标签：#an

Animations can make an application feel faster, smoother, and more polished. However, many developers think animations are only useful for things like: page transitions modals enter/leave effects But Vue provides another powerful pattern - State-driven animations. Instead of animating when elements are added or removed from the DOM, you animate changes in reactive state. This allows you to create rich interactive experiences while keeping your code declarative and easy to maintain. In this article, we'll explore: What state-driven animations are How they differ from regular Vue transitions What problems they solve How to implement them in Vue Best practices for creating smooth UI interactions Let's dive in. 🤔 What Are State-Driven Animations? Most Vue developers are familiar with the <Transition> component. Example: <Transition> <Modal v-if= "isOpen" /> </Transition> This animates an element when it enters or leaves the DOM. But what if the element already exists and only its state changes? For example: a progress bar grows a card expands a chart updates a panel changes size a value changes position This is where state-driven animations shine. Instead of animating DOM insertion or removal, you animate changes caused by reactive state. 🟢 What Problem Do State-Driven Animations Solve? Without animations, state changes can feel abrupt. Example: <div :style= "{ width: progress + '%' }" ></div> When progress changes: progress . value = 80 The width instantly jumps. This works technically... but it doesn't feel great. 🟢 A Simple Example Let's create an animated progress bar. < script setup lang= "ts" > const progress = ref ( 20 ) function increase () { progress . value += 20 } </ script > < template > <button @ click= "increase" > Increase Progress </button> <div class= "progress-container" > <div class= "progress-bar" :style= " { width: `${progress}%` }" /> </div> </ template > CSS: .progress-container { width : 100% ; height : 12px ; background : #eee ; } .progress-bar

Modern search engines do more than match keywords. When you search for "cozy mystery set in Paris" and get results for "atmospheric detective novel in France" that's vector search at work: documents and queries are converted into lists of numbers, called embeddings, and the search engine finds the documents whose numbers are closest to the query's. Manticore Search supports this natively. Under the hood, it uses a data structure called HNSW: a graph that connects nearby vectors, so it can find nearest neighbors quickly without scanning every document. That makes vector search fast enough to run on millions of documents in milliseconds. But HNSW has an inefficiency. Early in the traversal, almost every distance computation finds a better candidate than the ones already in the result set. As the search goes on, those improvements become rarer, but the algorithm keeps traversing the graph until it exhausts its exploration budget. By that point, the result set has often already converged, and the remaining work does little or nothing to improve it. Early termination fixes this by detecting that point and stopping early. The effect becomes more noticeable as k grows, where k is the number of nearest neighbors the query asks Manticore to return. Returning more neighbors requires more graph exploration, and much of that extra work happens after the result set has already stabilized. That also makes early termination more valuable, because it has more unnecessary work to cut. This gets more pronounced with vector quantization . Quantization compresses stored vectors to save memory, which slightly lowers search precision. To recover it, Manticore uses oversampling : it fetches 3x more candidates than requested, then rescores them using the original full-precision vectors. With the default 3x oversampling, HNSW explores many more candidates per query. Large k values often come from this kind of candidate expansion: an application may ask the vector index for hundreds or thous

As the web has evolved, so have the strategies for rendering content in browsers. Two of the most widely used approaches today are Server-Side Rendering (SSR) and Client-Side Rendering (CSR). Each has its strengths and trade-offs, and understanding when to use one over the other is key to building fast, scalable, and user-friendly applications. This article explores the key differences, benefits, and common use cases of SSR and CSR, with practical examples. What is Client-Side Rendering (CSR)? Client-Side Rendering means that the browser downloads a minimal HTML shell and renders the content using JavaScript. Most of the work, fetching data, templating, and updating the DOM, happens in the user's browser after the page loads. Benefits Rich interactivity: Ideal for dynamic single-page applications (SPAs). Fast navigation after initial load: Once loaded, switching between views is instantaneous. Great for app-like experiences: Think dashboards, SaaS tools, or email clients. Drawbacks Slower initial page load: The user sees a blank screen until JavaScript loads and executes. SEO challenges: Search engines may struggle to index dynamic content, unless SSR or prerendering is used. Poor performance on slow devices: All rendering logic happens in the browser. What is Server-Side Rendering (SSR)? Server-Side Rendering generates the full HTML on the server for each request. When a user visits a page, the server fetches the data, compiles the HTML, and sends it to the browser, which then hydrates the app into an interactive component. Benefits of SSR: Fast time-to-first-byte (TTFB): HTML is ready and shows up immediately. Better SEO: Search engines receive fully rendered pages. Good for public-facing content: Blogs, marketing sites, e-commerce pages. Drawbacks Increased server load: Every page request triggers rendering logic. Longer time to interactivity: HTML loads quickly, but hydration takes extra time. Requires server infrastructure: Cannot be purely deployed as static f

PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY for Real-Time Multi-Tenant Events: Ditching Polling and WebSocket Complexity I've shipped real-time features in CitizenApp using three different approaches: naive polling (embarrassing), Redis pub/sub (overkill), and now PostgreSQL's native LISTEN/NOTIFY. The third option is what I should have started with. Most teams reach for Redis or RabbitMQ the moment they need real-time updates. It's the conventional wisdom. But here's the truth: if you're already running PostgreSQL, you have a battle-tested pub/sub system sitting right there. It handles multi-tenancy correctly, scales to thousands of concurrent connections, and eliminates an entire infrastructure dependency—which matters when you're deploying to Render or Vercel where every added service is friction. Why LISTEN/NOTIFY beats the alternatives Polling is dead. HTTP requests every 2-5 seconds for "new notifications"? That's technical debt masquerading as simplicity. It wastes bandwidth, kills your database with unnecessary queries, and users see stale data. Redis is powerful but expensive. Not just in dollars—in operational overhead. You need to manage connection pools, handle failover, monitor memory usage, and keep another service running in production. At CitizenApp's scale (thousands of concurrent tenants), we were paying $50/month for Redis on top of Render just to broadcast notifications that PostgreSQL could handle natively. WebSockets without a broker are a nightmare. If you're running multiple FastAPI workers (and you should be), a WebSocket connection to Worker A doesn't know about events published by Worker B. You need a message broker to fan-out events across processes. Unless you use PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY, which handles that automatically. PostgreSQL's pub/sub is: Transactional. Notifications only fire after a transaction commits. Tenant-aware. Use channel names like tenant_123_notifications and broadcast only to the right subscribers. Zero extra infrastructure. It's part

Thanks to the newly detailed FROST technique, telltale SSD activity can be measured in the browser using simple JavaScript.

One day last October, sitting in the courtyard of his house in China’s Henan province, Dong Hui decided to see if he could hold a pen to write. Dong, 39, had sustained spinal cord injuries in a car accident six years earlier that left him paralyzed from the neck down. Slowly but determinedly, he wrote…

One of the biggest myths in the software industry is that great engineering teams are built by hiring great engineers. They aren't. I've worked with incredibly talented developers who eventually became disengaged, indifferent, and unwilling to contribute beyond the bare minimum. I've also worked with average developers who grew into exceptional engineers because they were surrounded by a culture that rewarded curiosity, ownership, and continuous improvement. The difference was never talent. The difference was culture. The Toxicity Nobody Talks About When people hear the term toxic workplace , they usually imagine shouting managers, impossible deadlines, public humiliation, and constant pressure. Those environments certainly exist. But some of the most damaging engineering cultures are far more subtle. On the surface, everything appears professional. Meetings are calm. Nobody raises their voice. Everyone speaks politely. The company presents itself as collaborative and mature. Yet beneath that polished exterior exists a culture that quietly destroys accountability and discourages anyone from caring too much. A Simple Pull Request That Revealed a Bigger Problem Recently, while reviewing a pull request, I asked a few straightforward questions: Why are we passing an empty string to a component that doesn't function without an ID? Why is a skeleton component living in a file where it doesn't logically belong? Could this conditional statement be simplified for readability? These weren't major architectural concerns. They weren't requests to redesign the application. They were ordinary engineering discussions—the kind that happen every day inside healthy teams. When Ownership Disappears What happened next was far more interesting than the code itself. Instead of discussing whether the observations were valid, the conversation immediately shifted toward ownership. Who originally wrote the code? Who moved the code? Who was responsible for introducing it? The discussion was n

A flanged pipe joint looks simple: two raised faces, a gasket between them, a ring of bolts pulling them together. Yet the gasketed bolted flange is one of the most common sources of leaks in process plants, and the reason is almost always the same — the bolts were not tightened to the right load. Too little and the joint weeps; too much and the gasket is crushed. The number that sits between those failures is the bolt preload, and it is not the same as the pressure load. This article explains how a bolted flange actually carries internal pressure, why the bolts must be preloaded well above the pressure end force, works a concrete example, and lists the mistakes that turn a sound joint into a leaking one. Why this calculation matters Bolted flange joints appear wherever a pipe or vessel has to be opened for maintenance: pump connections, valve bodies, heat exchanger shells, instrument tappings, and reactor manways. Unlike a welded joint, a flange is meant to be taken apart and reassembled, and every reassembly depends on the fitter applying the correct bolt load. The stakes are real. A leaking flange on a hazardous service can release flammable or toxic fluid. Even a benign leak wastes product and forces an unplanned shutdown. Design codes such as ASME Section VIII Appendix 2 set out a full method for sizing flange bolts, and at its heart is a comparison: the load the bolts can supply versus the load the joint demands in two distinct conditions — seating the gasket, and holding pressure. Understand the pressure end force and you understand the floor that the bolt load must clear. The core method When the line is pressurised, internal pressure acts on the fluid inside the flange and pushes the two flanges apart. The total separating force is the hydrostatic end force , the pressure acting over the area enclosed by the gasket sealing circle: H = p * (pi / 4) * G^2 Here p is the internal pressure and G is the gasket reaction (sealing) diameter — the effective circle on

Dell, Microsoft, and others are unveiling new laptops to compete directly with the Neo, but not all are learning the right lessons from Apple.

