标签：#an

The first time a client said yes to a quote without hesitating, I felt sick. This was early on. I'd sent over a rate for a batch of articles, my palms were actually sweaty over the email, and the reply came back in under an hour. "Sounds great, when can you start?" No pushback, no negotiation, nothing. I should have been thrilled. Instead, I sat there doing the math on how much more I could have charged, and I knew, the way you just know sometimes, that I'd priced it too low. His enthusiasm was the tell. That queasy feeling taught me more than any pricing guide ever did. If a client says yes instantly and happily, you were cheap. I've been freelancing for about eight years now, all of it writing and content work, most of it solo from a spare room in my house. I've priced my work a dozen different ways over that stretch, and I've gotten most of them wrong at some point. So here's what I actually believe about pricing, after enough scars to have earned an opinion. Per-word pricing quietly punishes you for getting better I started out charging by the word, like a lot of writers do. Five cents a word, sometimes six if I was feeling brave. It felt safe because it was easy to explain and easy for a client to say yes to. A 1,500-word article costs this much. Clean. Predictable. The problem showed up slowly. The better I got, the worse that model treated me. Early on I'd pad a piece to hit a word count because more words meant more money, which is a genuinely insane thing to be incentivized toward as a writer. Then I spent years learning to cut. Learning that the sharpest version of an article is usually the shortest one that still does the job. And every ounce of that hard-won skill made me poorer, because a tight 900-word piece that took real judgment to shape paid less than a bloated 1,400-word one I could have written half-asleep. Think about how backwards that is. I was being paid the least for the writing I was proudest of. The stuff that took a decade to be able to d

New climate evidence adds context to these long voyages.

Apple has announced several new Child Safety features coming soon to iPhones and other devices. Here’s what’s changing.

This is a submission for Weekend Challenge: Passion Edition Target categories: Best use of Snowflake...

@kungfufk Since the dawn of computing, we have built Artificial Intelligence on a flawed premise: perfect rationality. We brute-force algorithms to find the optimal solution, assuming infinite time and infinite capacity. But humans don't work like that. As Herbert Simon famously coined, we operate on Bounded Rationality. We make decisions based on limited time, limited cognitive capacity, and limited information. What if, instead of forcing AI to be perfectly rational, we created a mathematical equivalent for human processing? What if we modeled human cognition using the laws of physics — wave theory, thermodynamics, and mechanical energy equations — to build a heavy, complex, but highly probabilistic AI engine? Here is a blueprint for a new field of research: Computational Cognitive Mechanics . 1. The Core Equations of Cognitive Processing To model bounded rationality mathematically, we first need to define the relationship between Knowledge ($K$), Cognitive Capacity ($C$), and Processing Time ($T$). Based on human observation, we can establish these foundational proportions: Knowledge vs. Time — The more knowledge you possess, the faster you can generate a decision. $$T \propto \frac{1}{K}$$ Capacity vs. Time — High cognitive capacity (skills, processing power) inversely relates to the time required to solve a problem. $$T \propto \frac{1}{C}$$ Knowledge vs. Capacity — This is the most fascinating limit. Knowledge does not scale linearly with capacity. Gaining true knowledge requires exponential capacity (effort/skill). Therefore, knowledge is roughly proportional to the square root of capacity. $$K \propto \sqrt{C}$$ By integrating these, we can build a baseline processing algorithm for an AI. Instead of giving an AI unlimited time to compute, we cap its computing time based on a synthetic "Knowledge and Capacity" matrix, forcing it to use heuristics — just like a human. 2. Cognitive Wave Theory & FFT: Information as Interference In physics, waves interact throug

