标签：#X

The guy behind TCP/IP is working on a standard for identifying AI agents in the wild.

SpaceX's latest residential dish - the Starlink V5 - is now available in "select areas." It's notably smaller and lighter than the V4 dish with improved power efficiency. It'll be available in more places as SpaceX ramps up production to meet global demand. The company notes that Starlink V5 is not intended for in-motion use […]

A slow AI feature rarely fails all at once. It starts with a longer prompt, then a bigger retrieval result, then one more tool call, then a retry path nobody measured. The demo still works, but users feel the delay before your dashboard explains it. That is why small AI product teams need an LLM latency budget before they start optimizing. Not a vague goal like “make it faster.” A budget says how much time each stage is allowed to spend, what happens when it exceeds that limit, and which user experience is still acceptable when the model, retrieval layer, or tool chain slows down. The payoff is practical: you stop guessing where the delay lives, stop overpaying for wasted work, and make AI workflows feel reliable even when traffic, context, and providers are messy. Why latency budgets matter now Recent AI platform news points in one direction: AI workflows are becoming longer, more tool-heavy, and more expensive to run without discipline. A current news scan showed several signals builders should notice: Production LLM cost and latency guidance is shifting from “add more compute” to “remove wasted work.” Agent environments are being designed for long-running background tasks, persistent state, and cheaper idle time. New model releases emphasize tool use, computer use, multimodal context, subagents, and larger context windows. AI gateways and enterprise platforms are adding cost controls, routing, caching, audit trails, and usage limits. Developers are asking more practical questions about why AI coding and agent workflows interrupt flow with repeated prompt-wait-evaluate loops. For AI SaaS builders, this means latency is no longer just a model selection problem. It is a workflow design problem. A simple chat completion might have one bottleneck. A real AI workflow may include: request queueing auth and tenant checks prompt assembly memory lookup vector search reranking model routing tool calls browser or API actions structured output validation fallback attempts str

Sanity vs Directus is a comparison that comes up more than you'd expect on technical forums in 2026, usually from teams who already have a Postgres database running and are wondering why they'd pay for a separate content lake when Directus can wrap what they have. It's a fair question. These two tools solve adjacent problems but from genuinely different starting points, and the right choice depends heavily on whether your content is primarily relational data or editorial content. What each tool actually is Sanity is a hosted content platform. Your content lives in Sanity's managed "content lake" — a document store with real-time collaboration, a CDN-backed asset pipeline, and GROQ as the query language. You define schemas in code, deploy a customisable Studio, and talk to Sanity's API from your Next.js app. You do not manage infrastructure. Directus is an open-source data platform that wraps any existing SQL database — Postgres, MySQL, SQLite, MS SQL — and exposes it through a REST API, a GraphQL endpoint, and a web-based admin UI. Schema changes happen in the admin UI (or via migrations), and your data stays in your own database. You can self-host entirely or use Directus Cloud. That distinction — hosted content lake vs database-wrapper — drives nearly every practical difference between them. Data ownership and where your content lives With Sanity, your content lives in Sanity's infrastructure. You can export it via the export API, but you are operationally dependent on Sanity's uptime and their CDN. For most product teams that's fine — Sanity has been reliable and their SLA on Growth/Enterprise tiers is solid. But if you're in a regulated industry, have strict data residency requirements, or your client contract requires them to own the database, it's a real constraint. With Directus, the database is yours from day one. You point Directus at a Postgres instance on your own infrastructure (or a managed one like Supabase, Neon, or Railway), and Directus adds the API

