标签：#RAM

submitted by /u/RelevantEmergency707 [link] [留言]

Hello everyone, I am new to coding just begun to learn the ins and outs of coding and what it can do. I am in the process of getting my Full Stack Developer certificates. I have always wanted to do something that has to do with computers because I needed something to pass the time when I hurt myself playing football. I am looking forward to chatting with all of you about the struggles you had and what you found that you liked within the development realm.

I was staring at a broken Next.js and Express backend integration late at night, convinced my AI agent had lost its mind. It was supposed to be a straightforward n8n automation pipeline. Yet, every time it ran, it hallucinated non-existent packages and dumped its context halfway through. My System 1 intuitive reaction flared up immediately: The LLM just isn't smart enough. I sat there, exhausted, ready to rewrite the prompt for the twentieth time. Engaging System 2 Taking a step back, I forced myself to engage my analytical System 2 brain. I wasn't dealing with a lack of model intelligence; I was dealing with a lack of infrastructure. I was running a massive, powerful AI model with zero guardrails. No persistent memory. No verification. Just dumping a giant Mongoose schema into a prompt and hoping for the best. I was essentially dropping a Formula 1 engine onto a wooden skateboard and wondering why it crashed at the first turn. What is Harness Engineering? I stopped obsessing over prompt engineering and started focusing on Harness Engineering. The model is just the engine; the harness provides the chassis, the steering, and the brakes. Here is how I completely restructured my agentic workflow: Context Management: Instead of flooding the context window with raw codebase dumps, I implemented targeted retrieval. The agent now only sees the specific files required for the immediate task. Standardized Tools: I integrated Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, giving the model bounded, secure ways to execute actions rather than just generating text. Durable State: If a long-running workflow pauses or fails, the system now checkpoints its progress. It resumes exactly where it left off instead of starting from scratch. Strict Verification: "Looks good to me" is no longer an acceptable output. The agent is forced to run tests and verify the CLI output before concluding a task. Learn to Break the System The results were immediate. The hallucinations stopped, and the agent shif

submitted by /u/henk53 [link] [留言]

AI can produce an answer in seconds. The answer may be clear, plausible, and even correct. Yet something about it can still feel wrong. I do not think this discomfort comes only from hallucinations or poor model accuracy. Sometimes the real problem is simpler: The AI returned an output, but it did not return the work in a form that another person can safely continue. This is not a new problem created by AI. It is the same problem we already have when delegating work to another person. What do we expect when we delegate work? Imagine a manager asking a team member: Please prepare a proposal for reducing next month's operating costs. The team member reviews several documents, compares multiple options, and replies: We should choose Option A. The requested conclusion has been delivered. But has the work really been handed back? The manager still does not know: What objective the team member optimized for Which documents and facts were examined Which assumptions and constraints were used Which alternatives were compared Why Option A was preferred Which conditions remain unverified What must be reconsidered if the situation changes The original request may not have explicitly demanded all of this. Even so, we normally expect a competent team member to understand the purpose of the assignment and to return enough information for someone else to review, approve, revise, and continue the work. That information is not additional reporting attached to the work. It is part of the handoff condition that makes delegation possible. AI often returns the conclusion without the handoff Now replace the team member with an AI assistant. The AI immediately recommends Option A and produces a polished explanation. Because the answer arrives so quickly and looks complete, it is easy to confuse the existence of an output with the completion of the work. But the same questions remain: How did the AI interpret the objective? What was considered in scope and out of scope? Which sources were a

submitted by /u/Maybe-monad [link] [留言]

