标签：#EV

More and more developers are using AI assistants to write code. With these tools, teams can move from an idea to implementation much faster than before. Logically, overall delivery should speed up as well — but often not as much as we would expect. A team might reduce implementation time by 30% or even 50%, while the time it takes for a feature to actually reach production changes only slightly. The reason is that other stages of the workflow — waiting for code review, QA, testing, approvals, and release — do not automatically speed up just because coding does. That’s why it’s important to ask: if AI has significantly accelerated coding, why isn’t overall delivery time improving at the same pace? Coding time is only one part of delivery time Let’s imagine a typical workflow in a development team: To Do → Development → Code Review → Awaiting QA → Testing → Ready for Release → Done By breaking down the time in the status in more detail, you can see the following picture: 2 days in Development 2 days waiting for review 3 days waiting for QA 1 day in Testing 2 days waiting for release Development time : 2 days. Total delivery time : 10 days. With AI becoming part of the development process, it’s entirely possible to cut implementation time in half. In our example, that means cutting it from 2 days to 1. That's a 50% improvement in Development. But if everything else stays the same, the total delivery time drops from 10 days to 9, which is only a 10% improvement . The team really did get faster at writing code — the improvement just happened in one part of a much larger delivery system. Faster coding can expose the next constraint Think of the workflow as a sequence of stages, each with its own capacity. When Development becomes faster, more work can reach downstream stages sooner. If Code Review, QA, Testing, or Release have enough capacity to absorb that work, delivery improves. If they don't, some of the productivity gain turns into queue time. The delay hasn't necess

There is a layer in my database called 1 . Somebody created it, presumably by accident, and it sat there for months looking harmless. It was the only layer in the system that never served a single tile, and nobody noticed, because it was empty anyway. That layer turned out to be a symptom of a SQL injection vulnerability. This post is about the design that produced it — which I still think is a good design — and the four things I got wrong inside it. The setup A web GIS with about 2.7 million features: 1.8 million points, 697,000 lines, 172,000 polygons. Users create layers through the UI, upload data into them, edit geometry, and expect to see it on a map. The features do not live in a table per layer. They live in three tables — one for points, one for lines, one for polygons — with a layer_id foreign key and a JSON column for attributes: project_pointfeature 1,820,288 rows project_linefeature 697,009 rows project_polygonfeature 171,830 rows That's a deliberate trade. A table per layer means DDL every time a user clicks "new layer", a migration story that never ends, and a schema that drifts. Three generic tables mean one schema, one set of indexes, and layers that are just rows in a metadata table. The cost lands on the tile server. The pattern Martin serves vector tiles from PostGIS. Point it at a database and it discovers spatial tables and views and publishes each as an MVT endpoint. It can be told to publish views but not tables: postgres : auto_publish : from_schemas : [ public ] publish_tables : false reload_interval : 5s So: give every layer its own view. A Django post_save signal on the Layer model creates it: CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW t19_saobracajni_znakovi AS SELECT f . id , f . feature_attrs , f . geom , f . layer_id , l . name AS layer_name , lg . name AS layer_group_name , p . title AS project_title FROM project_pointfeature f JOIN project_layer l ON f . layer_id = l . id JOIN project_layergroup lg ON l . layer_group_id = lg . id JOIN project_project p

With two cameras and built-in climate sensors, the Birdfy Nest Duo let me watch an entire nesting season unfold.

Andrew Swerdlow shares how Roblox scales autonomous software development from prompt to production. He discusses building robust security sandboxes, extracting institutional knowledge via code review exemplars, updating engineering infrastructure, and redefining productivity metrics around feature velocity and long-running AI turns to achieve trusted, automated deployment at scale. By Andrew Swerdlow

Tethered display glasses are truly practical face computers. They trade bulky spatial computing for simplicity: Plug in, recline, and get a massive screen right in front of your nose.

