标签：#c

https://archive.md/ArXuF https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/us-government-gives-a...

This is sorely needed, it is helpful for Hawaii as well as for California (cabins on forest service land)

Corgi became embroiled in controversy when Papermark accused it of stealing its software. Corgi says it did not, raising new questions about vibe coding.

The github repo under eigenpal is gone. The web site at docx-editor is 503. No idea what's going on.

Most guides to OTP testing in Playwright include a function that looks something like this: function extractOtp ( emailBody : string ): string { const patterns = [ / \b(\d{6})\b / , /code [ : \s] + (\d{4,8}) /i , /verification [ : \s] + (\d{4,8}) /i , /OTP [ : \s] + (\d{4,8}) /i , ]; for ( const pattern of patterns ) { const match = emailBody . match ( pattern ); if ( match ) return match [ 1 ]; } throw new Error ( ' OTP not found in email body ' ); } This function is fragile. It breaks when the email template changes. It returns false positives when the email body contains order IDs or timestamps. It requires you to maintain regex patterns for every email provider your app might use. There is a better way. The Problem with Regex OTP Extraction When your app sends a verification email, the OTP is buried somewhere in the HTML body. To extract it you need to: Fetch the raw email body Parse HTML or plain text Apply regex patterns that match your specific email format Handle edge cases — 4-digit vs 6-digit codes, codes in tables, codes in buttons Every time your email provider changes their template, your regex breaks. Every time you add a new auth provider, you write new patterns. It is maintenance overhead that compounds forever. The right place to extract the OTP is at the infrastructure layer — before the email even reaches your test suite. How ZeroDrop Extracts OTPs at the Edge ZeroDrop catches emails at Cloudflare's edge before storing them. When an email arrives, the worker runs OTP detection on the body and stores the result as a structured field alongside the raw email. By the time your test calls waitForLatest() , the OTP is already extracted and sitting in email.otp . No regex. No HTML parsing. No maintenance. const email = await mail . waitForLatest ( inbox ); email . otp // "847291" — already extracted Setup npm install zerodrop-client No API key. No signup. No environment variables. Basic OTP Test import { test , expect } from ' @playwright/test ' ; import

GPU programming usually asks Rust developers to surrender the borrow checker at the launch boundary: references collapse into raw pointers, and aliasing, synchronization, and stream lifetimes become hand-managed invariants. A new NVIDIA Labs paper argues that trade is unnecessary. How cuTile Rust Extends the Borrow Discipline to GPU Dispatch cuTile Rust is a tile-based DSL that carries Rust's ownership and borrowing rules across the host-to-GPU launch boundary — not just through host code. Introduced in "Fearless Concurrency on the GPU" (arXiv:2606.15991), submitted by NVIDIA researchers Melih Elibol, Jared Roesch, Isaac Gelado, Eric Buehler, and Michael Garland , it lets you author the kernel itself in idiomatic, memory-safe Rust rather than wrapping hand-written unsafe CUDA. The mechanism is type construction, not a runtime lock. Before launch, mutable output tensors are partitioned into provably disjoint tiles; each tile program then receives an exclusive &mut view of its slice, while inputs arrive as shared & references . Because the partitions cannot overlap, the kernel is single-threaded in its semantics and data-race-free by construction, yet still compiles to massively parallel GPU code. As Melih Elibol put it, "each tile program gets an exclusive &mut view of its memory, plus the inputs as shared references" (source: users.rust-lang.org ). Explicit unchecked types remain available for local opt-out when you need lower-level control. The safety story would be academic if it cost throughput, but the reported numbers say otherwise. On an NVIDIA B200, cuTile Rust reaches 7 TB/s on memory-bound element-wise operations and 2 PFlop/s on GEMM — roughly 96% of cuBLAS, and within measurement noise of cuTile Python . End to end, the companion Qwen3 inference engine Grout reaches 171 generated tokens/s for Qwen3-4B on an RTX 5090 and 82 tokens/s for Qwen3-32B on a B200 in batch-1 decode . Those are the authors' own measurements on specific hardware — independent reprod