The YouTube-to-prestige-horror pipeline is looking very strong.

The startup has apparently taken down the ads using KC Green's "This is fine" meme.

Overview PDF text extraction is a common pre-processing step in data pipelines — ingesting research papers, legal documents, or reports before embedding or indexing. Both pypdf and PdfPig are pure managed-code parsers: no native binaries, no OCR, no system PDF renderer. They implement the same PDF specification operations in their respective languages. This makes the benchmark unusually clean: the performance difference is entirely due to language execution speed, not library architecture differences. Benchmark Setup 200 recent arXiv PDFs (mixed technical papers, 5–40 pages each). Tested on subsets of 10, 50, 100, and 200 files. Both libraries extract all text from all pages; output is validated for page-count agreement and character-count agreement within 15% (pypdf and PdfPig decode whitespace and encoding tables slightly differently). Results PDFs Pages Python (pypdf) .NET (PdfPig) Speedup 10 ~120 ~0.9 s ~230 ms 3.9× 50 ~600 ~4.2 s ~810 ms 5.2× 100 ~1,200 ~8.5 s ~1.4 s 6.1× 200 ~2,400 ~17 s ~2.7 s 6.2× The speedup grows slightly with corpus size, suggesting pypdf has a per-document startup cost that compounds as PdfPig's JIT gets warmer. Why PdfPig Is Faster PDF parsing is byte-heavy: every page is a stream of PostScript-like operators (move, show text, set font, etc.). Each operator must be lexed, looked up in a dispatch table, and executed against a graphics state machine. In Python, each operator dispatch is a Python method call — the CPython bytecode interpreter has overhead per call regardless of what the method does. In .NET, the JIT compiles the dispatch loop to native code the first time it runs; subsequent pages pay only the cost of the actual work. Additionally, PdfPig's content-stream parser operates on ReadOnlySpan<byte> — zero-copy slicing through the raw page bytes with no intermediate string allocations. pypdf builds Python string objects for each token. Key Code // PdfPig — zero-copy span-based page extraction public Result Extract ( string path )

Overview PageRank is the canonical graph algorithm. NetworkX implements it in pure Python — its dict-of-dict adjacency representation means every power-iteration step dispatches millions of Python attribute lookups. When the graph has 1.8 million nodes and 28.5 million edges (Wikipedia category hyperlinks), those lookups dominate the runtime. The .NET replacement uses a CSR (Compressed Sparse Row) matrix — two flat int[] arrays for the graph structure — and TensorPrimitives for the SIMD-accelerated normalization step inside each iteration. Benchmark Setup Five SNAP datasets of increasing size: Dataset Nodes Edges wiki-Vote 7,115 103,689 soc-Epinions1 75,879 508,837 web-Stanford 281,903 2,312,497 web-Google 875,713 5,105,039 wiki-topcats 1,791,489 28,511,807 Algorithm: power-iteration PageRank, damping=0.85, tol=1e-6. Both implementations converge to identical top-10 node rankings. Results Dataset Python (NetworkX) .NET (CSR) Speedup wiki-Vote (103k edges) ~0.8 s ~100 ms ~8× soc-Epinions1 (508k edges) ~8 s ~600 ms ~13× web-Stanford (2.3M edges) ~120 s ~5 s ~24× web-Google (5.1M edges) ~5.5 min ~12 s ~28× wiki-topcats (28.5M edges) ~47 min ~60 s ~47× The speedup grows with graph size because NetworkX's Python dispatch cost scales with edge count, while the CSR inner loop is a tight JIT-compiled SIMD pass. Why CSR Beats NetworkX NetworkX represents each node's neighbors as a Python dict. Iterating the adjacency in one power-iteration step means: Calling G.neighbors(node) — a Python method call Iterating a dict — unboxing int keys, chasing heap pointers Accumulating a float into another dict value — another boxing step That happens for every edge, every iteration, roughly 50–80 times to convergence. CSR collapses the graph to two arrays: rowPtr[n+1] (where each node's neighbors start) and colIdx[edges] (the neighbor list). Iterating neighbors of node v is a tight C loop from rowPtr[v] to rowPtr[v+1] . No Python objects, no dict hashing, no pointer chasing. Key Code // P

Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility, your hub for the future of transportation and now, more than ever, how AI is playing a part.