China's intelligent driving is moving fast from highway Navigate on Autopilot (NOA) into the far harder world of urban NOA. The first leap moved hands-free driving out of the closed expressway and into real city streets. The second leap, the one now underway, is rewriting how the car actually thinks. 1. The Rules Era: An "Exam-Cramming" Trap for City NOA Highway NOA was relatively simple to crack. The road is closed, the geometry is consistent, the actors are mostly cars, and a mature rule-based stack can deliver a comfortable product. Urban NOA is a different beast. The system has to handle traffic lights, unprotected turns, pedestrians, e-bikes, food-delivery scooters running red lights, and a hundred flavors of "I-don't-care-about-the-rules" intersection behavior. The complexity grows exponentially. The earliest urban NOA architectures followed one mantra: cover every possible scenario with hand-written rules . Engineers enumerated traffic situations and wrote thousands of if-then-else statements: when to start moving after a light turns green, how much to slow when cut off, how to plan a trajectory for an unprotected left turn. On the highway this approach can pass a test. In the city it falls apart for a single structural reason. China's urban road users, almost by definition, do not follow the rules. Electric scooters drive the wrong way. Pedestrians cross mid-block. Food-delivery riders weave between cars. Drivers in congested intersections play chicken in the kind of "zipper merge" etiquette nobody teaches. These are the long-tail scenarios that no rule library can fully enumerate. As one early test team admitted about their own city NOA: "It feels like exam cramming — it scores beautifully on the routes we pre-mapped, and the moment it hits an unrecorded scenario, it hesitates, behaves awkwardly, and then asks the driver to take over." That "偏科" (one-trick) experience is precisely why urban NOA penetration in China only reached about 15.1% in 2025 , and rem

Most EF Core bugs I've seen in production aren't from bad code. They're from code that looks right. It compiles, it passes review, it works fine locally against a database with twelve rows in it. Then it hits a table with five thousand rows, or a second replica, or a request that gets cancelled halfway through, and it falls over in a way nobody wrote a test for. None of the mistakes below are exotic. They're the default behavior of EF Core when you don't opt out of it, or the default behavior of a deployment when nobody thought about what "five pods start at the same time" actually means. Here's the setup I use and the list of ways it goes wrong if you skip a step. The entity namespace Sample.Domain.Posts ; public sealed class Post { public Guid Id { get ; private set ; } = Guid . CreateVersion7 (); // sequential → index-friendly public required string Title { get ; set ; } public required string Slug { get ; init ; } public string Body { get ; set ; } = string . Empty ; public DateTimeOffset ? PublishedAt { get ; private set ; } public Guid AuthorId { get ; init ; } public uint RowVersion { get ; set ; } // optimistic concurrency token public void Publish ( TimeProvider clock ) { if ( PublishedAt is not null ) throw new DomainException ( "Post is already published." ); PublishedAt = clock . GetUtcNow (); } } Two things here that are easy to skip and annoying to retrofit later. Timestamps are stored as UTC ( DateTimeOffset ), rendered in the user's timezone only at the edge — I do the same thing on ProcessHub, storing everything UTC and rendering in Asia/Tehran, because "what timezone is this in" is a much worse question to answer after the data already exists in three different formats. Second: the clock comes in as TimeProvider , not a call to DateTime.UtcNow buried inside the method. It's a small thing, but it's the difference between a test that can assert "publishing sets the timestamp to exactly this value" and a test that has to accept "sometime around now."