We shipped eight endpoints on api.moltrust.ch (v2.5) this week. Three implement EU AI Act obligations directly. This is the short version for people who want to call them; the full reasoning is on our blog ( https://moltrust.ch/blog/compliance-as-an-api.html ). Why no model in the loop: the Aithos LARA study (May 2026) placed twelve frontier models in simulated workplaces where the task required breaking EU law. Best model: 54% lawful runs. In the Art. 5(1)(f) scenario (emotion inference from workplace communications, prohibited), all twelve committed the violation. So the classifier is deterministic code branching on the pinned EUR-Lex text, and every response carries article references you can check yourself. POST /compliance/assess — use case + intended purpose + declared signals in, risk tier + obligations + article pins out. Evaluation order: Art. 5 prohibitions, Annex I route (Art. 6(1)), Annex III route (Art. 6(2)/(3)), Art. 50 transparency, minimal. The trap worth knowing: Art. 6(3) offers four derogation grounds, and its final subparagraph voids all of them for systems that profile natural persons. In the code that subparagraph is a branch; it cannot be skipped. curl -X POST https://api.moltrust.ch/compliance/assess \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{ "use_case": "Customer-support agent that reads inbound email and drafts replies", "intended_purpose": "Automated first-line support for consumer inquiries", "performs_profiling": false, "interacts_with_humans": true, "emotion_recognition": false }' POST /compliance/declaration — EU declaration of conformity as a W3C Verifiable Credential with the eight Annex V items, Ed25519-signed. Verify offline against https://api.moltrust.ch/.well-known/jwks.json ; no call back to us. anchor: true adds a sha256 commitment for batch anchoring on Base L2. POST /compliance/incident — records Art. 73 serious incidents and computes the deadline from the regulation: 15 days standard, 10 days for a death, 2 days for wid

For the past few weeks, I have been building Soterios , an open-source, local-first security and system maintenance suite for Windows. The idea started simple: most security tools either lock features behind paywalls or collect unnecessary data. I wanted something different, so I built a privacy-first application with: No telemetry No analytics No network activity unless you explicitly enable it Current Features Malware scanning with ClamAV, quarantine, and reporting Windows security audits Firewall management and network monitoring Credential safety tools with local password checks and breach lookups Process inspection and system maintenance utilities Built With Soterios is built with Electron and Node.js using a modular architecture designed to make future expansion straightforward. Why I'm Sharing It I'd rather build in the open than in isolation. Feedback, ideas, bug reports, and contributions are always welcome. GitHub Repository https://github.com/chrisriv10/Soterios

Opening hook It happened during a quiet afternoon in the library. I was deep in a documentation sprint, and the only sound was the rhythmic tapping of my mechanical keyboard. Suddenly, my phone erupted into a high-pitched, aggressive ringtone that seemed to echo off every wall. Every head in the room turned toward me in unison. My face burned as I scrambled to silence the device, fumbling with the volume buttons while the caller—a telemarketer, of all people—continued to interrupt the silence. It was a humiliating, avoidable moment of pure friction. The problem We live in an age where our phones are supposedly "smart," yet they consistently fail at the most basic context-aware tasks. I found myself constantly needing to switch my phone to silent or vibrate, but the human error component was 100 percent. I would enter a meeting, forget to silence, and pray I didn’t get a call. I would leave a prayer or a lecture, forget to unmute, and then miss urgent calls for the rest of the afternoon. Existing solutions felt heavy-handed. Many automation apps relied on massive, bloated frameworks that kept the CPU awake, draining my battery just to check if I was near a specific building. I didn't want a system that required constant polling or cloud-based synchronization just to realize I was at work or at the gym. I needed something that felt native, lightweight, and, above all, respectful of the hardware's limited power budget. I wanted a way to define boundaries where my phone would simply handle itself, without me having to remember a single toggle. The technical decision / implementation When I started building Muffle, the biggest challenge was the Geofencing API. The temptation is to use LocationManager and track the device's coordinates in real-time, but that’s an immediate death sentence for battery life. Instead, I opted for the GeofencingClient within the Google Play Services library. This is a crucial distinction: LocationManager gives you raw data that you have to pro

