标签：#AR

Adding online payments to a web application can make it easier for customers to purchase products, subscribe to services, book appointments, or pay invoices. But payment integration involves more than adding a payment button to a website. A reliable integration needs a payment gateway, backend APIs, secure authentication, payment status handling, webhooks, and proper error management. This guide explains the basic process of integrating a payment gateway into a web application, using Razorpay as an example. 1. Understand How Payment Gateway Integration Works A typical payment flow looks like this: Customer → Web App → Backend → Payment Gateway → Bank/Payment Network The customer starts the payment from your website. Your backend creates the payment order through the gateway. The customer then completes the payment using a supported payment method. After the transaction, your application needs to confirm whether the payment was successful before providing the product or service. A simplified flow is: Customer selects a product or service. Your backend creates an order. The payment gateway generates the required payment details. Checkout opens for the customer. Customer completes the payment. The gateway returns payment information. Your backend verifies the payment. A webhook can update your system about payment events. Your database records the final payment status. The application confirms the order. 2. Choose the Right Payment Gateway Before starting development, compare payment gateways based on factors such as: Supported payment methods Transaction fees API documentation Developer tools Settlement process Refund support International payment support Webhook capabilities Security requirements Customer support For an Indian web application, gateways such as Razorpay can support common payment methods including UPI, cards, net banking, and wallets, depending on the account and applicable availability. The important thing is to choose a gateway that fits your applic

Hello, I was curious about the differences you can get from the human reviewers and the llms. Any insight is welcome, thank you! submitted by /u/obliviousphoenix2003 [link] [留言]

On 1 August I opened an issue that was three sentences long. A hundred and one minutes later the feature was merged, and the document that got it there ran to 457 lines . I didn't write those 457 lines. In fact, I didn't have to write any more documentation, and not because I simply allowed Claude to run amok. Here is the issue in full — control-api#265 , 225 characters: control-api#265 — Manifest-backed dashboard feeds For each dashboard, auto create a manifest keyed by dashboard_id. For each sensor the dashboard uses, tag it to be included in the manifest. When a dashboard definition is updated, add / remove tags from sensors accordingly. From that genesis moment, this is the lifecycle of the issue all the way through to landing: Time (UTC) Event 14:25 Issue #265 opened — 225 characters 14:54 FEAT-0007 spec committed — 457 lines 15:35 Spec merged (PR #266) 15:51 Implementation committed 16:06 Implementation merged (PR #267, 15 files), issue closed The interesting part isn't the speed. It's the step at 14:54 that landed a previously non-existent spec document, and what happened in the twenty-nine minutes before it. The issue was never a specification I often write issues like this one...the way most people write shopping lists. Actuator address is not ensured? Baseline the trace correctly. With the pre-rolls, the frame-rate looks out. They're abbreviated to the point of being cryptic to everyone else. I write them this way deliberately: I'm usually mid-something else when I notice a problem, or have an idea for a better route to the solution. The cost of a full write-up right at that moment would be a fractured sense of flow. As most engineers will tell you, the transitions into and out of flow are the most disruptive parts of their working day. This terse form of issue-writing can be all you need, and it's worth being precise about why it works and the trade-offs it includes. It is not because "the issues are good enough". They aren't. When you pick one of these u

Times are changing, my role is changing, my focus is changing, my impact is changing. But in essence – I'm still doing the same. I still build products that drive impact. Only my day-to-day looks completely different. The shift is happening, sooner or later, if you want it or not. Whether or not you can cope, is all up to you. In the past, I was neck-deep in code. That was what the majority of my time consumed. I liked it, building things, building products. These days, that's all done by an endless amount of AI agents. I barely touched any code in the past half year – if not even longer. My focus moved from building products to building my own process The work that used to go into a feature now goes into the process that produces the feature. Instead of losing the first hour of my day to Slack and email, I built a small stack of scheduled agents that hand me a briefing before I even open my laptop ( already wrote about that one ). Instead of reading every pull request line by line, I set up a review loop where agents do the first pass and I stay on the hook for whatever they flag. None of it started as a plan. Each piece started as one specific annoyance I got tired of and fixed. That's the actual mechanism: improve one small thing, it saves you time, you reinvest that time into the next small improvement. Compounding, not a grand strategy. The question I try to ask myself daily is simple: how can I do my job a bit better today than I did it yesterday? Not more. Not faster. Better. I also don't run ten parallel AI workflows across different projects at the same time because someone told me that's what a serious AI-software engineer does now. If I have multiple projects going on, I only focus on one project at a time. That's the amount of mental space I have right now, and I've stopped treating that as a shortcoming. My impact shifted from writing code to making my team better The time that used to go into implementation didn't disappear, it moved upstream. I now sp

