标签：#X

Hello Dev Community! 👋 It is officially Day 71 of my unbroken 100-day full-stack engineering run! After mastering polymorphic multi-part storage configurations yesterday, today I successfully crossed into core transactional operations: Engineering a High-Fidelity "Confirm and Pay" Checkout View and Wiring Database Inbound Array Modifications! In real-world booking platforms, processing a successful transaction requires more than updating an absolute view; you have to link documents relationally across collections. Today, I wired that entire execution pipeline together! 🧠 What I Handled on Day 71 (Checkout Engineering & Target Mutations) As displayed across my latest system files in "Screenshot (164).png" and "Screenshot (165).jpg" , handling payments runs through structured backend steps: 1. High-Fidelity Checkout Component ( /reserve ) I built out the detailed split-pane verification interface visible in "Screenshot (164).png" . The layout captures target trip date selections, total guests parameter caps, card input structures, and computes subtotal ledgers dynamically: Base Compute: $9000 x 5 nights = $45000 . Transactional Upgrades: Appending structured service charges ( $85 ) and local tax calculations ( $42 ) to update the final sum directly to $45127 . 2. Live Document Array Mutators (MongoDB User List Insertion) The most crucial logic happens when the user clicks the primary validation trigger labeled Confirm and pay : The inbound route controller extracts the targeted property identity token ( home._id ) via an embedded hidden input container. Instead of running isolation updates, it issues an atomized update operation straight into our MongoDB user records array (e.g., using Mongoose operators like $push or tracking active profiles inside our custom data state loops). This appends the exact property listing target ID directly into the user's booking history array database matrix! 🛠️ View Markup Code Integration View As showcased in my VS Code script structu

My main work laptop is a Dell from 2017 with 8 GB of RAM. For weeks it had been crawling, freezing for whole seconds while I worked, and every so often it would simply switch itself off in the middle of a task. If you have ever lost unsaved work to a laptop that powers down on its own, you know exactly how frustrating that is. So I sat down and fixed it properly. The first thing I learned is worth saying up front: a slow, crashing laptop is usually two different problems wearing the same costume . Treat them as one and you will chase your tail. Separate them, and both become fixable. Everything below is free and copy-paste ready. It was tested on Ubuntu 24.04 LTS, and it applies to almost any older Linux machine. The honest disclaimer: Nobody can promise an old laptop will never lag. Software cannot add cores or memory that are not physically there. But you can absolutely stop the freezes and shutdowns completely and make everyday work feel smooth. That is the realistic, achievable goal. 0. Diagnose first, do not guess The biggest mistake is blindly applying "speed up Ubuntu" tweaks before knowing what is actually wrong. Spend five minutes measuring. Your lag has one of four common causes: heat, memory, disk, or a dying battery . Check temperature (the usual cause of random shutdowns): sudo apt install lm-sensors -y sudo sensors-detect --auto sensors Watch the Core temperatures while you work. If they spike past 90 to 100 °C right before a crash, you have a thermal problem, not a software one. Check memory (the usual cause of freezing): free -h sudo apt install htop -y htop In htop , watch the Mem and Swp bars during normal use. If memory pins near your limit and swap fills up, that thrashing is your freeze. Check disk space (a quiet killer): df -h / A root partition above 90% full makes Linux lag and turn unstable. Small SSDs fill up fast. Read the crash logs and battery health: # What went wrong during the previous (crashed) session journalctl -b -1 -p err --no-pa