Nothing happened. That is the strange part. No deploy. No pull request. Nobody touched the prompt. Your agent ran the way it always ran on Friday, and it runs on Monday, and every dashboard is green. Then a ticket comes in about an answer nobody on your team would have written, and you go looking for the change that caused it, and there is no change on your side. There was a model upgrade. It is the only change to your system that you did not make, cannot find in your own git history, and usually cannot roll back on your own schedule. It is also the one most likely to be announced to you as good news. Why a model upgrade does not look like a bug Because it is not one. The new model really is better. Better on reasoning, better on code, better on the evaluations the lab published beside it, and probably better on yours too, if what you measured was the average. Better and same are different words. Your product was not built on the average. It was built on a specific set of behaviours you watched, liked, and then quietly encoded into everything downstream: how long the answers run, how much the thing hedges, which tool it reaches for first, what it does when a request is vague. None of that appears in release notes. All of it can move. And when it moves, nothing throws. There is no stack trace for "this answer is now worse in a way a customer will notice." Your tests keep passing, because your tests check that the JSON parses and the fields are there, and the JSON still parses and the fields are still there. The three things that actually move Shape. Answers get longer, or shorter, or start opening with a summary they never used to open with. Harmless, right up until something downstream was written against the old shape. Tool choice. The agent develops a new favourite first move. It takes six calls to do what used to take three, or it stops calling the tool you built for it because it has decided it can answer from memory. This one usually reaches the bill before it

submitted by /u/Calm_Habit137 [link] [留言]

Over the past year, I've watched a lot of engineering teams go through the same adoption pattern with AI tools. They start using GitHub Copilot or Claude. Productivity goes up. And then someone in a meeting asks the question: "Do we still need as many junior developers?" I think that question reveals exactly the wrong mental model. The teams getting the most value from AI tools aren't the ones who figured out what AI can automate. They're the ones who figured out what AI should automate, and then designed their workflows around that distinction. That sounds like a small difference. It isn't. Most of the debate around AI and junior developers focuses on the wrong question: can AI do what juniors do? In a previous article, I explored why that question leads teams in the wrong direction. In another, I looked at what happens when organizations quietly remove the work juniors need to grow. This article is about what the best teams actually do instead. They don't pick AI over junior developers. They redesign how work flows. The AI and Junior Developers Debate Is Asking the Wrong Question The argument goes like this: AI can generate code, write tests, and produce documentation. Junior developers also generate code, write tests, and produce documentation. Therefore, AI can replace junior developers. This looks logical at the task level. But it misses something important. Junior developers aren't primarily valuable for their output. They're valuable for what they become while producing that output. Every bug they debug, every test they write, every pull request they review is quietly building something that doesn't appear in any sprint metric. You can automate a task. You can't automate the learning that comes from doing it. That's where the replacement narrative breaks down. What AI Is Actually Good At After using AI coding tools seriously for a while, certain patterns become clear. AI is fast and reliable for repetitive, well-defined work: boilerplate, standard implementat

I ran a penetration test on my own infrastructure last week. No Burp Suite, no exploit fired at production, no CVE popped. The whole engagement came down to one habit: refusing to believe a control was working until I had watched it work. The target is a small observability hub I built for my own AI-assisted coding. Six services in one compose file: a tunnel, an OpenTelemetry Collector taking metrics and logs from Claude Code, Prometheus, Grafana, Loki, and a status API. The public surface is three aggregate numbers. Everything else stays private. That boundary, three numbers out and nothing else, was the whole thing I was testing. The word "pentest" carries a picture that does not match, so: no attack traffic at the live system. The platform bills by usage and there is a WAF in front, so a flood of probes would have cost money and poisoned its own results. What I did was a read-only audit of the code and config, plus a dynamic run against the whole stack brought up locally in Docker. I expected the findings to cluster around the parts nobody had looked at. They did the opposite. Nearly every serious defect sat inside a control written days or hours earlier, usually by me, usually with a comment beside it naming what it protected against. Old code has been observed: it has run against real traffic and somebody has been surprised by it. A defence written yesterday has only been reasoned about, which feels like the same thing and is not. "Independent" is a measurement, not a comment The privacy boundary is an allow-list rather than a deny-list, and that part was right. Claude Code was measured sending five identity attributes, user.email among them carrying a real address, and no flag turns them off. A delete_key for each works until the client adds a sixth, and this telemetry is beta: its attribute set is not a contract. - context : resource statements : - keep_keys(resource.attributes, ["service.name"]) - set(resource.attributes["service.name"], "claude-code") The s