When running large-scale tensor-network contractions with TensorCircuit-NG and the JAX GPU backend, the following runtime configuration is worth testing: XLA_PYTHON_CLIENT_PREALLOCATE = false XLA_FLAGS = --xla_gpu_autotune_level = 0 python your_script.py Its main benefit is not speed, but lower persistent GPU memory usage from XLA GPU autotuning, which makes memory behavior during compilation and on the first visible GPU more predictable. In the TensorCircuit contraction workloads we tested, disabling autotuning also slightly improved steady-state runtime, but the memory savings were the more important result. Key takeaway XLA GPU autotuning evaluates alternative algorithms or workspace configurations for certain GPU kernels and custom calls, then selects an implementation. This can be valuable for convolutions, large GEMMs, and deep-learning workloads with fixed shapes. For large TensorCircuit contractions, however, the contraction path is already determined by OMECO or cotengra, leaving relatively little optimization freedom for autotuning while still potentially incurring substantial persistent memory overhead during compilation and tuning. For TensorCircuit contractions, run this A/B test by default: # Baseline XLA_PYTHON_CLIENT_PREALLOCATE = false python your_script.py # Test configuration XLA_PYTHON_CLIENT_PREALLOCATE = false XLA_FLAGS = --xla_gpu_autotune_level = 0 python your_script.py Both environment variables must be set before the Python process starts and before JAX is imported. This recommendation primarily concerns GPUs; CPU backends do not exhibit the same GPU-kernel autotuning behavior. Representative results All results below use a fixed contraction path so that path-search randomness does not affect the comparison. Workload Autotuning Post-compile memory Peak memory Steady-state runtime 100 qubits × 24 layers, amplitude Default 8.7 GiB 8.7 GiB 0.37 s 100 qubits × 24 layers, amplitude autotune=0 0.5 GiB 4.6 GiB 0.40 s 28 qubits × 12 layers, expecta

Every founder who's launched a product knows the drill. You've built something you're proud of. You're ready to share it with the world. And then you discover you need to submit it to Product Hunt, BetaList, Peerlist, and about fifty other directories if you want any chance of getting noticed. So you open your first submission form. You copy your tagline from your notes app. You paste it. You upload your logo. You fill in your description. Then you open the next directory. And you do it all again. And again. And again. After my last launch, I calculated that I'd spent nearly twelve hours just on directory submissions. Twelve hours of copying the same tagline, pasting the same description, uploading the same screenshots. It was mind-numbing work that pulled me away from the things that actually mattered, like talking to users and iterating on feedback. I knew there had to be a better way. That's why I built AutoSubmit.to. It's a simple idea: save your launch information once, and let it autofill everywhere you need to submit. The problem with product launches isn't the strategy or the timing or even the product itself. It's the operational overhead. Most founders underestimate how tedious the submission process becomes when you're trying to maximize visibility. Each directory has slightly different fields. Some want a short description, others want a long one. Some ask for your Twitter handle, others want your LinkedIn. Some require specific image dimensions. This variability means you can't just copy and paste blindly. You need to adjust your content for each platform, which adds cognitive load to an already repetitive task. By the tenth submission, you're making mistakes. By the twentieth, you're wondering if any of this is even worth it. AutoSubmit.to approaches this problem with a two-part system that's designed to be both simple and powerful. First, you create a launch profile on the platform. This is your single source of truth. You enter your product name, tag

While building with OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI providers, I realized something surprising. I monitored my servers, databases, and application performance—but I had almost no visibility into my AI API spending until I checked the provider dashboard or received the monthly invoice. That led me to build AICostPass . It helps developers, indie hackers, startups, and agencies: ⚡ Track AI API costs in near real time 📊 Monitor spending by project or client 🚨 Get budget threshold email alerts 📧 Receive weekly spending summaries 💰 Export billable CSVs for client invoicing The goal is simple: help developers understand and control AI costs before the invoice arrives. 👉 https://aicostpass.com I'd love to hear how you're currently tracking AI API costs. Are you using provider dashboards, spreadsheets, or another tool?

SpaceXAI's Grok Build AI coding tool was spotted uploading users' entire codebases to Google Cloud before it was reported, and the company turned it off. The Register reports that Cereblab published findings on Monday showing how the Grok Build CLI was packaging and uploading entire code repositories, "including files it was told not to open […]

Instagram head Adam Mosseri believes companies will eventually need to manage AI token spending the same way they manage payroll or other operating expenses, predicting that engineers could soon face limits on how much they spend using AI tools.

A new study found that social media platforms are referring people to sites where they can create nonconsensual, sexually explicit deepfakes for as little as $1 an image.