Disclaimer Este texto foi inicialmente concebido pela IA Generativa em função da transcrição de um vídeo do canal Dev Eficiente, apresentado por Alberto Souza. Se preferir acompanhar por vídeo, é só dar o play. Introdução O vídeo que deu origem a este texto foi gravado há quase três anos. Na época, o que me incomodava era simples de descrever: log é um tema comum no dia a dia, mas resolvido de forma artesanal. Cada pessoa da equipe decide, no momento em que escreve o código, se aquela linha merece registro, se o nível é info ou debug, e quais informações vão junto. A comparação que eu fazia era com testes automatizados. Você juntava dez pessoas para escrever testes sobre o mesmo conjunto de classes e saíam baterias completamente diferentes, com abordagens diferentes, às vezes deixando uma branch de fora. Cada pessoa tinha uma opinião sobre o que era importante, e não havia um modelo de pensamento compartilhado por trás disso. Com log eu sentia algo parecido. Como a resposta não estava clara para mim, passei uns dois dias procurando o que o mercado discutia e o que a pesquisa acadêmica tinha investigado sobre práticas de log. Reuni umas cinco ou seis referências e é isso que este post organiza: o que cada referência contribui e quais práticas dá para extrair delas. Mantive as referências e as conclusões como estavam na época. Acrescentei apenas uma seção sobre algo que mudou bastante desde a gravação e que torna esse assunto mais relevante hoje do que era então: a quantidade de código escrito com apoio de IA e a investigação de problemas feita com apoio de agentes. Por que log bem feito importa mais hoje Nos últimos anos mudou bastante quem escreve o código e, principalmente, quem investiga o problema quando ele aparece. Quando parte relevante do código é gerada com apoio de IA, a familiaridade de quem mantém aquele trecho com cada decisão tomada ali tende a ser menor. Você definiu a intenção, revisou o resultado, aprovou. Mas não construiu, linha a linha, o modelo m

I spent six hours trying to upgrade a non-admin user to admin, convinced I was missing some clever bypass. The gap turned out to be one field in a request body I'd already looked at twice. This is a PortSwigger lab on multi-step process access control. The setup: an admin panel with a user upgrade flow. You pick a user, hit upgrade, then confirm on a second screen before the change actually goes through. Not counting the admin login and accessing the admin panel, that's two steps. The goal was to login as wiener (my non-admin account) and upgrade it to admin without ever having admin access to begin with. Fig 1. A quick look at the admin interface in action. What I tried that didn't work I followed and wrote out the steps the admin flow actually takes, so I could inspect each step individually. Checked the change-email route for anything reusable. Tried hitting the admin and admin-roles paths directly with different HTTP methods. Added the referrer header with the value I'd seen during the legitimate admin flow. Went through the HTML and JS on every relevant page. Tried looking for where the user list was being fetched from. Tried the user-ID-in-params trick that had worked on an earlier lab. None of this brought any results and just got me more frustrated. The thing is, I was going at this problem with the assumption that in this scenario, I was a hacker with no idea of how the admin system actually worked when upgrading users. And that the lab giving me access to the admin credentials was just to hint towards any probable vulns. Why I slipped into that line of thinking, I have no idea. As I watched the hours tick by on my laptop clock, I grew increasingly aware of the painful fact that some LLM somewhere could probably one-shot this problem. That I could end my suffering by taking a knee before the mighty oracle called Claude. And you as a reader are probably wondering why I didn't submit. Well I was determined to actually learn. I had told myself going into this,

All praise to almighty God, and thanks to Google and the DEV Team, a while back, I won the Google...

In one test clip, the auto subtitles looked almost perfect. Then one auto subtitle showed gp where the speaker had actually said HP . It was one token in a long transcript, and that was exactly the problem: nothing in the editor made it look more dangerous than the clean words around it. Disclosure: AI helped me edit and structure this article. The gp / HP mistake came from my own build, and I checked the technical details against the code and the working editor. I ran into this while building a subtitle editor. The ASR system already returned word-level timing and confidence values, but a polished block of text made every word look equally trustworthy. The model exposed uncertainty; the interface hid it. That led me to a narrower engineering conclusion: Auto subtitles are drafts. An accuracy score describes a model result; it does not define a finished review workflow. Why auto subtitles need more than one accuracy percentage Speech-to-text systems are often evaluated with word error rate , or WER. In its simplest form: WER = (substitutions + deletions + insertions) / reference words That is useful for comparing transcripts against a known reference. For auto subtitles, trouble starts when a model-level metric is turned into a product-level promise. Suppose a 100-word transcript contains one wrong word. Its word accuracy may look excellent. But a single auto subtitle can carry very different consequences: Changing “and” to “an” may be harmless. Changing a person’s name damages trust. Changing 15 to 50 changes the meaning. Changing HP to gp made my test caption look careless. Dropping “not” reverses the sentence. WER counts errors. It does not price their consequences. Good auto subtitles also depend on things that a transcript-only score does not fully describe: whether words appear at the right time; whether cue boundaries follow the sentence; whether a line is readable before it disappears; whether punctuation helps or hurts comprehension; whether the user knows

