标签：#RAM

AI has become part of our lives, whether we like it or not, and it doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon. People seem to be using AI on many different levels, ranging from those still trying to avoid it, to people actively playing with it, trying to break it and find its limitations. The same goes for companies. There are those still barely using AI, those using it for absolutely everything, hoping it's a magical solution to their problems, and those in between. If you're more on the heavy use side, agents and instruction files are probably part of your daily discussions now. For our AI’s to work correctly they need the correct instructions, so they know how we want them to respond, how our project works, etc. We can use .md files to supply these instructions and/or context to the models. Those little markdown files are getting a huge importance in the development lifecycle. Since we can use the same file in each request we make, we can put in it the specifics of our project, as detailed as we want, so the model has as much information as possible to work with. “Garbage in, garbage out” makes sense here because, in theory, the better information the model has, the better results it can provide. Because of that, we're having to be more careful with the way we write them. Although markdown isn't something new, I don't know about you, but I haven't done much markdown writing before, so this feels like another tool to learn, like we're adding a new language on our tech stack. When I say is something else to learn, I don't mean learning only the markdown syntax, but also the correct way of writing all the instructions. A development stack now could look like: HTML, CSS and JavaScript for frontend, a language like Java, a framework like Spring or Quarkus, and SQL for the backend, and now .md files and markdown for the agents. I know I'm being very simplistic here, there are a lot more pieces of technology I didn't mention, but you got the idea, right? Besides everyth

The demo is impressive. ✅ The demo works in your environment, with your data, with you watching. ✅ Production? Silent failures. Cost overruns. Wrong tool calls. Stuck loops. No fallback. ❌ Agents in 2026: The Real Problem Here is the thing most people are not talking about when they ship AI agents: A demo agent and a production agent are completely different things. A demo is: "watch this work once." A production agent is: "what happens when it is wrong, stuck, expensive, over-permissioned, or called 10,000 times by real users?" That second question is what separates a cool technical proof-of-concept from something a business can actually rely on. Demos are not systems. 1️⃣ The 7 Things That Break in Prod In every agent hardening sprint I run, the same failures show up: Failure Mode What It Costs No logging You have no idea what the agent did or why No eval set You cannot measure quality or catch regressions Unlimited tool access Agent calls tools it should never touch No retry logic Transient failures become permanent failures No memory rules Context leaks between sessions or inflates cost No fallback path Agent loops or crashes instead of escalating No cost checks 1 misconfigured prompt → $400 API bill overnight If your agent is in production with 3 or more of those missing — you are one bad prompt away from a very expensive incident. 2️⃣ The Production Hardening Checklist Before you call an agent production-ready, run through this: Eval set exists — at least 20 test cases covering happy path + edge cases Structured logging — every tool call, every input, every output, every error — logged and searchable Retry logic — transient API failures handled gracefully, not crashed Tool limits — agent cannot call tools outside its defined scope Memory rules — what carries over between sessions, what gets cleared, how context is compressed Fallback paths — when the agent gets stuck or uncertain, it has an exit: escalate to human, return partial result, surface an error Cost

Here is the move most technical service providers miss: Every project you deliver quietly dies inside a private folder. Every project you deliver with receipts becomes a trust asset that sells the next sprint without you lifting a finger. The Insight Almost No One Acts On Delivery is not the end of marketing. Delivery is where the next marketing asset is born. The before/after screenshot. The launch-readiness report excerpt. The workflow map. The metric improvement. The buyer quote. All of that is proof. And proof is the compound interest of service work. Claims decay. Proof compounds. 1️⃣ What Proof Actually Looks Like This is the proof asset menu. Every sprint should produce at least 1 item from this list: Before/after screenshot — the most shareable format Launch-readiness report excerpt — shows rigor and standard Workflow map — visual, specific, credibility-dense Dashboard screenshot — metrics that moved Test checklist — shows what was verified, not just what was built Client quote — even 1 sentence is worth 1,000 words of claims Metric improvement — "response time dropped from 24 hours to 4 minutes" Public teardown — anonymous version of the diagnosis Case study — structured story: context → pain → fix → result One-minute walkthrough video — screen-recorded, narrated, personal You do not need all of them. You need 1 per sprint. 2️⃣ The Case Study Structure That Sells A case study is not a trophy. It is a reusable trust asset. Use this structure every time: 1️⃣ Context — who had the problem? (anonymized if needed) 2️⃣ Pain — what was it costing them? 3️⃣ Hidden cause — what was really broken underneath? 4️⃣ Fix — what did you change, specifically? 5️⃣ Result — what improved? With a number. 6️⃣ Proof — what artifact backs it up? 7️⃣ Lesson — what should similar buyers do next? That is 7 steps. The whole thing can fit in a LinkedIn post or a page section. And here is the thing most people are not talking about: a case study with a specific number outperforms 10 po