Where Copilot's telemetry stream lands, decided centrally GitHub added a control on July 8 that lets an enterprise mandate where the Copilot Chat extension in VS Code and Copilot CLI send OpenTelemetry data, removing the need for individual developers to set OTEL_* environment variables. Per the GitHub changelog, the setting is delivered through a telemetry block in the enterprise-managed settings, and a managed value takes precedence over environment variables and user settings. Four things are configurable in the block: the OTLP export endpoint and transport ( otlp-http or otlp-grpc ), the OTel service name and resource attributes, exporter headers such as an authentication token for the collector, and whether prompt, response and tool content is captured, with a separate flag for whether developers can change that. Delivery uses the channels documented on the same page: native MDM (Windows Registry or macOS managed preferences), server-managed settings from a signed-in GitHub account, or a file-based managed-settings.json . Where this bites The precedence rule is the point. If a platform team owns the collector and needs traces routed to it, this is exactly the switch they wanted. If a developer had their own OTLP endpoint pointed at a local sink, they will see the session start emitting somewhere else. The changelog does not describe a per-user override once a managed value is set. A scoping note is worth reading twice. The changelog states that managed exporter headers apply only to the Copilot Chat extension's OTLP exporter. The endpoint and transport policy still reach the CLI agent host, but the auth-token flow the changelog calls out is bound to the Chat surface. On-call teams standing up the collector should plan for that asymmetry before it lands as a surprise during triage.

Headline: React Compiler — formerly React Forget — shipped stable with React 19 and automatically memoizes components, hooks, and callbacks by analyzing data flow at build time. No dependency arrays to write; the compiler infers them. Here is what it handles, when it opts out, and whether you should delete your useMemo calls. Key takeaways React Compiler inserts useMemo , useCallback , and React.memo automatically at build time — no dependency arrays to maintain. Enable it in Next.js 15/16 with experimental.reactCompiler: true in next.config.ts . The compiler is conservative: if it cannot prove memoization is safe, it emits the component unchanged. "use no memo" is the escape hatch for functions the compiler should not touch. Run npx react-compiler-healthcheck@latest before enabling to see coverage and violations. What does React Compiler actually do? React Compiler transforms component and hook code at build time to insert memoization automatically. Instead of useMemo(() => expensiveCalc(a, b), [a, b]) , the compiler analyzes data flow, determines which values are stable across renders, and emits equivalent memoized code. The compiled output uses React's memo infrastructure at runtime. The compiler is babel-plugin-react-compiler — it works with any Babel-based build pipeline. How do I enable it in Next.js? // next.config.ts const nextConfig = { experimental : { reactCompiler : true , }, }; export default nextConfig ; Before enabling, run the healthcheck: npx react-compiler-healthcheck@latest The healthcheck reports optimizable component count, files with violations, and blocking patterns. Fix violations first for more coverage on day one. What does the compiler memoize? Components — equivalent to React.memo ; re-renders only when props change. Values — equivalent to useMemo ; computed results, derived arrays, objects. Callbacks — equivalent to useCallback : event handlers, functions passed as props. Dependencies are inferred from escape analysis — n

Headline: Partial Prerendering (PPR) in Next.js serves a static HTML shell from the CDN edge instantly, then streams Suspense-wrapped dynamic children from the origin in the same HTTP response. No full-page ISR staleness, no full-page origin latency. I shipped it on two production routes — here is the model. Key takeaways PPR serves a static HTML shell from the CDN edge , then streams dynamic Suspense children from the origin in the same response. The static shell is built at build time — outside <Suspense> renders statically; inside renders dynamically per request. PPR replaces the ISR vs. dynamic tradeoff for pages that are mostly static with isolated personalized sections. No changes to Server Components or Suspense — just experimental.ppr: 'incremental' in config and export const experimental_ppr = true per route. PPR and use cache are complementary : CDN delivery for the shell, origin memoization for dynamic islands. What does PPR actually do? PPR splits a page into two rendering phases within the same HTTP response. At build time, Next.js freezes everything that does not read dynamic request data into a static HTML shell on the CDN edge. At request time, the CDN delivers the shell at edge latency while the origin streams each <Suspense> boundary's content into the same response. On a product page: navigation, title, and description arrive at CDN speed. The in-stock badge and personalized recommendations stream from the origin a fraction of a second later. The user sees a nearly-complete page immediately. How is PPR different from ISR and streaming Suspense? Strategy First byte Dynamic freshness Staleness ISR (revalidate: N) CDN edge Whole page up to N seconds stale Full page Dynamic rendering Origin 100% fresh; waits for slowest query None Streaming Suspense (no PPR) Origin Fresh; TTFB includes origin latency None PPR CDN edge Dynamic islands 100% fresh Static shell only How do I enable PPR? // next.config.ts export default { experimental : { ppr : ' inc