Every card in RealFeedApp has a cover image. They aren't fetched from the articles — publishers' images come with rights I don't have — so the app uses its own bank, generated ahead of time, one pool per topic. I generated that bank once, shipped it, and this month threw all of it away and started over. Twice over, actually, because there were two separate failures and only the first one was my fault in the obvious way. Failure one: I got exactly what I asked for The original prompt asked for a dark, moody look — very dark near-black background , generous negative space . In a preview grid at full size, the results were genuinely nice. Restrained, editorial, not the usual glowing-blue-circuit-board thing. Then I looked at the actual feed. Cards render as tiles a bit under 400 pixels wide. A small object floating in a large field of black, scaled down to a tile, is a black rectangle. Not a bad image — no image at all. The model had done precisely what I asked: it put a modest subject in a lot of empty darkness. Negative space is a compositional virtue at poster size and a bug at thumbnail size. The lesson is dull and I'll probably need it again: prompt for the size the image will be seen at, not the size you review it at. I was approving art in a grid of large previews and shipping it into small tiles, and never once compared the two. The rule that replaced the old one is three words long — brighter, higher contrast, subject filling the frame edge to edge. Failure two: the model started writing the news The rewrite asked for documentary photography. The first batch came back with something I didn't expect: several images contained a coloured band along the bottom of the frame with a headline in it. Invented words, mangled letterforms, confident typography. One read TROOLDOGS NEWS . Three images out of fifteen. Not a fluke, a pattern. The cause was in the prompt, and it was three words working together. I had asked for an editorial look, described the images as news f

An SSE stream is an HTTP request that never ends. Every default you did not touch is working against it. TL;DR : your SSE endpoint breaks twice before it reaches your logic. Once because the Connection header is illegal in HTTP/2. Once because your Go server's default timeouts cut the stream at 30 seconds. And if you stay on HTTP/1.1, a permanent stream freezes the rest of your page. In August 2026, Go patched a flaw where a timeout was not applied to HTTP/2 connections. Same lesson: a timeout only protects what it covers. This article is for Go developers shipping streaming to production. SSE, WebSocket, long-poll: anything that stays open. The setup SSE stands for Server-Sent Events. It is a one-way HTTP stream. The server pushes messages, the browser listens. The format is simple. You open a text/event-stream response, you write lines, you flush. The browser receives them as they come. I run two SSE endpoints in production. The first is a Go notification service, on Kubernetes, behind a reverse proxy. The second is an internal cockpit that refreshes its UI without a page reload. Both broke. In different places, with the same symptom. An SSE stream is a request that never ends Here is the key to the whole article. To your server, an SSE stream is not a special case. It is a very slow request. And every guardrail in an HTTP server targets the slow request. Write timeout, context timeout, idle timeout. They exist to kill whatever drags on. Your legitimate stream looks exactly like what they are meant to kill. That is the whole problem. The Connection header is illegal in HTTP/2 First incident. The endpoint answers 200, then the browser shows net::ERR_HTTP2_PROTOCOL_ERROR . The client reconnects in a loop. The cause was one line. My handler set a Connection: keep-alive header. We all copy it from some old SSE tutorial. Connection is a hop-by-hop header. A hop-by-hop header applies to one network hop only, never end to end. HTTP/2 forbids these headers (RFC 9113 §8.2.