Products are easier to build. Workflows are easier to automate. Content is easier to generate. But trust is not easier. Attention is not easier. Buyer memory is not easier. The Hard Truth Here is the thing most people are not talking about in 2026: The bottleneck is no longer the product. The bottleneck is whether the right buyer has seen your diagnosis 3 times in 2 weeks. Because that is how trust is built. Not with one perfect post. With repeated, useful presence in the right feed. Distribution is the moat. 1️⃣ Why "Staying Active" Is the Wrong Goal Most founders post to stay active. That is not a content strategy. That is anxiety dressed up as marketing. Every post should do one of 3 things: Make the buyer understand a pain they already have Make the buyer trust your diagnosis of that pain Move the buyer closer to a conversation A post about your tech stack? Probably none of those. A post that says "Your AI app is not launch-ready until auth, payments, logging, and rollback are boring" — that does all 3. 2️⃣ The Five Content Pillars That Build Pipeline Here is the system I use. 5 pillars. Everything maps to one of them: Pillar What It Signals Launch risk Why AI-built products break before production GTM systems How founders turn expertise into pipeline Workflow automation How businesses leak time and revenue Proof and case studies What changed before/after — with receipts Founder operating lessons The discipline behind building for money Every post I write maps to one of these. Not because it is tidy. Because each pillar speaks directly to a buyer who has a specific pain — and positions me as the operator who sees it clearly. 3️⃣ The Daily Format That Creates Pipeline This is the actual weekly posting structure that works: Monday — mistake post: a painful thing technical founders do wrong Tuesday — teardown post: a real example dissected publicly Wednesday — checklist: the 10-item audit your buyer needs Thursday — before/after: what changed after a sprint, with s

The demo worked perfectly. ✅ Production? First real users. 50% failure rate. ❌ The Gap Nobody Warns You About I see this pattern every week — a founder launches, pushes traffic, and watches their app fall apart in real conditions. Not because the core idea was wrong. Because "it works on my machine" is not a launch-readiness standard. AI-built apps in 2026 ship fast. That is the superpower. But fast shipping without hardening means you are presenting a demo as a product — and real users will find every crack within 48 hours. 1️⃣ What "Launch-Ready" Actually Means Launch-ready is not "the feature works." Launch-ready is when auth, payments, logging, analytics, database permissions, and rollback are boring — because they have already been thought through and tested. Here is the difference: Demo State Launch-Ready State Auth works for happy path Auth handles edge cases, token expiry, role conflicts Payments go through in test mode Webhooks confirmed, retries handled, failures logged Console.log for debugging Structured logging with alerts on errors No analytics Core events tracked from day 1 Manual deploy Automated deploy + rollback path exists No onboarding flow User activation measured from first session If your app is in column one — you are not ready. 2️⃣ The Launch-Readiness Checklist Copy this. Run it before you push traffic. Authentication and authorization — roles, permissions, token handling, session expiry Environment variables — nothing sensitive exposed, prod secrets separate from dev Database permissions — row-level security, no open-read tables, no admin keys in frontend Payment webhooks — test confirmed, failure logged, retry logic exists Error logging — uncaught exceptions surfaced somewhere you will actually see them Analytics events — signup, activation, key action, churn signal — all firing Rate limits — LLM calls protected, API routes guarded Backups and rollback — you have a path back if something breaks Onboarding flow — first session gets the use