A */1 rsync took our staging box to a load average of 41 one afternoon, and it took me longer than I want to admit to work out why. The sync normally finished in about twenty seconds. That day the backup target's NFS mount went sluggish, the sync started taking ninety seconds, and cron — which does not know or care whether the last run is still going — launched a fresh copy every single minute on top of it. Inside ten minutes there were a half-dozen rsyncs all reading the same tree off the same slow disk, each one making the disk slower, each new minute adding another. The box wasn't under attack. It was attacking itself, one polite copy at a time. The thing that stung was that nothing was broken — every individual rsync was correct, the disk eventually recovered on its own, and the only reason it became an outage is that cron has no concept of "the last one is still running." That's the trap with scheduled jobs: a command that's perfectly fine when you run it by hand can take down a server the first time it runs longer than its interval with nobody watching. The fix everyone reaches for first is the wrong one The instinct is a PID file: write $$ to /var/run/job.pid on start, check whether that file exists on the next run, bail if it does. It almost works. Then one run gets kill -9 'd, or the box reboots mid-job, and the PID file is left behind pointing at a process that died on Tuesday. Now every future run sees a "lock" owned by a PID that no longer exists, and the job never runs again — the opposite failure, just as silent. There's also a race between the check and the write, and the times you most need the lock to be clean are exactly the times cleanup didn't happen, because the process died before it could clean up. flock has none of that. The lock isn't a file you create and delete — it's a lock the kernel holds on an open file descriptor , and the kernel releases it automatically the instant that descriptor closes. The process exiting closes it. So does crash

Amazon is planning to increase the footprint of its new conversational AI assistant Alexa+ to India and is inviting users in the country to test out a Hindi-language version.

If you don't get lucky with Valve's Steam Machine reservation system, you can make your own Steam Machine instead. Valve says that "starting with the SteamOS 3.8 release, you can put together your own Steam Machine using whatever PC parts you want." SteamOS 3.8.10 launched last week with a slew of updates, including "improved compatibility […]

Reflection AI will pay $150 million a month beginning July 1, 2026 through 2029 for immediate access to Nvidia's latest GB300 AI chips and supporting hardware across SpaceX's Colossus 2 data center near Memphis, Tennessee.

React Server Components in 2026: Patterns, Pitfalls, and When to Actually Use Them Most React Server Components problems stem from teams treating them like regular components with a new rendering location. The architecture shift is deeper than that. RSC fundamentally changes where code executes, what data can cross boundaries, and how developers reason about state. Teams that ignore these constraints burn weeks debugging serialization errors and performance regressions. The pattern that production teams overlook is the server/client boundary itself. Understanding where computation happens, what props can serialize, and when to break out of server rendering determines whether RSC improves or destroys your application's performance. Core Concepts: How RSC Actually Works Under the Hood React Server Components execute on the server and send rendered output to the client. No JavaScript bundle ships for these components. The client receives a serialized tree describing what to render, along with holes for client components to fill. The execution model works like this: the server runs your component tree, fetches data directly, and serializes the result. When the payload reaches the browser, React reconstructs the UI without hydrating server component code. Only client components hydrate with their JavaScript bundles. RSC execution flow from server to client This distinction is critical. Server components cannot use hooks like useState or useEffect because they don't exist in the browser. They render once on the server per request. Client components ship JavaScript and can use the full React API. The implication here is that your component tree becomes a mix of server and client code. The boundary between them determines your bundle size, waterfall depth, and debugging complexity. Production-Ready Patterns: Streaming, Suspense, and Data Fetching The correct pattern for data fetching in server components eliminates the request waterfall. Fetch data directly in the component

The high-altitude race is a unique test of car and driver.

The company warned about dangers of advanced AI far more than rival OpenAI.

Huntress, HackerOne, Jamf, Recorded Future, and Tanium are among the cybersecurity companies that had data stolen following an earlier breach at market research firm Klue.