X's head of product, Nikita Bier, admitted in a post on Monday that X's algorithm was "missing" data about surfacing posts from people who you've followed back. Now, he says a tweak will "boost visibility of your posts to your mutuals," hopefully enhancing the sense of community instead of highlighting and spreading random arguments, but […]

A new leak may have just spoiled the Pixel Watch 5 and its finishes ahead of Google's launch event next month. Leaked press renders provided to The Tide Chart by OnLeaks appear to show the upcoming watch with four case finishes: black (Dark Anthracite), polished silver (Natural Silver), yellow gold (Warm Gold), and a duskier […]

If you have written more than a couple of scrapers, you already know the pattern. The first few hundred requests fly through. Then responses slow down, you start seeing 429 Too Many Requests , a captcha wall appears, and finally the target just returns empty pages or a hard 403 . Your code did not change. Your IP did. Scraping at any real volume is less about parsing HTML and more about managing where your requests come from. This post is a practical walk-through of how proxies fit into a scraping pipeline: why a single IP fails, what proxy types actually matter, how rotation works, and how to wire it all up in Python with requests , aiohttp , and Scrapy. There is code you can copy, plus the mistakes that cost me the most time. Why one IP is never enough Every site you scrape sees the same thing: a stream of requests from one address, arriving faster and more regularly than a human ever would. Anti-bot systems are built to spot exactly that. The signals they use are boring but effective: Request rate per IP. Too many hits in a short window trips a rate limiter. Volume over time. Even a slow scraper eventually stands out if every request comes from the same address for hours. Behavioral fingerprint. No mouse, no scroll, identical headers, requests in perfect intervals. Reputation. Datacenter ranges that have been abused before are pre-flagged. You can soften some of these with headers, delays, and a real browser, but there is a ceiling. Once a single IP has made enough requests, it gets throttled or blocked regardless of how polite you are. The only way past that ceiling is to spread requests across many addresses, so no single one crosses the threshold. That is the entire job of a proxy pool. The proxy landscape, minus the marketing Providers love to complicate this. For scraping, the distinctions that actually change your results are these: Shared vs private. Shared proxies are handed to many customers at once. You inherit everyone else's behavior, so an address ca

The Architecture Shift: SPA vs. Framework Internationalization (i18n) is one of those features that feels straightforward in a Single Page Application (SPA). You install react-i18next , wrap your app in a provider, and you're good to go. However, when you decide to migrate that Vite-based React app to Next.js for better SEO and performance, the strategy for i18n changes fundamentally. In a Vite SPA, i18n is typically client-side. In Next.js, i18n happens at the routing and server level. If you don't plan the migration carefully, you'll end up with hydration mismatches, flashing text, or broken search engine indexing. Here is how to navigate the transition. 1. Defining the Routing Strategy In Vite, your translations often live in the same bundle, and you swap them out using a state hook. Next.js, particularly with the App Router, prefers sub-path routing (e.g., /en/about or /es/about ). This is crucial for SEO because it allows search engines to crawl localized versions of your pages individually. Instead of relying on localStorage to remember a user's language, you should now rely on the URL. Most teams moving from Vite use a middleware approach to detect the user's preferred locale and redirect them to the correct sub-path. 2. Choosing the Right Library If you were using react-i18next in your Vite project, you have two main paths in Next.js: next-i18next (Pages Router): The traditional choice for the Pages Router. next-intl or i18next + i18next-resources-to-backend (App Router): These are modern solutions that leverage Server Components. When handling complex migrations involving many components, using a specialized tool like ViteToNext.AI can help automate the transformation of your Vite project structure into a Next.js-ready architecture, saving you hours of manual refactoring. 3. Handling Server Components vs. Client Components one of the biggest hurdles is that useTranslation() hooks from standard i18n libraries are "Client hooks." In the App Router, you'll wan

In the 1960s an MIT professor named Joseph Weizenbaum created a chatbot called ELIZA. The conversations people had with it set precedents for the chatbots to come.