For three years, the biggest complaint about Mojo was not the syntax, the performance claims, or the missing ecosystem. It was that the compiler was closed. You could read the standard library, you could file issues, but the thing that turned your code into GPU machine instructions was a binary you had to download on faith. For a language whose creator, Chris Lattner, built his reputation on LLVM and Swift, two of the most open projects in compiler history, that sat badly with a lot of developers. Then came the strangest possible sequence. Qualcomm announced an all-stock acquisition of Modular on June 24, 2026, valued around $3.92 billion at announcement. The deal closed at the end of July. Mojo hit version 1.0 the following week. And on August 18 at ModCon, Modular open sourced the entire compiler and toolchain under Apache 2.0 with LLVM exceptions. A chip company bought the language, and only then did the source drop. The Hacker News thread reached 409 points, and the reaction splits into two camps that basically never overlap: people who say "finally, I can try this," and people who say "too late, the window closed." Both are worth listening to, because the honest answer to whether Mojo matters now depends on what you actually do with Python. What Actually Got Released The whole toolchain, not a teaser. The modular repository on GitHub now contains the Mojo compiler, the tooling, and everything needed to build the language from source. One command builds the compiler and runs a Mojo file against it: ./bazelw run --config = build-mojo KGEN:mojo -- run hello.mojo That is a real bar to clear. This is not "source available with a look-but-do-not-touch license." Apache 2.0 is the same license family as the rest of the LLVM world, and the LLVM exceptions expand what you can do with distributed binaries. You can fork it today if you want. But not contributions, yet. The announcement is explicit: Modular is not accepting contributions to the compiler and tooling right no

Hallo zusammen, ich finde die aktuellen Datingapps Menschen unwürdig und versuche, meine eigene App zu etablieren. Dabei wird Ghosting, Bots, Pay2win vermieden, es gibt niveauvolle Fragen und Filter nach Vorlieben und Tabus, es ist nicht profit orientiert. Meine App ist vor allem eine Matchingapp zum Finden von neuen netten Menschen, die zu einem passen, je nach Interessen, Hobbys, Prinzipien, Beziehungsstatus etc. Bitte gebt eure Meinung und Gedanken ab und testet die App gerne unter: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.companyname.elovate&pcampaignid=web_share Außerdem Interstgram unter https://www.instagram.com/elovatedev?igsi=MTVzZmZkOHp4eHJqMw== submitted by /u/Mother-Economist5055 [link] [留言]

Building in public You know the risk before you start. Everyone tells you: do not build something the platform could ship. You build it anyway, because you need it and nobody has it. Then one Tuesday the release notes arrive. What the months actually looked like I want to be precise about the cost, because the cost is the reason the release notes hit the way they did. Two hours of sleep on a normal night — not one heroic week, the normal shape of the last few months. Work during the day, build in the evening, debug until the birds started. Weekends were the good days, because nobody interrupted. What got built in that time: a memory layer for AI coding assistants. It saves what was learned after a fix and reads the relevant parts back before the next task. It runs over MCP, so it works in whatever editor you happen to open. It survives restarts, model upgrades and switching tools. I did not build it as a business idea. I built it because I was tired of explaining my own four servers to an assistant every single morning. The hour the release notes landed Anthropic shipped memory into Claude Code. Not "context improvements", not "a longer window". The word in the release notes was memory — the same word I had been using for months to describe the thing I was building. I read it twice. Then I sat there and did the arithmetic that everybody in that position does: months of evenings, the sleep, the weekends — against one line in someone else's changelog. The thought was not complicated. It was three words long. Who needs mine? If you have never had a platform ship your feature, the closest thing I can describe is finding out the thing you have been carrying uphill was already at the top. Not that it was wrong. That it was unnecessary. I did not open the editor that evening. That is the honest version. I read the docs, I read them again, and I went to bed early for the first time in months, which is a strange way for a bad day to end. Why the fear was rational, not dramat

Conteúdo 1. Apresentação - Omarchy 2. Praticidade 3. Agentes de IA 4. Desuso do Mouse 5....

submitted by /u/JizosKasa [link] [留言]

The dictionary defines nuance as a subtle distinction or variation. In practice, it's the difference...

