标签：#Product

Bose headphones are already one of our favorites for comfort, sound, and noise canceling. Now they’re cheaper.

Apple has warned about MacBook prices rising, making these Prime Day deals even more worthwhile to consider.

It wouldn't be Amazon Prime Day without some beauty deals. Here's a roundup of all our favorites.

These are the best last-minute Prime Day discounts on handheld fans, from $10 budget buys to Shark’s high-tech ChillPill.

This is just an opinion of what I experience and am witnessing, but looking at how LLMs scale feels like I've seen it before: with CPUs trying to outrun Moore's Law and break the rules of physics. Heat, power leakage, and diminishing returns made it increasingly expensive to squeeze out even small gains in clock speed. The GHz race shifted because it had to. For LLMs, more compute, more data, more parameters, and everything just keeps getting better? That curve seems to hit a ceiling and innovation needs to succeed the scaling race now. History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. What learnings can we make from history to "predict" a potential future? History In the early 2000s, CPUs ran into a wall, a very physical one ^^ So makers adapted. Instead of crunching every single watt out of a single core, multi-cores became common. Athlon 64 x2, Pentium D, PS3 with its heavy Cell approach. From linear to parallel. From sequential to multi-threaded (and funny race conditions ;). Talks of distributed systems, SIMD/MIMD and new benchmarking spawned into what we have today. We still use CPUs, but differently. We still have Memory, but think about Cache, RAM, GPU or Unified. Same same, but different. Innovation because of limitation. Present I feel something similar is about to happen to gen AI. Yes, there are improvements in different areas, some in scaling, some optimisation, some performance, but the slope is becoming slippery. The last 12 months went from "Opus 4.5 is the pinnacle" to "What the hell is wrong with Claude?". The perfect (business) storm of scaling execution! But the low-hanging fruits have been eaten and the crops don't grow as fast anymore. Costs rise quickly, latency becomes a constraint, and even large context windows feel more like extensions than breakthroughs. What remains is more incremental, more expensive, and more complex. You could argue the whole venture of "agents" is the same multi-core experience repeating itself. A different kind of orch

I have a confession. Somewhere around day nine of this experiment, I almost quit and went back to my old setup. Not because ChatGPT was bad. Because I was bad at using it. I kept typing half-questions the way I'd type into Google, hitting enter, and getting answers that were technically correct and completely useless. It took me about a week to realize the problem wasn't the tool. It was twelve years of muscle memory. This post is the long version of what happened when I tried to go a full month without my usual stack of developer crutches — Google, Stack Overflow, Regex101, JSONLint, a SQL formatter site, a commit message generator, a pile of bookmarked Docker cheat sheets, and a few other tabs I didn't even realize I kept open until they were gone — and replaced all of it with a single ChatGPT window. I work as a backend-leaning full stack engineer at a small e-commerce company. Python and Django on the server, a chunk of Node for a couple of internal services, Postgres, Docker, and an AWS setup that I inherited rather than designed. Nothing exotic. Which is actually why I think this experiment is useful — most of you reading this aren't working on some bleeding-edge ML pipeline either. You're maintaining stuff, fixing stuff, shipping features under deadlines that someone in another department picked without asking you. So here's what happened. All of it. The good parts, the embarrassing parts, and the parts where I quietly reopened Stack Overflow in an incognito tab because I didn't want my browser history to judge me. TL;DR I tried to replace 12 daily developer tools with ChatGPT for 30 days straight, tracking what worked and what didn't. Google search volume dropped by roughly 70%, but it never hit zero — and I don't think it should. Stack Overflow was the hardest habit to break, and also the one I missed least once I'd broken it. The small utility sites (Regex101, JSONLint, SQL formatters) were the easiest wins. ChatGPT replaced almost all of them outright. Do

Do you crave speedy, reliable Wi-Fi throughout your home? Snag one of these Prime Day router or mesh deals.

I've compiled a list of the best fitness tech deals this Amazon Prime Day, including smartwatches, walking pads, and recovery gear. You can thank me later.

After testing each of the MacBooks myself, here's my honest advice on which is right for you.

Kids love 3D printers almost as much as K-Pop Demon Hunters. Just give in and get one.

OpenAI previews GPT-5.6 Sol, a next-generation model with stronger capabilities in coding, science, and cybersecurity, paired with its most advanced safety stack.