I've merged plenty of AI-generated code that was genuinely fine. I've also caught myself almost merging code that looked fine and wasn't, because it read like something a competent person wrote and my brain filled in the rest. Over the last year I've settled into a rough set of questions I run through before approving anything I didn't write line by line myself, generated or not. Here they are, in the order I actually ask them. 1. What problem is this code actually solving? It's easy to review whether code works and skip whether it solves the right thing. AI tends to answer the literal prompt, not the intent behind it. def get_active_users (): return db . query ( " SELECT * FROM users WHERE active = true " ) If "active" was supposed to mean "logged in within 30 days" and not a boolean flag that's rarely updated, this passes every test and still solves the wrong problem. Reviewer tip: Read the original ticket or request before reading the diff. Check the code against the intent, not just the literal ask. 2. Do I actually understand the implementation? Not "does it look reasonable," actually understand it, line by line, well enough to explain it to someone else. Reviewer tip: Try to explain the function out loud in one sentence per major step. If you get stuck anywhere, that's the part you haven't actually reviewed yet, just skimmed. 3. What assumptions is it making? Every implementation bakes in assumptions about the shape of the data, the order things happen in, or what "normal" looks like. function getLatestOrder ( orders ) { return orders [ orders . length - 1 ]; } This assumes orders is sorted chronologically and never empty. Neither assumption is stated anywhere. Reviewer tip: Ask "what does this assume about its inputs that isn't checked anywhere?" Write the answer down, literally, in the PR comment if it matters. 4. What happens with bad input? Bad input isn't an edge case, it's a certainty over a long enough timeline. def parse_age ( value ): return int ( val

High-Speed eBPF/XDP Packet Filtering for Linux Server DDoS Mitigation Executive Summary Executive Summary & Key Security Takeaways ← Back to Articles Linux Kernel • XDP DDoS Defense High-Speed eBPF/XDP Packet Filtering for Linux Server DDoS Mitigation By Zyekh Abdul Qadir Jailani Published: 2026-08-04 15 min read (1750+ Words) Share Download .md Download .pdf eBPF/XDP Driver-Level Packet Ingestion & Ultra Fast Packet Dropping Executive Summary & Key Security Takeaways XDP_DROP Early Decision: Drop malicious UDP/SYN floods before allocating sk_buff memory. Kernel Map Invalidation: Dynamic IP blocklists via eBPF BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH maps. Zero-Copy Performance: Process 10M+ packets per second on commodity server hardware. Clang/LLVM BPF Compilation: Build C programs directly into BPF bytecode targets. Table of Contents Understanding XDP Architecture vs Traditional Linux SKB Allocation XDP Packet Processing Actions (XDP_DROP vs XDP_PASS) Writing a Production XDP Packet Filter in C Compiling & Loading Bytecode Targets via Clang/LLVM Dynamic Blocklist Management via BPF Maps High-Throughput Packet Benchmark Verification Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 1. Understanding XDP Architecture vs Traditional Linux SKB Allocation Standard Linux network processing allocates a complex kernel socket buffer data structure (sk_buff) for every incoming packet before firewall rules (iptables/nftables) can evaluate the packet. Under volumetric DDoS attacks (such as 10 Million Packets Per Second UDP floods), the CPU time spent allocating and freeing sk_buff structures exhausts kernel memory and CPU cache lines, causing severe packet drops and server unresponsiveness. eXpress Data Path (XDP) provides a high-performance bare-metal packet processing framework. XDP programs execute eBPF bytecode directly inside the network driver's RX ring buffer before sk_buff memory allocation occurs. # Inspect network interface driver XDP support ip link show eth0 2. XDP Packet Processing Actions (XDP_DROP vs

If digital calendars are leaving you lacking, these WIRED-tested paper agendas and notebooks could change your life.

Baruch Sadogursky and Patrick Debois discuss why coding agents fail due to bloated context windows and stuffed prompts. They explain practical context engineering fixes, including lazy-loaded skills, versioned context artifacts, externalized memory banks, and LLM-as-a-judge evals. Software architects & engineering leaders will learn how to turn raw markdown files into reliable agentic workflows. By Patrick Debois, Baruch Sadogursky

Joi AI hired 10 people to masturbate using AI companions as part of a monthlong “wellness” study. The company claims the practice could help “solve male loneliness.”

i wanna build a text diffusion model which interpret text and convert it into ascii images so like Text : build a cat Output : /\\\_/\\ ( o.o ) \> \^ < So , i have a decent background of ml algo ( completed cs229 , cs230 , Ml architecture and basic CNN and diffusion model ) ik making a project like this is tricky and making diffusion model like that from scratch is hard but i wanna try it because that's wot make me excited lol ... I am currently reading GANs research paper , can u guys help me in finding more papers which helps me in making this project or guide me through this good title for this Thx in adv submitted by /u/Udbhav96 [link] [留言]

Protect your Pixel 10a, Pixel 10, or Pixel 10 Pro XL with a tried-and-true phone case, screen protector, and Qi2 charger.