Over the past few days, a number of prominent filmmaking content creators including Matti Haapoja and Sam "Kold" Kolder have posted videos of themselves demonstrating what's possible with AI platform Higgsfield. The videos highlight Higgsfield's recently added Seedance 2.5 functionality and pitch these technologies as the future of video production. In response to these videos, […]

I recently built WordScrambler, a free tool for unscrambling letters and solving anagrams, mostly out of frustration with existing tools being cluttered with ads or requiring sign-up just to see a result. Here's a quick look at the core technique behind how it works. The problem Given a jumbled set of letters (say, ucim), find every valid dictionary word that can be formed from some or all of those letters. The naive approach, generating every permutation and checking each against a dictionary, gets slow fast. A 7-letter input has 5,040 permutations; a 12-letter input has nearly 480 million. That's not viable for instant results. The signature trick The key insight: two words are anagrams of each other if and only if their letters, sorted alphabetically, produce the same string. For example: "listen" -> sorted -> "eilnst" "silent" -> sorted -> "eilnst" Both hash to the same signature. So instead of generating permutations, you can: Precompute a signature for every word in your dictionary and group words by signature. For a given input, generate the signature of the input (and its relevant sub-combinations, for partial-length matches). Look up matching signatures in a hash map, an O(1) lookup instead of a brute-force search. This turns "find every valid word from these letters" into a fast lookup problem rather than a combinatorial one, which is what makes results feel instant even against a large dictionary (WordScrambler checks against roughly 246,000 words). Handling partial-length matches Most real unscrambling needs go beyond "use every letter", people want every valid word of any length using a subset of the given letters. That means generating signatures for all relevant letter subsets (not full permutations, just subsets, which is a much smaller set) and checking each against the dictionary map. Try it You can play with the live version here: wordscrambler.online — it also shows word definitions and Scrabble/Words With Friends point values alongside each resu

One broken window invites another TL;DR: Don't reuse an existing getter to bolt on new business logic from outside the object. Problems 😔 Duplicated business rules Broken encapsulation Scattered comparison logic Hidden domain knowledge Fragile refactoring Law of Demeter violation Solutions 😃 Add real behavior methods Keep comparisons inside object Pass collaborators, not primitives Reserve getters for rendering Follow tell, don't ask Refactorings ⚙️ Refactoring 027 - Remove Getters Maxi Contieri Maxi Contieri Maxi Contieri Follow Apr 18 '25 Refactoring 027 - Remove Getters # webdev # programming # beginners # java 3 reactions Add Comment 17 min read Refactoring 013 - Remove Repeated Code Maxi Contieri Maxi Contieri Maxi Contieri Follow Jun 16 '24 Refactoring 013 - Remove Repeated Code # webdev # beginners # programming # tutorial 2 reactions Add Comment 3 min read Context 💬 An object exposes a getter for one legitimate reason: some other part of the system needs to read that value, usually to display it. Getters are a code smell, but this one gets a pass, for now. Later on, you discover that you need new business logic that depends on the same value. You already have the getter, so you write a function outside the object that calls it and does the comparison itself, breaking the encapsulation principle. Someone else needs slightly different logic based on the same value. They also call the getter and write their own version of the comparison. Now two places decide what that value means , and neither of them is the object that owns it. Typical. You didn't add a second getter this time. You reused the first one, because it was already there. That's the trap. The getter existed for one reason, and you let it justify skipping the real fix: a method on the object that answers the question itself, instead of handing out the raw value for every caller to interpret on their own. Sample Code 💻 Wrong 🚫 // Food needs to show its use-by date on the shelf // label, so useByDate(

submitted by /u/cekrem [link] [留言]