We have a web server container running the nginx image. The access and error logs generated by the web server are not critical enough to be placed on a persistent volume. However, Nautilus developers need access to the last 24 hours of logs so that they can trace issues and bugs. Therefore, we need to ship the access and error logs for the web server to a log-aggregation service. Following the separation of concerns principle, we implement the Sidecar pattern by deploying a second container that ships the error and access logs from nginx. Nginx does one thing, and it does it well - serving web pages. The second container also specializes in its task - shipping logs. Since containers are running on the same Pod, we can use a shared emptyDir volume to read and write logs. Create a pod named webserver . Create an emptyDir volume named shared-logs . Create a regular container in the webserver pod from the nginx:latest image named nginx-container , and an init container from the ubuntu:latest image named sidecar-container . Add the following command to the sidecar-container "sh","-c","while true; do cat /var/log/nginx/access.log /var/log/nginx/error.log; sleep 30; done" Mount the shared-logs volume in both containers at /var/log/nginx . Ensure all containers are in a running state. What is a Sidecar Container? Think of a sidecar like a motorcycle sidecar – it's attached to the main vehicle and extends its capabilities without changing the main vehicle itself. ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ The Sidecar Analogy │ │ │ │ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Motorcycle: The Main Vehicle │ │ │ │ - Does its primary job (serving web pages) │ │ │ │ - Doesn't worry about extra tasks │ │ │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ │ ▼ │ │ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Sidecar: Adds Extra Functional

AI-Powered Privacy Policy Generators LLM‑driven privacy policy generators have moved from experimental prototypes to production‑grade services in 2026, offering on‑demand, jurisdiction‑aware drafts that can be directly embedded into compliance pipelines. Tools such as PrivacyGPT and PolicyCraft combine retrieval‑augmented generation with rule‑extraction models, turning natural‑language privacy intents into enforceable policy clauses that can be exported as JSON‑LD or plain‑text templates. Deep Dive Architecture PrivacyGPT leverages a hybrid architecture: a domain‑specific transformer fine‑tuned on 10 million privacy statements, paired with a deterministic rule engine that maps extracted obligations to GDPR, CCPA, and emerging AI‑Act provisions. PolicyCraft adds a feedback loop where the generated draft is automatically validated against an internal compliance knowledge graph; mismatches trigger a self‑correcting prompt that iteratively refines the text until a confidence score above 92 % is achieved. Real-World Engineering Examples A fintech startup integrated PrivacyGPT via its CI/CD pipeline; each pull request that modifies data‑collection code triggers an API call that updates the “Data Retention” clause, keeping the public policy in sync with code changes. A multinational e‑commerce platform deployed PolicyCraft to generate locale‑specific consent banners; the system produced 27 variants in under five minutes, each certified against the EU’s Digital Services Act. Zero‑Trust Architecture for Rule Enforcement Zero‑trust architecture (ZTA) starts from the assumption that no network segment—whether on‑prem, cloud, or edge—can be implicitly trusted. Instead of a perimeter, every request is evaluated against a continuously refreshed identity profile that fuses user credentials, device posture, and behavioral risk scores. In practice, this means deploying a Policy Decision Point (PDP) that consumes attributes from an identity provider, a device‑trust service, and a tel