Use it with Claude, ChatGPT and more! Discussion | Link

When I first started using Cursor AI , I thought it was just an AI-powered code editor. After spending more time with it, I realized it's much more than that. Cursor isn't just about generating code—it's a development assistant that can understand your project, automate repetitive tasks, connect with external tools, and help you build software much faster. If you're new to Cursor, this guide will explain the most important concepts in simple language with real-world examples. 1. What are Rules? Think of Rules as permanent instructions for Cursor. Instead of telling the AI the same things every time, you define them once and Cursor follows them throughout your project. Example Instead of writing this every time: Use TypeScript Use Tailwind CSS Create reusable components Write clean code You can create a rule like: Always use TypeScript. Always use Tailwind CSS. Never use inline CSS. Create reusable components. Write meaningful comments. Now every prompt automatically follows these instructions. Real-world example Imagine you're working in a company where every developer follows coding standards. Rules are those standards—but for your AI assistant. Benefits Consistent code Less repetitive prompting Faster development Better code quality 2. What are Skills? Skills are reusable instructions for specific types of work. Instead of explaining how to build an API every time, you create one reusable skill. Example: Create Express APIs using MVC architecture. Validate all inputs. Handle errors properly. Use async/await. Now whenever you ask Cursor to create an API, it follows that workflow. Real-world example A plumber has plumbing skills. An electrician has electrical skills. Similarly, Cursor can have reusable development skills. Benefits Reusable workflows Consistent architecture Faster feature development 3. What are Hooks? Hooks are automatic actions triggered by an event. For example: You save a file. ↓ Cursor automatically runs: Formatter Linter Tests You don't have to

Don't pay full price—snag one of these tasty Prime Day tech deals on some of our favorite WIRED-tested gadgets.

A fast, beautiful, and native FTP/SFTP client for macOS Discussion | Link

There’s no better time to get a Kindle than during Amazon's own sale event.

Move over, spring cleaning. These vacuum deals will give your home the cleanest summer yet thanks to Amazon Prime Day.

From MacBooks to gaming laptops, these are the very best deals on some of my very favorite laptops for Amazon Prime Day.

I run Claude Code most of the day. The thing that kept biting me wasn't the model getting dumber. It was the model forgetting what we'd already settled, then confidently redoing it wrong. You've probably hit it. You write a CLAUDE.md , you keep notes, you tell it "we decided X." A few prompts later it relitigates X, or quietly breaks something it fixed an hour ago. Bigger context windows didn't fix it for me either. A 1M window just means more room for stale instructions to rot in. Here's the reframe that actually held: stop treating the model as the place the state lives. The model is a worker, not a filing cabinet A context window is working memory, not a record. It's lossy, it drifts, and every new turn re-derives the world from whatever's in front of it. If "what's done and what's half-broken" only exists in that window, you're trusting the most forgetful part of the system to remember the most important thing. So I moved the state out of the model and into the work. Two pieces did most of it: A frozen spec the agent re-reads. Not a chat message it might compress away. An actual file that says what we're building and what's already decided. When it starts drifting, the spec is the source of truth, not its memory of the conversation. A checklist it can only tick after something is verified. [ ] becomes [x] when a test passes or I've confirmed the change, never because the model "thinks" it's done. The checklist carries the progress. The model just moves it forward one verified step at a time. The difference is subtle but it's the whole game. Before, the work was a side effect of the conversation. After, the conversation is a side effect of the work. The agent can lose the whole thread and reload from the spec plus the checklist and basically pick up where it left off. A number that surprised me When I actually measured my own sessions, almost none of my tokens were fresh input. The bulk was cache reads and re-reading instructions that hadn't changed. So the "cont

I'm a professional developer, and AI has significantly increased my output—I'd say by maybe 30 or 40 percent. GitHub Copilot has significantly changed the way I work with code. However, I take pride in producing high-quality code quickly, which is why my rates are high. Using AI helps me increase my output while maintaining that level of quality. My take on AI is that it is not going to replace humans anytime soon. It is, however, putting significant pressure on the economy. Previously, setting up a functional, decent-quality project without much complexity took time—at least weeks. Now, such tasks are incredibly fast and easy; anyone can set them up in a few minutes using AI, even without any coding knowledge. Success in most fields, however, is not just a measure of how fast you can build; it's also about how well you can execute. Current AI can offer advice, but it still cannot execute for you. Market success requires sensitivity, context, and adaptability. AI can help significantly if you know how to ask the right questions. But the economy is made of people, not AI (yet). To earn money, someone must give you money because they value what you offer. The arrival of LLMs hasn't changed this. I feel the pressure. The corporation I work for is pushing for AI adoption, and the initial drawbacks and realizations are already becoming apparent. First point: Customers, at best, don't care about your AI. They don't want it. Second point: AI succeeds at making developers more productive but fails with higher complexity—though not for the reason people usually think. With the right prompt, GPT-5.4 can create fairly complex solutions, even more complex than many corporate business processes. The real reason is that, at a certain level, complexity lies not in the total amount of information in the system, but in how the human aspect of the business translates when you try to formalize higher-level context. This is something most developers don't see (or care about). For examp