Dan Fineran explores how eBPF has evolved far beyond its roots in packet filtering into a robust, safe way to extend the Linux kernel. He explains how the eBPF "verifier", the security guardrail, enables implementation of deep observability and networking without the risks of traditional kernel modules or the slow upstreaming process. By Dan Fineran

I did not choose DeepSeek because I think GPT-4 is bad. I chose it because I was building a free app, and free apps teach you what actually matters pretty fast. The question was simple: how do I keep sessions cheap enough that people can practice a lot without me lighting money on fire? The answer pushed me toward DeepSeek-V3 (and later R1 for specific tasks). The real constraint was volume The app is a conversation practice tool. People come in to rehearse hard talks, not to admire the model. A single practice session runs 8-15 turns. Each turn is roughly 300-600 tokens in, 100-300 out. Multiply that by five sessions a week per active user and the costs start compounding. Here is what the math looked like when I was choosing (mid-2026 pricing): Model Input cost (per 1M tokens) Output cost (per 1M tokens) Cost per 10-turn session (est.) GPT-4o $2.50 $10.00 ~$0.04-0.06 GPT-4 Turbo $10.00 $30.00 ~$0.12-0.18 DeepSeek-V3 $0.27 $1.10 ~$0.004-0.007 DeepSeek-R1 $0.55 $2.19 ~$0.008-0.012 At scale, the difference between $0.005 and $0.05 per session is the difference between running a free product and needing a paywall after three conversations. I wanted people to come back daily without hitting a wall. What DeepSeek handled well It stayed in character for 10-15 turns. It pushed back when the user got vague. It followed persona heuristics (numbered if/then rules in the system prompt) about as reliably as GPT-4o did for our use case. For salary negotiation rehearsal, the model needs to say "that's not in the budget" and hold that position for three more turns while the user tries different approaches. DeepSeek-V3 did this. Not perfectly, but reliably enough that sessions felt real. It also made the app easier to run as a free product. People can try, fail, reset, and try again without me worrying about per-session cost. Where GPT-4 was still better GPT-4 (and 4o) is smoother with nuanced emotional wording. When a conversation gets subtle, loaded with subtext, or requires pick

This is an adapted English version of an article I first wrote in Japanese. I work with AI to shape and review my drafts, but the argument and the field observations are my own. The numbers are cited from public surveys (linked at the end). I built an aggressive prompt-injection block to stop my AI agent from repeating the same mistakes. It worked, so I kept adding rules. By the time I noticed, the file had ballooned to 56,000 characters — and the agent had quietly stopped functioning. Too much context, attention spread too thin to act on any of it. I gutted it back to under 1,200 characters, and here's the part that still stings: it behaved better with fewer rules. That was the day I learned my whole mental model was backwards. This isn't a post about making your AI more accurate. It's about designing so that accuracy stops being the thing you depend on. The mistake I made for months My agent kept skipping the same step in a workflow. So I did what every engineer does on instinct: I added a rule. "Don't skip this step." Then it did something else dumb, so I added another rule. Then another. I was treating the rules file like a conversation with a colleague — as if the agent would remember yesterday's correction and carry it forward. It doesn't. Every run starts cold. "Be careful next time" assumes a next time that shares state with this time. For a stateless model, there is no continuity to appeal to. You are talking to a counterparty with no memory of the conversation you think you're having. So the rules pile up, because each correction feels like progress. And for a while the numbers even improve. But adding rules has a ceiling, and I blew straight through it: at 56,000 characters the agent wasn't reasoning over my guardrails anymore — it was drowning in them. Knowing a rule and stopping at it are different things Here's the distinction that took me far too long to see. Putting a rule in the context window means the model knows the rule. It does not mean the mod