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

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

TLDR tsc is the TypeScript compiler. It turns your .ts files into .js files that Node.js and browsers can run. Install it with npm install -g typescript . Run tsc to compile your whole project. Run tsc --watch to auto-compile on every file save. Run tsc --noEmit to check for errors without creating any files. What is the TypeScript Compiler? The TypeScript compiler is a tool called tsc . It reads your TypeScript files and turns them into JavaScript files. Your browser and Node.js cannot run TypeScript directly. They only understand JavaScript. So tsc acts as the bridge between what you write and what actually runs. Think of tsc like a spell checker for your code. It finds problems before your code ever runs. Then it produces clean JavaScript output for you. How to Install the TypeScript Compiler You install tsc using npm. There are two ways to do this. Option 1: Global Install (runs anywhere on your computer) npm install -g typescript After install, check it works: tsc --version You will see something like Version 6.0.3 . Option 2: Local Install (recommended for teams) npm install --save-dev typescript Then run it using npx : npx tsc --version Which one should you use? Use a local install for project work. This makes sure everyone on your team uses the same TypeScript version. Use a global install only for quick personal experiments. How to Compile a Single TypeScript File The simplest way to use tsc is to pass it a single file. Create a file called hello.ts : const message : string = " Hello, TypeScript! " ; console . log ( message ); Now compile it: tsc hello.ts This creates a new file called hello.js in the same folder: var message = " Hello, TypeScript! " ; console . log ( message ); Notice that TypeScript removed the : string type annotation. The output is plain JavaScript that Node.js can run. Run the output file: node hello.js # Hello, TypeScript! Important: When you pass a file directly to tsc , it ignores your tsconfig.json . It uses its own default setting

This is a story about a company that rolled out an AI interview system — and the lunch break I spent...

Something changed in software engineering, and I do not think we have fully named it yet. For years, the job was mostly about writing code directly. Then autocomplete got better. Then chat-based coding assistants arrived. Now the workflow is shifting again: we describe goals, hand off chunks of work to agents, inspect their output, tighten the tests, and decide what gets merged. That is not the same job with a faster keyboard. It is a different shape of work. I would call it agentic engineering. The engineer is becoming a director Agentic engineering does not mean the engineer disappears. If anything, it makes the engineer's judgment more visible. A coding agent can read files, make changes, run commands, open pull requests, and iterate through errors. GitHub describes Copilot agent mode as a workflow where the agent can plan, edit, run terminal commands, and keep working until a task is complete. Google describes Jules as an asynchronous coding agent that can take a task, work in a virtual machine, and produce a pull request. Anthropic's Claude Code guidance talks openly about using multiple Claude sessions in parallel, giving agents clear context, and treating them like workers that need direction. That is the shift. The engineer is no longer only the person typing every line. The engineer is also the person deciding what should be built, what constraints matter, how to verify the result, and when the agent is wrong. Prompting is too small a word for this People often describe this work as prompting, but that undersells it. A prompt can be a single instruction. Agentic engineering is more like delegation. You define the task, provide the relevant context, set the boundaries, create checks, review the work, and decide the next move. If the agent goes in the wrong direction, the failure is not always the model's fault. Sometimes the task was too vague. Sometimes the repository had no tests. Sometimes the acceptance criteria lived only in someone's head. This is why

On June 9, 2026, Anthropic shipped the most capable model it has ever released to the public. The most interesting thing about it is the part that sometimes refuses to talk to you. Claude Fable 5 is the first model from what Anthropic calls its Mythos class, a tier that now sits above Opus. It launched as a pair. Fable 5 is the public version. Claude Mythos 5 is the same underlying model with its guardrails loosened, and it is not for sale to most of us. It goes only to vetted cyberdefenders and infrastructure providers through a program called Project Glasswing, in collaboration with the US government. Two names, one brain. The thing that separates them is a set of classifiers. That detail is the whole story, and almost every launch-day write-up buried it under the benchmark chart. So let me start there instead. One Model, Two Names, One Classifier in Between Fable 5 ships with three classifiers running alongside it. They watch for requests about offensive cybersecurity, about biology and chemistry that edge toward weapons, and about distillation, which is using the model to train a competitor. When a classifier fires, Fable 5 does not answer. The request gets handed to Claude Opus 4.8, the model that was the top of the public stack until that morning, and Opus answers in Fable's place. For anyone building on the API, this is not an abstract safety story. It is a response shape you have to handle. A refused request comes back as stop_reason: "refusal" with a normal HTTP 200, not an error, and it tells you which classifier tripped. You can have the API retry on another model with a fallbacks parameter, or do it client side with the SDK middleware. You are not billed for a request that is refused before it generates output. { "stop_reason" : "refusal" , "stop_sequence" : null , "content" : [] } Anthropic says this is rare. Its early numbers put at least 95 percent of Fable sessions running entirely on Fable's own answers. I believe that for general work. But "rare on