The Evolution of Web Forms — Part 3: React Hook Form, Validation Libraries, and Zod In Part 2, we learned that React solved the problem of manually updating the DOM. Instead of writing: emailError . textContent = " Email already exists " ; emailInput . setAttribute ( " aria-invalid " , " true " ); React allowed us to describe the interface from state: < input aria-invalid = { Boolean ( errors . email ) } /> { errors . email && ( < p > { errors . email } </ p > )} However, React did not automatically manage: Form values Validation errors Touched fields Dirty fields Submission state Reset behavior Dynamic fields Backend errors Performance Developers still had to build those features manually. That created the need for form-management libraries. This part covers: React Hook Form’s philosophy and architecture React Hook Form’s core APIs Validation libraries React Hook Form with Zod and TypeScript By the end, we will build a production-style registration form using: React + TypeScript + React Hook Form + Zod + An API layer Stage 9: React Hook Form Deep Dive React Hook Form is not simply a shorter way to write controlled React forms. It uses a different architectural philosophy. A traditional controlled input stores its value in React state: const [ email , setEmail ] = useState ( "" ); < input value = { email } onChange = { ( event ) => { setEmail ( event . target . value ); } } /> Every keystroke produces a state update: User types ↓ onChange runs ↓ setEmail runs ↓ Component renders again ↓ Input receives the new value React Hook Form prefers native, uncontrolled inputs when possible. < input { ... register ( " email " ) } /> The browser stores the current value inside the input element. React Hook Form registers the input, listens to its events, tracks relevant form state, and reads its value when required. React Hook Form’s official documentation describes register() as the mechanism that connects an input to validation, value tracking, and submission. Controlled vers

A user told me the .webp files my tool produced wouldn't open on their desktop. I opened one in a hex editor. First four bytes: 89 50 4E 47 . It was a PNG. With a .webp extension. The encoder wasn't broken. I had simply never checked whether the browser actually did what I asked. The spec says it's allowed to do this Here's the code. Nothing looks wrong with it: canvas . toBlob ( blob => { download ( blob , ' output.webp ' ); }, ' image/webp ' ); The callback fires. The blob isn't null. Its size looks reasonable. Everything succeeds — except it isn't WebP. This is not a bug. The HTML spec explicitly requires it: if the user agent doesn't support the requested type, it must create the file using the PNG format instead. No exception, no warning, no second argument telling you what happened. There's exactly one place that information exists — blob.type : canvas . toBlob ( blob => { console . log ( blob . type ); // iOS below 16.4: "image/png" }, ' image/webp ' ); toDataURL does the same thing, but at least there the fallback is visible to the naked eye, since the data URL literally starts with data:image/png;base64, . There is no capability query for this My first instinct was to special-case iOS. That falls apart quickly. Every browser on iOS is WebKit underneath, so "is this Safari" isn't a meaningful question. Embedded webviews inside apps track the system version in ways that don't always match the standalone browser. And a user can flip on "Request Desktop Website" and hand you a macOS user agent from an iPhone. More fundamentally: the user agent string answers "who are you" , and I need to know "can you encode WebP right now" . Between those two questions sit the engine version, OS version, host app, and build flags. Any mismatch in that chain and your lookup table lies to you. So I went looking for an official capability API. Media has them: MediaRecorder . isTypeSupported ( ' video/webm;codecs=vp9 ' ); // → boolean await navigator . mediaCapabilities . encoding

A game can be mechanically correct and still feel flat. The button works. The enemy loses health. The coin counter increases. The level completes. Everything technically functions, but the player's actions do not seem to have much weight. Particle effects are one of the cheapest ways to fix that. Not because every screen needs fireworks, but because particles give actions a visible consequence. Feedback Should Happen Immediately Imagine tapping an enemy in a mobile game. Version A: tap enemy HP decreases Version B: tap small flash impact particles enemy reacts HP decreases The underlying mechanic is almost identical. The second version communicates the result more clearly. The player sees exactly where the hit happened. That matters on mobile screens where fingers frequently cover part of the action. Particles Can Explain the Game VFX is not only decoration. It can communicate state. Damage Particles show where an impact happened. Healing A slow upward effect can visually separate healing from damage. Selection A subtle glow or ring can show which object is active. Currency Particles moving toward a counter connect the collected object with the UI value that changed. Cooldowns A burst or dissolve can show that an ability has become available. Danger Smoke, sparks, or unstable energy can communicate that an object is close to breaking. Good VFX helps the player understand the game without another label or tutorial popup. Timing Matters More Than Particle Count A common mistake is assuming better effects need more particles. They usually need better timing. Consider a button press. You could emit 100 particles over two seconds. Or you could emit 12 particles exactly when the interaction occurs. The second effect will often feel better because it reinforces the player's action. For responsive games, the sequence might look like this: 0 ms input 0 ms visual response begins 20 ms burst expands 80 ms largest particles appear 200 ms effect begins disappearing 350 ms effect