У большинства self-hosted VPN-панелей одна и та же боль: Docker-стек, внешняя БД, реверс-прокси и куча конфигов, которые надо связать между собой, прежде чем хоть что-то заработает. Мне хотелось наоборот — что-то, что можно закинуть на свежий VPS и поднять меньше чем за минуту. Так появилась РосПанель : self-hosted панель для администрирования личного VPN-сервера на Xray-core , который поставляется одним статическим бинарником . React-фронтенд вшит через go:embed , база — встроенный SQLite, отдельного веб-сервера нет. Поставил, открыл, добавил юзера. Главная идея: один бинарник, ничего лишнего Цель, которая определила всё остальное, — радикальная простота. В отличие от Marzban и 3x-ui, у РосПанели нет Docker-обвязки, нет внешней БД и нет отдельного веб-сервера, который надо настраивать. Всё живёт в одном исполняемом файле: Веб-интерфейс собирается в web/dist и вшивается в Go-бинарник на этапе сборки. Состояние хранится в SQLite (чистый Go-драйвер modernc , то есть без CGO ). Конфиг Xray всегда генерируется из базы и применяется супервизором — SQLite это единственный источник правды, а не JSON, который правят руками. В итоге деплой — это просто положить бинарник и systemd-юнит. Никакой оркестрации, ничего не надо держать в синхроне. Что она на самом деле делает РосПанель — это панель управления (control plane), а не VPN-клиент. Она настраивает и обслуживает ваш собственный сервер: генерирует конфиг Xray, выдаёт ссылки на подписки и показывает статистику. Протоколы из коробки — один конфиг Xray, один набор учёток: VLESS-Vision (TCP/443 + uTLS-fingerprint) Trojan-WS (через fallback на 443) Hysteria2 (UDP с port-hopping) VLESS-gRPC-REALITY (отдельный порт, маскировка под чужой TLS) Маскировка — панель спрятана за секретным путём. Любой другой путь отдаёт сайт-заглушку (11 готовых шаблонов), так что сервер неотличим от обычного хостинга. Без знания /<secret>/ форму логина не найти. TLS, который просто работает — ACME через Let's Encrypt или ZeroSSL, авто-продление и self

I built a Chrome extension called Margin — a news reader that lives in the browser's side panel and shows one bite-sized story at a time, instead of an infinite-scroll feed. This is a build log: the decisions, the constraints that pushed back, and a couple of things I had to solve in slightly unusual ways. Why the side panel Chrome shipped chrome.sidePanel in MV3 a while back and most uses I saw were utility tools — note-taking, translation helpers. Nobody was using it for content consumption. News felt like a good fit: a side panel that stays open next to whatever you're working on, where you tap through headlines in a couple of minutes without leaving the page. The reading model is intentionally narrow: one card, one headline, one short summary, tap to read the full article at the source . No infinite scroll, no algorithmic feed. If you've used InShorts, the shape will be familiar. The stack Preact + Vite + @crxjs/vite-plugin . Preact because the side panel is a small UI surface and I didn't want React's weight for what's essentially a card stack and a settings screen. @crxjs/vite-plugin handles the MV3-specific build wiring (manifest generation, service worker loader, HMR for the extension context) that would otherwise be a lot of manual plumbing. The constraint that shaped onboarding chrome.sidePanel.open() requires a user gesture . You cannot call it from a background service worker on install — Chrome will throw. That one constraint shaped the whole first-run experience. My first instinct was "just auto-open the panel on install so people see it immediately." Doesn't work. The fix ended up being two-pronged: On chrome.runtime.onInstalled with reason === 'install' , open a real browser tab with a short walkthrough (find the icon → pin it → open the panel). The button on that page calls sidePanel.open() — valid, because the click is the gesture. The first time the panel itself is opened, show an in-panel welcome screen before onboarding, nudging the user to pin

This is a submission for the June Solstice Game Jam What I Built The Imitation Game The Imitation Game is a real-time multiplayer social deduction game inspired by Alan Turing's famous Imitation Game the thought experiment that eventually became known as the Turing Test. Most people believe they can easily tell the difference between an AI and a human. They assume AI is too perfect, too logical, too fast, or too obvious. The Imitation Game challenges that assumption. Players enter a live chat room convinced they'll spot the machine within minutes. Then conversations begin, suspicions form, accusations fly, and certainty starts to disappear. Was that awkward response written by a human, or an AI trying to sound human? Was that emotional story genuine, or generated? Was the player who stayed silent suspicious, or simply distracted? By the end of a match, players often discover that identifying an AI is far harder than they expected. The real question isn't whether the machine can fool people. It's whether people are as good at detecting machines as they think they are. Instead of a single human interrogating a machine, players are placed into a live chat room with other participants and asked a simple question: Can you identify which player is actually an AI? Hidden among the players is a Quanbit , a rogue artificial intelligence from the year 3026 . Its mission is simple: blend in, appear human, avoid suspicion, and survive. The challenge for human players is equally simple, but far more difficult in practice. They must carefully analyze conversations, voting patterns, response timing, and social behavior to determine who among them is secretly the machine. The game currently features two distinct modes, each designed around a different style of deception. Eyefold Eyefold is the purest form of the game's Turing Test experience. Players enter a room where one participant is secretly a Quanbit. Conversations unfold naturally, and everyone is free to discuss any topic.

Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility — your central hub for news and insights on the future of transportation.

Part 1: Self-hosting on Jetson Orin Nano 👽 Jetson Orin Nano Web Server Follow-up...

Having spent over 25 years in software development and managing countless Linux environments, I've accumulated a vast collection of custom bash scripts, containers, and CLI tools. Remembering their exact paths and managing them efficiently directly from the terminal is a common challenge. To solve this, I built mytuis . mytuis is a small, attractive terminal UI for managing a personal catalogue of applications. It is built with gum and plain bash, with persistent storage in a human-readable YAML file. GITHUB REPO : https://github.com/horaciod/mytuis Why mytuis? I wanted a tool that didn't require heavy dependencies or a complex setup, but still looked great and provided a smooth user experience. Here is what mytuis brings to the terminal: CRUD operations: You can create, read, update, and delete application entries from a single menu. Quick launch: Pick an app from the filterable list and it is launched immediately. It replaces the manager process via exec, meaning no extra shell window is left behind. Smart path handling: It accepts absolute paths (like /usr/bin/firefox), relative paths (./scripts/myscript.sh), tilde paths (~/bin/foo), or plain command names looked up in your $PATH (firefox). Persistent metadata: Every entry stores its name, description, absolute path, creation date, and last-used date. Friendly TUI: You get clear menus, color-coded messages, and clean borders, all powered by gum. Under the Hood: Plain Text and Standard Utils Simplicity and standard compliance were key goals. mytuis requires bash ≥ 4 and standard Unix utilities like awk, sed, grep, date, and tput. Your catalogue is stored at ~/.mytuis.yaml. Because it is a standard YAML file, it can be inspected, edited, or backed up with any text editor. It is also completely safe to sync with a dotfiles repository or version-control. To ensure data integrity, all file operations are performed atomically by rewriting the YAML file from scratch on every change, so there is no risk of leaving the fi

A scan node sits at the leaf of the tree and pulls rows from a single table. A join node sits in the middle and brings together the rows that its two children send up. It takes one row from users , one row from orders , checks whether they belong to the same user, and if they match, emits the combined row. PostgreSQL has three nodes for this one job: NestLoop, HashJoin, and MergeJoin. The reason a single task splits into three nodes is much like the reason scans did. There is more than one way to find matching pairs from two inputs, and which way is cheapest depends on the size of the inputs and the shape of the join condition. Deciding which way is cheapest, by costing the alternatives, was the planner's job in an earlier chapter. This section looks at what those three nodes actually do when they execute. Given the same two tables, the three find matches in completely different ways, and that difference in approach is exactly what tells them apart. How the three nodes route requests All three join nodes are internal nodes with two children. One child is called the outer, the other the inner. All three run on the Volcano model's pull framework: when the parent asks for the next row, the join node takes rows from its two children, builds one matched row, and sends it up. The only difference is the order and manner in which it routes pull requests to its two children. NestLoop pulls the inner from the start all over again for each outer row it receives. HashJoin slurps the inner in one pass to build an index in memory, then takes outer rows one at a time and probes that index. MergeJoin, on the assumption that both sides are sorted in the same order, advances both sides one step at a time in lockstep. NestLoop: rescan the inner for every outer row The simplest method is NestLoop. As the name says, the loops are nested. The outer loop takes one row from the outer; the inner loop scans the inner from beginning to end, looking for inner rows that match that outer row. Wh