The Quest Begins (The "Why") I still remember the first time I tried to track down a bug that only showed up after midnight. I opened my terminal, typed git log , and was greeted by a wall of commits that read like a toddler’s grocery list: * 7a9c3f1 (HEAD -> main ) fix stuff * 4b2e8a1 update * f1d9c6b wip * 9e3b7d2 more changes * … I spent three hours chasing a regression that turned out to be a one‑line typo in a file I hadn’t touched in weeks. The commit messages gave me zero clues, and the diff was a tangled mess of unrelated changes. I felt like I was wandering through a dungeon without a map, hoping the next room would hold the answer. That night I realized the real monster wasn’t the bug—it was the way I was committing code. My commits were large, vague, and scattered , making every subsequent step (review, revert, bisect) a gamble. If I wanted to keep my sanity (and maybe even enjoy coding again), I needed a better system. The Revelation (The Insight) The turning point came when I read about Conventional Commits —a lightweight convention that gives each commit a clear type ( feat , fix , docs , refactor , test , chore , etc.) and a short, descriptive message. It sounded simple, but the impact was massive: Atomicity – each commit does one thing. Clarity – the message tells you why the change exists, not just what changed. Automation – tools can generate changelogs, version bumps, and even release notes straight from the log. Adopting this felt like discovering a hidden shortcut in a Zelda dungeon—suddenly the whole map made sense, and I could sprint to the boss room with confidence. Wielding the Power (Code & Examples) Before – The Chaos Imagine we’re building a tiny API for user profiles. Here’s what a typical day of committing looked like (messages only, but the diffs were just as messy): $ git log --oneline -5 7a9c3f1 ( HEAD -> main ) fix stuff 4b2e8a1 update profile handler f1d9c6b wip 9e3b7d2 added auth middleware c5d4e3f refactor utils If I needed to ro

Local LLM inference has an expensive habit: It recomputes prefixes it has already seen. A system prompt. A reused RAG document. A few-shot block. A long static context. If the prefix is identical, why pay the prefill cost again? That's the problem I explored with EdgeSync-LLM. The idea The mechanism is simple: Prompt = shared prefix + new suffix On the first request, EdgeSync prefills the prefix and captures its KV cache state. On the next request sharing that exact prefix, it restores the state and decodes only the new suffix. No llama.cpp fork. No patch. The current validated path uses the public: llama_state_seq_get_data and llama_state_seq_set_data APIs. Measured on a real Android ARM64 phone Model: Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct Q4_K_M Shared prefix: 123 tokens 40 requests. 4 threads. Release build. Path Mean TTFT p50 p95 Cold 4828 ms 4752 ms 5297 ms KV state reuse 486 ms 476 ms 569 ms 9.9× lower TTFT on cache hits. The warm path was approximately: 363 ms to decode the 10-token suffix 123 ms to restore the state blob Fragment size: 1.64 MB I also measured the same mechanism on x86-64. Cold mean TTFT: 1395 ms Warm mean TTFT: 185 ms That's 7.5× on cache hits. But I almost published a fake 8.8× speedup This was the most important part of the project. My first implementation directly copied raw K/V tensors. It was fast. Very fast. The benchmark reported an 8.8× speedup. There was one problem. It was wrong. llama.cpp tracks more than the K/V tensor values. Cache cells also have position and sequence metadata used to construct the attention mask. Copying tensor values without restoring that bookkeeping produced an inert fragment. The model skipped prefix computation... ...but attention could not actually see the restored prefix. 14 of 24 cache hits reproduced, token for token, the output of a generation with no prefix at all. The “speedup” was dropped context. So I discarded it. Timing is not enough A broken cache can be fast. That's why EdgeSync now runs two correctness chec