The Evolution of Web Forms Part-1 — From Plain HTML to AJAX Modern React forms can feel unnecessarily complicated when you first encounter tools such as React Hook Form, Zod, resolvers, controlled inputs, refs, formState , and server-error handling. Why do we need all of that? Why not simply read the value from an input and send it to the server? To understand why modern form libraries exist, we need to understand the problems developers faced before those libraries were created. In this series, we will evolve the same idea step by step: Plain HTML ↓ Native HTML validation ↓ JavaScript validation ↓ AJAX submission ↓ React controlled forms ↓ Form libraries ↓ React Hook Form ↓ React Hook Form + Zod ↓ Production form architecture This first part covers the first four stages: Plain HTML forms Native HTML validation Vanilla JavaScript validation AJAX form submission By the end, you will understand how forms worked before React and why each new approach became necessary. Stage 1: Plain HTML Forms Before React, AJAX, or even large amounts of client-side JavaScript, browsers already knew how to submit forms. HTML forms are not just visual containers. They are a built-in browser mechanism for collecting data and sending an HTTP request. A basic registration form <!DOCTYPE html> <html lang= "en" > <head> <meta charset= "UTF-8" /> <meta name= "viewport" content= "width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0" /> <title> Registration Form </title> </head> <body> <h1> Create an account </h1> <form action= "/register" method= "POST" > <div> <label for= "username" > Username </label> <input id= "username" name= "username" type= "text" /> </div> <div> <label for= "email" > Email </label> <input id= "email" name= "email" type= "email" /> </div> <div> <label for= "password" > Password </label> <input id= "password" name= "password" type= "password" /> </div> <button type= "submit" > Register </button> </form> </body> </html> There is no JavaScript in this example. The browser handles the ent

🚀 From FlipaClip to SitePoint: The Full Story of Kehinde Owolabi How a Nigerian teenager built a professional game engine with borrowed laptops, offline W3Schools, and pure determination. 🎮 Play the Game Try Limn Engine Live — Space Shooter Demo See what 4 years of determination built. This space shooter runs at 60 FPS on a Tecno Pop 4 with 1GB RAM. 📖 Introduction Every developer has an origin story. Some start with a fancy computer and a computer science degree. Others start with a flipbook app and a sister who trusted them with her phone. My name is Kehinde Owolabi . I'm 18 years old (born December 4, 2007), and I live in Lagos, Nigeria. I'm currently in PC103 at BYU Pathway, and I'm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I built a 94/100 professional game engine called Limn Engine. It runs at 60 FPS on a Toshiba with 4GB RAM. It was published on SitePoint and ranked #3 among 2D JavaScript game engines. Nobody knew it was developed on a Chromebook, a borrowed Thinkpad (behind my sister's back), and a Toshiba that "hung like hell." That was the secret I kept for months. But that's only one part of this story. This is the full story of how I went from a button phone to a 94/100 game engine, from FlipaClip to SitePoint, from a boy who failed physics to a developer who built something that runs on a Tecno Pop 4. The one-line summary: "I'm Kehinde Owolabi, an 18-year-old developer from Lagos, Nigeria who went from FlipaClip to building a 94/100 game engine on borrowed laptops — and got published on SitePoint." 🎮🚀 🎨 The Beginning: FlipaClip and the Spark of Creativity Before I was a developer, I was an animator. I used FlipaClip — a simple animation app on mobile — to create flipbook-style animations. I loved bringing characters to life, frame by frame. I would spend hours drawing, tweaking, and watching my creations move. That creative spark stayed with me. I wanted to create interactive experiences. I wanted to build games. But I didn't know how.