Το πρόβλημα της ώρας Η ώρα είναι από τα πιο ύπουλα προβλήματα στην ανάπτυξη λογισμικού. Αν ένας χρήστης στην Αθήνα δημιουργήσει μια παραγγελία στις 20:00 και ένας άλλος στη Νέα Υόρκη τη δει στις 13:00, ποια είναι η "σωστή" ώρα; Αν μια εφαρμογή αποθηκεύσει μόνο το 20:00, χωρίς να γνωρίζει τη ζώνη ώρας, τότε η πληροφορία είναι πρακτικά άχρηστη. Αυτός είναι ο λόγος που υπάρχουν έννοιες όπως: Local Time UTC UTC Offset Epoch / Unix Timestamp Δεν δημιουργήθηκαν για να μας μπερδεύουν. Δημιουργήθηκαν για να λύνουν το πρόβλημα της παγκόσμιας διαχείρισης χρόνου. Local Time Το Local Time είναι η ώρα που βλέπει ο χρήστης στη χώρα του. Παραδείγματα: Αθήνα: 2026-06-09 20:00 Λονδίνο: 2026-06-09 18:00 Νέα Υόρκη:2026-06-09 13:00 Όλες οι παραπάνω ώρες μπορεί να αντιστοιχούν στην ίδια ακριβώς χρονική στιγμή. Συνέβει ένα γεγονός μία ενέργεια στον πλανίτη γη ακριβώς αυτή την στιγμή που όμως για διαφορετικές γεωγραφικές περιοχές αντιστοιχεί σε διαφορετικές ώρες. Πότε χρησιμοποιούμε Local Time; Μόνο για εμφάνιση στον χρήστη. Παραδείγματα: Ημερομηνία παραγγελίας Ώρα δημιουργίας post Ημερολόγιο συναντήσεων Reports προς τον χρήστη Πότε ΔΕΝ το αποθηκεύουμε; Σχεδόν ποτέ ως μοναδική πηγή αλήθειας. Αν αποθηκεύσεις: 2026-06-09 20:00 δεν γνωρίζεις: Σε ποια χώρα δημιουργήθηκε Σε ποια ζώνη ώρας ανήκει Αν ίσχυε θερινή ώρα (DST) UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) Το UTC είναι η παγκόσμια αναφορά χρόνου. Όλες οι ζώνες ώρας υπολογίζονται σε σχέση με αυτό. Παράδειγμα: UTC: 2026-06-09 17:00 Την ίδια στιγμή με βάση την UTC ώρα μπορούμε να έχουμε: στην Αθήνα UTC+3 -> 20:00 στο Λονδίνο UTC+1 -> 18:00 στη Νέα Υόρκη UTC-4 -> 13:00 Πότε χρησιμοποιούμε UTC; Σχεδόν πάντα στο backend. Αποθηκεύουμε: 2026-06-09 T 17 : 00 : 00 Z Το Z σημαίνει UTC. Γιατί; Επειδή: Δεν αλλάζει με DST Δεν εξαρτάται από χώρα Είναι παγκόσμιο σημείο αναφοράς Ένας κανόνας που ακολουθούν σχεδόν όλες οι μεγάλες εταιρείες: Store in UTC, display in Local Time. UTC Offset Παραδείγματα: UTC+3 UTC+2 UTC-5 UTC+9 Για την Αθήνα: Χειμώνας -> UTC+2 Καλοκα

Hey everyone, I got tired of the usual configuration mess in C—manually writing tedious boilerplate to traverse generic JSON/YAML nodes, casting strings to integers, and writing a dozen if statements to handle out-of-range ports or missing environment variables. Worse yet, managing string lifetimes across nested configuration objects. To fix this, I built cfgsafe , an Ahead-of-Time (AOT) schema-driven configuration engine for C99. Instead of processing raw files at runtime, it takes a simple schema file and generates a type-safe, single-header library. I wrote a deep-dive engineering breakdown detailing the philosophy, memory model, and design choices behind it here: Type-Safe Configs in C99: Why I Prefer Code-Gen over Parsing And the github repo: CfgSafe How it works: Define a Schema: You use a simple DSL to declare fields, defaults, constraints (ranges, regex patterns), and sources (Env, CLI flags). Generate: The cfg-gen tool outputs a native C struct with matching validation primitives built straight in. Load Atomically: At startup, you make one call to Config_load . If a field is invalid or missing, it fails fast before your application's hot path even executes. A few specific architectural choices I made: Atomic Memory Pool: To prevent fragmented heap allocations and memory leaks, the generator bundles all incoming string/array values into a single contiguous memory block. Freeing the entire config is reduced to a single call to Config_free() . Zero Overhead Lookups: Because it compiles down to a native C struct, looking up a setting is just a basic memory offset rather than an $O(\log N)$ hash-map lookups or string comparisons. Compile-Time Safety & IDE Autocomplete: If you typo cfg.db.prt instead of cfg.db.port , the compiler refuses to build the app, and your editor knows exactly what fields exist and their data types. Strict Layering & Security: It bakes a strict precedence chain (CLI Arguments > Environment Variables > INI File > Schema Defaults) right int