Can electrifying your workout offer a shortcut to a stronger, fitter you? I sweated in a skintight EMS suit for two months to find out.

Expedia Group has open-sourced mockql-rs, a Rust CLI that fills @mock-annotated GraphQL fields with LLM-generated data at request time. It follows Airbnb's @generateMock in April and a GraphQL Foundation RFC opened in February. All three solve the same problem with different architectures, and two use the same directive name with incompatible semantics. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

My expert advice on what computer monitor to buy for your home office, ranging from budget-tier to fully featured.

It’s amazing how few compromises Dell made to get the new XPS 13 down to $700, but I strongly recommend the $900 model, which comes with 16 GB of RAM.

Ground Truth makes the shared rental bikes harder to pedal through rent-burdened neighborhoods, offering a tangible way for people to experience income inequality.

Event-driven architecture is one of the most useful patterns for building applications that need to react to events instead of executing everything in a strict request-response sequence. Instead of thinking: User does something → Server performs everything → Response we can think: User does something → Event is created → Interested services react to it What Is an Event? An event represents something that happened. For example: { type : " USER_REGISTERED " , userId : " 12345 " , timestamp : Date . now () } Other parts of the application can listen for this event and perform their own tasks. For example: Email service sends a welcome email. Analytics service records the registration. Notification service creates a notification. Recommendation service creates initial recommendations. The registration service doesn't necessarily need to know how all of these tasks work. Why Use Event-Driven Architecture? The biggest advantage is decoupling. A traditional implementation might look like: await createUser (); await sendEmail (); await updateAnalytics (); await createNotification (); If the email service becomes slow, the entire operation can become slow. With events: await createUser (); publishEvent ({ type : " USER_REGISTERED " , userId : user . id }); Other services can process the event independently. Where Is It Useful? Event-driven systems are particularly useful for: Payment processing E-commerce Notifications Analytics Microservices IoT systems Background processing Real-time applications The Trade-Off Event-driven architecture isn't automatically better. It introduces additional complexity: Event delivery failures Duplicate events Ordering problems Debugging difficulties Event schema management For a small CRUD application, a simple architecture may be much easier. Final Thoughts Event-driven architecture is less about using a specific technology and more about changing how application components communicate. Once your application grows beyond a simple monolith, u

A hands-on test of BGE-M3 + Qwen3 (RAG vs. direct-context answering) on a real research paper and a full-length book including a retrieval bug hiding in a footnote, and one surprisingly good model behavior. I wanted to answer a simple question: when you feed a document to an AI model, is it actually reading it or just pattern-matching to whatever text happens to look similar to your question? So I built a small open-source pipeline to test this directly. For any document and question, it generates two separate answers: RAG answer: BGE-M3 finds the most relevant chunks of the document, and Qwen3 answers using only those chunks. Direct answer: Qwen3 reads the raw document text directly, no retrieval involved. Both run on a free Google Colab GPU. I kept the retrieval side deliberately "vanilla" fixed-size chunking, plain cosine similarity, no reranking, no fancy tricks so I could see exactly where the basic version breaks before adding any fixes. Before running my first real test, I already knew one thing to guard against: reference lists. Early experimentation (not covered here) showed that a paper's bibliography, once chunked like any other text, can get retrieved as if it were real content a citation for a paper about "text embeddings" can look deceptively similar to a generic question about a document's topic. So going in, my pipeline already strips everything after a References/Bibliography heading before chunking. With that fix in place, I ran two real tests. Test 1: A research paper on Nepali legal machine translation First document: a SIGUL 2024 workshop paper on a bidirectional English-Nepali machine translation system for the legal domain. Question: "What is this paper about?" RAG answer: This paper presents the first transformer-based bidirectional machine translation system for the English-Nepali legal domain, using a custom-built parallel corpus of 125,000 sentences. It achieves encouraging BLEU scores and addresses the scarcity of domain-specific legal tr

This week I spoke to scientists who have found a way to turn male mouse embryos female. They’ve developed a CRISPR-based approach to essentially cut out the Y chromosome. It allowed them to create female clones of male mice. That’s right: female animals that are genetically identical to males, except for the missing Y chromosome.…

Czinger used topological design and additive manufacturing to make the brakes.