Every business wants more leads. But the real challenge isn't generating them—it's identifying which leads deserve your team's attention first. Instead of manually reviewing every inquiry, we can build a simple AI-powered API that analyzes incoming leads and assigns a priority score automatically. In this article, I'll show a lightweight production-ready approach using Next.js 15 and Gemini 3.5 Flash. Project Structure app/ ├── api/ │ └── qualify/ │ └── route.ts ├── lib/ │ └── gemini.ts └── page.tsx API Route import { NextResponse } from "next/server"; export async function POST(req: Request) { const { company, message } = await req.json(); const prompt = ` Company: ${company} Message: ${message} Give: - Score (1-100) - Priority - Reason `; // Call Gemini API here return NextResponse.json({ success: true, score: 92, priority: "High" }); } Example Response { " score " : 92 , " priority " : " High " , " reason " : " Large company with a clear automation requirement. " } Now your CRM, chatbot, or automation workflow can instantly decide which leads should be contacted first. Why This Matters A simple AI scoring layer can help teams: Reduce manual lead review Respond faster to high-value prospects Prioritize enterprise customers Improve sales efficiency Save hours every week The best part is that this API can be connected to forms, chatbots, CRMs, or n8n workflows without changing your existing process. Production Tips Before deploying this to production, make sure you: Validate incoming requests Store API keys securely Add rate limiting Log AI responses for monitoring Cache repeated requests where appropriate Small improvements like these make a huge difference once traffic starts growing. Final Thoughts AI shouldn't replace your sales team—it should remove repetitive work so they can focus on conversations that actually matter. A lightweight lead qualification API is one of the fastest AI features you can add to an existing product, and it scales well as your business

An activity log tells us what an agent did. A decision log should also tell us what it considered and rejected. Without rejected options, a later reviewer sees a clean path that never existed: model B was selected, the task restarted, the result succeeded. Missing are the reasons model A was unsuitable, why staying put was worse, and what new evidence would change the choice. That information matters for trust and recovery. It lets people challenge a decision without reconstructing the entire session. Execution history is necessary, but different The MonkeyCode model-switch record at commit c58bcd4 stores the task and user, from/to model IDs, request ID, whether to load the session, success, message, session ID, and timestamps. The switch use case creates that switch record, restarts the task with the target configuration, and records the result. That is valuable execution history. It answers “what switch was requested and what happened?” The expanded rejected-options structure below is my design proposal , not a claim about MonkeyCode's current schema or interface. Add the decision before the outcome A reusable record can separate choice from execution: { "decision_id" : "task-42-model-switch-7" , "context" : "The task needs the required tool-call contract." , "chosen" : { "option" : "model-b" , "reason" : "Passed the declared capability contract" , "evidence" : [ "evaluation/capability-model-b.json" ] }, "rejected" : [ { "option" : "model-a" , "reason" : "Required tool-call case failed" , "evidence" : [ "evaluation/capability-model-a.json" ], "revisit_when" : "Adapter version changes" } ], "execution" : { "request_id" : "req-switch-7" , "result" : "success" , "session_id" : "session-9" } } The key field is revisit_when . “Rejected” should not mean universally bad. It should mean unsuitable under a specific context and evidence set. Design the interface for progressive disclosure Do not paste this JSON into the main task timeline. Use three layers: Timeline: Switch

Downloading an installer and immediately executing it as root collapses three operational decisions into one command: Which artifact? -> Did these bytes arrive intact? -> Should this host execute them? Separate those decisions and the install becomes reviewable, reproducible, and recoverable. A concrete source-review boundary At commit c58bcd4 , the MonkeyCode runner installation template selects x86_64 or aarch64 , checks AVX on x86, requires root, and downloads an architecture-specific installer before executing it. The reviewed template uses curl -4sSLk , so certificate verification is disabled by -k . It also downloads an unversioned path. I could not find a pinned version, digest, or signature check in that template. That is a statement about controls visible in one pinned file—not a claim that the release service is compromised or that no external release control exists. Put a manifest before execution For each release artifact, publish immutable metadata through a separately protected release process: { "version" : "1.2.3" , "architecture" : "x86_64" , "file" : "runner-installer-1.2.3-x86_64" , "sha256" : "<64 lowercase hex characters>" , "size" : 18439210 , "rollback" : { "previous_version" : "1.2.2" , "artifact" : "runner-installer-1.2.2-x86_64" } } SHA-256 detects bytes that differ from the manifest. It does not prove who authored the manifest. Serve the manifest over validated TLS, pin it through deployment configuration, or sign it and verify the signature with a trusted offline public key. Verify as an unprivileged staging step The companion verify-installer.mjs checks filename, exact size, digest, version, architecture, and rollback metadata: node verify-installer.mjs release-manifest.json fixture-installer.sh node test-verifier.mjs Expected output uses the fixture's actual digest: PASS 1.2.3-fixture sha256=<digest> PASS verified fixture; rejected tampered artifact before execution The negative test appends a line to the artifact and requires both size