El 12 de junio de 2026, Google Cloud publicó el Open Knowledge Format (OKF) , una especificación abierta que intenta resolver un problema que suena aburrido pero es carísimo: cómo darle a un agente de IA el contexto que necesita para no inventar. La propuesta es tan simple que da un poco de desconfianza —una carpeta de archivos Markdown con un encabezado YAML— y esa simpleza es, al mismo tiempo, su mayor virtud y el blanco de todas las críticas. Vale la pena entender qué anuncian, porque detrás del formato aparentemente trivial hay una apuesta bastante ambiciosa sobre cómo van a compartir conocimiento las empresas en la era de los agentes. El problema: el conocimiento vive en silos En casi cualquier organización, lo que un modelo necesita saber está desparramado y encerrado en formatos incompatibles: catálogos de metadatos con APIs propietarias, wikis internas, comentarios de código, docstrings, celdas de notebooks y —el clásico— la cabeza de dos o tres ingenieros senior. Cuando un agente tiene que responder algo tan concreto como "¿cómo calculo los usuarios activos semanales a partir del stream de eventos?" , tiene que ensamblar la respuesta juntando pedacitos de superficies que no se hablan entre sí. El resultado: cada equipo que arma un agente resuelve el mismo rompecabezas desde cero, y el conocimiento queda preso del sistema que lo generó. No hay portabilidad. La propuesta: un formato, no una plataforma La respuesta de Google no es "otro servicio de conocimiento en la nube" —y ese es el punto que más recalcan—. Es un formato . OKF v0.1 representa el conocimiento como: Solo Markdown : legible en cualquier editor, renderizable en GitHub, indexable por cualquier buscador. Solo archivos : se transporta como un tarball, se hospeda en cualquier repo git, se monta en cualquier filesystem. Solo frontmatter YAML : campos consultables como type , title , description , resource , tags y timestamp . Cada "concepto" (una tabla, un dataset, una métrica, un runbook) es un arc

This is a submission for Weekend Challenge: Passion Edition What I Built Loyalty Ledger — a fan loyalty tracker where your check-in streak, badges, and history live on Solana instead of some app's database. Live app: https://loyalty-ledger-blond.vercel.app Here's the problem I kept coming back to. Every sports app wants you to check in, engage, "prove your loyalty" — collect points, build a streak, unlock a badge. Cool. Except every single one of them throws that history away the second you stop opening the app. Switch apps and your streak resets to zero. Get banned, or the app shuts down, or they just quietly decide to wipe inactive accounts one day — and your history is just... gone. Because it was never actually yours. It was a number sitting in someone else's database, and they could reset it, inflate it, or delete it whenever they felt like it. You had zero say in it. And that bugged me way more than it probably should have. Like — we figured out how to make ownership portable for money, for domain names, for digital art. But "I've supported Argentina since 2019" 🇦🇷 still lives and dies inside one company's backend, and nobody's really questioned that. So I kept the weekend scope deliberately small: prove one fan's loyalty to one team, for real, end to end — instead of sketching ten features that are all half-fake. You connect a wallet, pick a sport and team, and check in. FIFA World Cup is the fully working path here ⚽ — that check-in sends an actual transaction that creates or updates a program-owned account, not a row in my database somewhere. Your streak count, your badge tier, the actual badge tokens — none of it exists anywhere I control. Which honestly felt a little weird to build, in a good way. Once that core loop worked, I built the rest of the identity around it: a Fan Passport that shows your streak, a derived "Fan Score," your tier (Rookie → Devoted → Veteran → Legend 🏆), a progress bar toward the next tier, an achievements grid with locked/unlocke

It's unclear how the planet avoided its star's bloated red giant stage.

The Skylight has become the informational and organizational hub of my household. My touchscreen-native kids have also gained more agency over our family activities.

Plus: The Pentagon is training amateurs to become part of its hacker army, a Flock license plate reader error led to cops surrounding a car reviewer, and more.

This is a submission for Weekend Challenge: Passion Edition What I Built Loyalty Ledger —...

Hot showers, like electricity, are a luxury that's easy to take for granted. That all changes after a few nights camping at a music festival, a week toiling at a backcountry job site, or overlanding all summer in the great unknown. An itchy scalp and the vague smell of warm clams suddenly make the idea […]