United flight 236 from Newark to Palma de Mallorca on Saturday night was forced to turn around just an hour after takeoff due to security concerns around a Bluetooth signal. Multiple Redditors claimed to be on the flight and reported that the crew repeatedly requested passengers to turn off their Bluetooth. According to one poster, […]

There is a fascinating psychological phenomenon in modern software engineering: the relentless pursuit of the upgrade. As frontend developers, we are conditioned to believe that speed and efficiency come from adopting the newest technologies. We migrate from Webpack to Vite to shave seconds off our build times. We transition between UI libraries in search of better reconciliation algorithms. We constantly audit our CI/CD pipelines. We treat performance as a destination we must reach by continuously adding or swapping out the moving parts of our toolchain. Yet, amidst this endless cycle of optimization, we consistently overlook the most sophisticated, highly optimized piece of software in our entire stack. It is the software you are using to read this article right now: the web browser. The Underappreciated Engine The modern browser is an absolute marvel of engineering. Over the past decade, teams of the world's most talented systems engineers have engaged in a fierce arms race to optimize browser engines like V8, SpiderMonkey, and JavaScriptCore. Today’s browsers feature Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation, sophisticated garbage collection, and massively parallelized rendering pipelines. They are capable of executing highly complex, interactive applications with a level of fluidity that was unimaginable a few years ago. However, when we evaluate developer tools—specifically the online IDE or the browser-based code editor—there is a stark contrast. The environments we use to write and test our code rarely reflect the speed of the engine they run inside. Why the Standard Web IDE Misses the Mark If you want to quickly prototype a component or isolate a bug, you will likely reach for a frontend playground or a popular Replit alternative. What happens next is often a masterclass in friction. The environment feels heavy. The interface is cluttered with features you didn't ask for. As you type, the live code editor experiences micro-stutters. The instant live preview isn't actu

Notes on Serving LLMs with TensorRT-LLM and Triton 2026-05-31 · LLM serving / NVIDIA stack These are working notes on taking an open-weights LLM from a Hugging Face checkpoint to a production-style serving endpoint on the NVIDIA stack — TensorRT-LLM for the engine, Triton Inference Server for the deployment surface — and benchmarking it honestly against vLLM on multi-GPU hardware. They follow the harness in trtllm-triton-serving (4× H100, NVLink). The goal is to move from "I use vLLM" to "I can stand up the NVIDIA inference stack on real multi-GPU hardware and reason about the trade-offs." 1. The serving pipeline The path from checkpoint to endpoint has four stages. Each one is a place where a decision affects latency, throughput, or accuracy: Checkpoint — a Hugging Face model. Engine build — compile to a TensorRT-LLM engine for a fixed tensor-parallel degree, precision, and batching policy. Model repository — wrap the engine in a Triton tensorrt_llm -backend model repo. Serving + load test — trtllm-serve (or Triton) exposes an OpenAI-compatible endpoint; a load generator drives it under controlled concurrency. The key mental shift from vLLM: TensorRT-LLM does ahead-of-time compilation . vLLM is a runtime that takes the model and serves it; TensorRT-LLM builds an engine specialized to your GPU, TP degree, and precision first. That build is where the performance comes from, and also where the rigidity comes from. 2. Tensor parallelism (TP) For a model that doesn't fit on one GPU — or to cut latency — TensorRT-LLM shards each layer across GPUs. On a 4× H100 NVLink box, TP=4 means every forward pass does an all-reduce across the four GPUs over NVLink. The all-reduce is not free. On this fabric it tops out around 77 % of the NVLink budget (see the separate NVLink-wall notes ). For prefill (large tensors) you're bandwidth-bound and TP helps. For decode (one token at a time) you're pinned against the small-message latency floor, and past a point more TP makes decode slowe

My eyes have seen the PC gaming promised land, and it's a beautifully bright world without a shred of blurriness. It's warm, it looks lovely, and it's impeccably sharp. Also, it's expensive as hell. I've dipped my toe in this world by testing a pre-production version of the upcoming Asus ROG Strix Scar 18, which […]

Earlier this month, I finally achieved the elusive goal I had set for myself in Bungie's Marathon. I collected six of the game's rarest items, allowing me to attempt and then successfully clear the raid-style Compiler boss. I felt a massive weight lift off my shoulders - nearly 185 hours of playtime and I had […]

The Enhanced Games — a singular sporting competition where a majority of the athletes were on performance enhancing drugs — may herald a new business model that the tech industry is ready to embrace.