Shareable blog post edition: https://andymaleh.blogspot.com/2026/06/andys-laws-of-ai-in-software-engineering.html Law #1: "The more Software Developers use AI, the more valuable Software Engineers who do not use AI become." Software Engineers who are masters at delivering Software without using AI will actually have increased job security the more Software Developers in the worldwide Software Development community rely on AI to deliver Software without having true mastery over Software Engineering. As more Software Developers become fully dependent on AI to build Software without truly understanding how AI gets work done, Software Engineers who do understand what is going on under the hood will dwindle and become more valuable than ever. In other words, they will have a competitive advantage over Software Developers who can only deliver Software features with AI as well as Software Developers who have not mastered Software Engineering. Also, there will always be a need for Software Engineers who can maintain the Software of AI itself. Law #2: "Software Developers benefit from AI in direct proportion to how weak they are in Software Engineering" The weaker Software Developers are at Software Engineering the more they benefit from AI. After all, AI learns from Master Software Engineers and then applies its learnings in code generation done for lower-level Software Developers who lack mastery in Software Engineering. So, users of AI simply place themselves lower in the expertise hierarchy to be on the receiving end of what Master Software Engineers feed AI with their code. This explains why many experts like Linus Torvalds do not find AI very useful while devs who have zero degrees and qualifications feel like they get a lot from AI. A beneficial thing to learn from this law is that it is more valuable for a Software Developer to hone in their Software Engineering skills (including the completion of university degrees) than to hone in their AI usage skills because if t

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

A useful technical idea, repeated often enough, eventually generates an unuseful philosophical claim. The current example is grammar-constrained decoding. The technique is straightforward — at each generation step, the language model's next-token logits are masked so that only tokens whose continuation can satisfy a formal grammar remain selectable; the output is, by construction, structurally valid. JSON parses. SQL is well-formed. Function-call signatures match. There is a real engineering payoff and a healthy ecosystem of libraries that deliver it. The drift is not in the engineering. It is in the rhetorical move that follows the engineering. A growing corner of 2025-2026 AI writing argues, more or less explicitly, that constraining a model's output is making the model approach meaning — that filtering linear sequences is somehow building structure, and that structure is somehow building understanding. I want to take that drift seriously, because it is the same conflation Chomsky and collaborators flagged in their March 2023 essay in the New York Times , and the engineering literature on constrained decoding agrees with Chomsky on the substantive question, even when the marketing copy doesn't. What grammar-constrained decoding actually is A language model produces output one token at a time. At each step, the model emits a probability distribution over its vocabulary, and the decoding strategy (greedy, top-k, nucleus, etc.) picks one token. Without modification, the model is free to emit any continuation; the resulting text might happen to be valid JSON, or it might not. Grammar-constrained decoding intervenes in that step. A formal grammar — typically a context-free grammar, sometimes a regular expression, sometimes a JSON schema or Pydantic model — defines what counts as valid output. At each generation step, the constraint engine computes which next tokens could lead to a continuation that is still satisfiable under the grammar, masks the logits for all other

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

Meta is planning to use the data shared by other businesses to personalize your feed and its AI responses. In a blog post on Tuesday, Meta explains that it already uses your off-platform activity, like the games you play or your purchases on other websites, to serve you ads. But now it's expanding the scope […]

AI in 2026 is no longer best understood as a technology trend. It has become a structural layer...

we saw that multiple github repos name as Miasma-Open-Source-Release started appearing yesterday which was pushed by a compromised developer accounts. then we pulled the source to dig deeper. And calling it a worm would be very small its kind of a complete supply chain framework you can see which is having ARCHITECTURE .md integration test etc. so it was kind of a product. ARCHITECTURE.md was saying that it requires no C2 infrastructure and not have to deal with takedowns or maintaining infrastructure. it just stolen github PATs is only what is necessary. submitted by /u/BattleRemote3157 [link] [留言]