I'll Be Honest: The Internet Already Has Translators I know. Language translation isn't a new idea. There are already huge translation platforms out there. So when I started working on a translator for my tools website, I wasn't thinking: "I'm going to reinvent translation." Not at all. My thought was much simpler: "Can I make quick translation feel less distracting?" My Frustration Was Actually Pretty Simple Sometimes I just need to translate text. That's it. I don't want to: Create an account Open five different menus Break a long text into tiny pieces Jump between multiple tools I want to paste the text... Choose a language... And get the translation. So I Built My Own Version 👉 https://allinonetools.net/language-translator/ The tool currently supports 200+ languages and language variations . You can: Detect the source language Select the target language Translate long text Upload text Use voice input Listen to the result Copy or share the translation And I wanted to keep the text experience simple without forcing users into tiny input limits. Just: Enter → Choose Language → Translate 200+ Languages Sounded Simple Until I Saw the List English. Hindi. Gujarati. Spanish. Arabic. These are the languages most people immediately think about. But then I started going through the full language list. Abkhaz. Acholi. Afar. Alur. Aymara. Baluchi. And many more. Honestly... I hadn't even heard of some of them before building this. That was probably my biggest learning moment. I Realized How Small My Own View of the Internet Was As a developer, it's easy to build around the languages we personally know. For me, seeing English, Hindi, and Gujarati feels normal. But the internet is much bigger than my own experience. Someone somewhere may be trying to understand a sentence in a language I've never even heard spoken. That changed how I looked at this tool. The Hard Part Wasn't Adding a Dropdown A dropdown with 200+ options looks impressive. But that's not the real problem. The

Native XDP and generic SKB-mode XDP are not the same thing in practice. The same BPF program can pass the verifier and still behave differently depending on which mode the kernel uses, this could be a different verdict, different frame bytes, or different metadata. This post ships three things: an open differential test harness, a fixed eleven-packet corpus, and a simple way to classify the differences it finds. A tagged release lets anyone reproduce the virtio/veth baseline on Linux 6.8. The operational risk is straightforward. A firewall or rate-limiter validated only under native XDP can fall back to generic mode on an unsupported driver, a veth port, or after a reload. You keep the same bytecode, but behaviour can change, often without a clear error line. What this release includes: A harness loop: corpus → inject on the RX path → native vs generic sweep → xdpdump capture → compare.py manifest, comparing both the captured frame bytes and the XDP verdict ( PASS / DROP / TX / REDIRECT ). A deterministic corpus with eleven embedded test IDs ( 0xA001 – 0xA005 , 0xA007 – 0xA00C ; 0xA006 is intentionally omitted as a reserved gap in the generator). An operational divergence taxonomy (Class A / B / C). A virtio/veth smoke gate on Linux 6.8; now gating on frame bytes and verdict agreement that shows the full path is reproducible end to end. Scope for this post: native vs generic XDP on the virtio_vm profile only (five BPF programs, pinned manifests). This is part 1 of 2; it establishes the harness and an instrument-validity baseline; a follow-up post covers bare-metal divergence results. Physical NIC results are not part of this baseline. Ordinary conformance checks stop at “did the program load?” Differential testing asks a sharper question: given identical input packets, do the backends produce the same observable outcome at the hook? Background: native vs generic XDP Both modes load the same BPF object. They diverge at the hook point and in how the packet is represen