025 DBIR found that 22% of all breaches started with stolen credentials, and 88% of web app attacks relied on them. In 2024, infostealer malware alone harvested 548 million passwords. Adding 2FA helps but doesn't fix the root problem: SMS codes are SIM-swap targets, and TOTP tokens can be phished in real time by proxy attackers who replay codes within their validity window. What Passkeys Actually Are A passkey is a credential built on public-key cryptography, standardized through the WebAuthn spec and FIDO2. When you register, your device generates a public-private key pair - the private key stays locked in hardware (Secure Enclave, StrongBox, or a hardware key), and the server only receives the public key. At login, the server sends a random challenge, your device signs it with the private key after biometric or PIN verification, and the server verifies the signature. No secret is ever transmitted. This eliminates credential stuffing, server-side breach exposure, and phishing - because passkeys are cryptographically bound to a specific origin domain. The Cryptography Worth Understanding The standard algorithm is ES256 - ECDSA with the P-256 curve and SHA-256. Each credential is tied to a specific relying party ID (your app's domain). A passkey created for yourapp.com cannot be used on yourapp-phishing.com because the origin i

Body: Hey everyone 👋 I've been building hermes-agent-skills — a production-grade skill collection for Hermes Agent that does three things no other skill pack does: 1. Self-Evolving Skills Skills aren't static YAML. The built-in EvolutionEngine tracks 5 health dimensions (usage frequency, success rate, user corrections, freshness, command validity), assigns a health score, and tells you which skills are rotting. Think of it as npm audit for your AI assistant's capabilities. 2. SOUL.md Persona Awareness Drop a SOUL.md in your Hermes config — naming conventions, comment density, architecture preferences, commit style — and every skill that touches code output adapts to it. hermes-skill soul generate bootstraps one in one command. The persona-aware-coding skill reads it at runtime so your agent writes code that actually looks like you wrote it. 3. CLI Toolchain hermes-skill create my-workflow # scaffold a standards-compliant SKILL.md hermes-skill validate skills/ # validate against the Agent Skills Standard hermes-skill list skills/ -f json # enumerate with health metadata hermes-skill soul generate # bootstrap a persona file What's in the box (v1.1.0): | Skill | Phase | Hermes-only Feature | |---|---|---| | requirement-analyzer | Define | Persistent memory across sessions | | spec-driven-dev | Spec | /skills chain forming workflows | | test-driven-dev | Build | delegate_task parallel test execution | | debugger-coordinator | Verify | browser + terminal + vision tri-tool | | code-quality-guardian | Review | patch auto-fix + /curator tracking | | cicd-orchestrator | Ship | cronjob scheduling + webhook triggers | | skill-curator | Evolve | Direct /curator integration | | persona-aware-coding | Identity | Native SOUL.md persona system | Why this is different: Most agent skill collections are portable but shallow — they can't use any platform's unique superpowers. These skills go deep on Hermes specifically: slash commands, delegate_task, persistent memory, vision+browser+t

Why I built GigVorx, a SaaS tool to help freelancers and agencies manage client briefs and invoices more professionally. Freelancers and small agencies often have one messy problem: Client details are everywhere. Some requirements come through WhatsApp. Some come through calls. Some are sent as voice notes. Some are inside Google Docs. Some are buried in old messages. At the start, this feels normal. But later, it creates problems. You forget important requirements. You ask the client the same question again. Invoices are created manually. Project details are not organised. The whole process looks less professional. That is the problem I wanted to solve with GigVorx . What is GigVorx? GigVorx is a client intake and invoicing tool for freelancers and small agencies. It helps users: Collect client requirements professionally use ready-made brief templates organise client details create professional invoices avoid scattered WhatsApp chats, calls, and docs The goal is simple: Help freelancers and agencies manage client intake and invoicing from one dashboard. Who is it for? GigVorx is mainly for: web designers developers graphic designers video editors SEO freelancers social media agencies digital marketing agencies small service businesses These people usually talk to many clients and need a better way to collect requirements before starting work. Why I built it I noticed that many freelancers lose time before the project even starts. They ask questions manually. They collect details in random chats. They create invoices separately. They do not have one organised place for client information. This makes the work slower and sometimes confusing. So I wanted to create a simple tool that gives freelancers a more professional workflow. Current status GigVorx is already live in early access. Right now, I am not focusing on making it perfect. I am focusing on getting real users' feedback and improving the product based on what freelancers actually need. What I am learning Bui

The cycle number on a lithium battery's spec sheet is true and almost useless, because it describes a life the battery will live only in a temperature-controlled lab being cycled gently by a machine that never has a bad day. A cycle, in that test, means a full charge and a full discharge under mild, steady conditions, repeated until the pack fades to some fraction of its original capacity, often eighty percent. Your warehouse does none of that. It charges in bursts, discharges to whatever the shift demanded, bakes the pack in summer and chills it in winter, and counts a cycle as whatever happened between two plug-ins. Depth is the lever nobody quotes The single biggest mover of cycle count is how deep you run the pack on each outing, and that figure almost never shares the page with the headline number that sells the battery. The relationship is steeply nonlinear, which is the part that surprises people. Drain a lithium pack to nearly empty every time and you spend cycles fast. Use the top half and tuck it back on charge, and the same cell can deliver many times the number of shallow cycles before reaching the same faded state. The chemistry is mechanical about it: every deep swing stretches and contracts the electrode structures further, and the wider the swing the more wear each one inflicts. Two fleets on identical batteries can see lifespans years apart purely from how hard they drain them. This is why opportunity charging does double duty. It keeps the truck running, and it keeps each cycle shallow, which stretches the pack's life as a side effect. It also means a published cycle figure measured at full depth understates what a top-up fleet will see, while a figure measured shallow oversells what a run-it-flat operation will get. The same battery, the same number, two outcomes the sheet never warned you about. You have to know the test depth to know what the promise means. Heat is the other clock Cycles are only one of two clocks ticking on a battery, and the s