Introduction — On What I've Been Writing for Years This is a follow-up to my previous post on Claude and MCP . Just sharing some recent thoughts. Personally, I've always enjoyed keeping records and analyzing my own work. So for years, I've been logging my daily tasks, jotting down thoughts, hesitations, and impressions in notes. I've drawn on these records for reviews, analysis, and decisions on various projects. The tools have shifted over time — Evernote, Notion, Logseq, Taskuma, and so on — but the habit itself, of writing notes into some app or tool, has stayed with me for years. What Happened with MCP I recently wrote about connecting Notion and Google Docs through MCP, and the results have surprised even me. I won't repeat the details here since they're in that post, but ever since I introduced MCP, the flow of information has accelerated dramatically. In particular, I'd been accumulating reviews, task management notes, and brainstorms in Notion for years, and letting Claude read all of this has shifted the meaning of what I'd previously written. When I first started recording in Notion, it never occurred to me that it might be useful to AI. Of course — I had no way to imagine a time when AI would become this close to everyday life, used in this way. I was just writing for plain, analog reasons — "so I could look back later," "so I could organize my own thinking." But the moment MCP made it all readable, the feeling shifted. It's as if my past self comes forward to help my current self. Claude answers my current questions while drawing on the reasoning behind old project decisions, or on impressions I'd noted at the time. I've had moments like that more than once now. Thinking about it: the human brain's memory has limits — even the person who wrote something forgets it quickly. That's why I kept taking notes, leaving behind my thoughts and conclusions at each point in time as a record. And now, in the flow of conversation, AI reads from those records, distill

His doctors went looking for cancer, then they saw the worms' heads.

A few days back I wrote about giving an autonomous agent database access and building a firewall so it couldn't DROP TABLE prod. Same lesson, new surface: this time the agent had cloud credentials . The failure mode isn't a destructive command here. It's spend. An agent pointed at a networking task can scan a whole range looking for hosts, then spin up a fleet of instances to do it faster. Every individual call is "authorized," your IAM role said yes. The bill is what eventually says no. ## Two shapes, two right answers The interesting part is that these are not the same kind of problem, so they don't get the same verdict. 1. The scan is never legitimate as an agent tool call. An nmap -sS -p- 10.0.0.0/16 or a masscan across a network is reconnaissance and abusive egress. There's no benign version of an agent sweeping a network at scale, so it gets hard-blocked , deterministically, before the call runs. (A scan of your own localhost is a dev check, so that's exempt.) 2. The provisioning might be totally fine. Spinning up 50 instances could be a real scale-out, or a runaway loop burning money. You can't tell from the action alone, only from the consequence. So instead of blocking it, AgentX pauses it for a human : a 202, "held for approval," routed to whoever owns the budget. Block the thing that's never okay, escalate the thing that's sometimes okay. Gate on consequence, not identity. Both checks are zero-LLM. No model in the hot path means no latency tax and nothing to talk out of it. A runaway fleet should be caught by a rule, not a vibe. ## The bigger thing this closes We keep a catalog of real, documented agent failures and triage each one: is it something an action firewall can deterministically catch, or is it someone else's category (output hallucination, content safety, model internals)? We only build for the coverable ones, and we flag the rest honestly instead of faking a signature. With this release, the coverable list is done . Every failure shape an acti

Most cloud platforms that need access to your infrastructure start with the same onboarding step: paste in a service account key. Or an access key and secret. Or a JSON blob you downloaded from the console and definitely should not be emailing to yourself. You paste it in. The platform stores it. You hope they encrypted it. You hope they rotate it. You hope nobody on their team can read it. You move on with your day and try not to think about it. We built Zero — b0gy's platform for engineering truth — around a different premise. For cloud infrastructure access — GCP and AWS — we don't store credentials at all. The platform connects to your projects and accounts using short-lived, federated identity tokens that are minted on demand and expire in minutes. There is nothing to leak because there is nothing stored. Not every integration can work this way. GitHub, Slack, and Jira use OAuth, which means we do hold tokens for those services. But for the highest-risk connections — the ones with read access to your entire cloud infrastructure — keyless was a hard requirement. This is the first post in a three-part series about building Zero. We're starting here because the connector model shaped everything else. Why stored secrets are the wrong default The argument for storing a service account key is convenience. You paste it once, the platform can access your cloud whenever it needs to. Simple. The argument against it is longer. A stored secret is a liability that compounds over time. The moment you paste a GCP service account key into a third-party platform, you've created a credential that is valid indefinitely, scoped to whatever permissions you granted, and stored in a system you don't control. If that platform gets breached — or if an employee with database access gets curious — that key works until someone revokes it. And nobody revokes it, because nobody remembers it exists. This isn't theoretical. The GitGuardian 2026 report found 28.65 million hardcoded secrets pus

Prime Day has a funny way of convincing you to buy things you weren’t shopping for in the first place. You sign on intending to buy something sensible you actually need, like a pack of USB-C cables, and an hour later you’ve also added a gadget that can press your coffee maker’s power button and […]

I kept correcting AI agents in the same ways: "too long," "answer first," "use a diagram," "assume I know the jargon." Each correction improved the current exchange, but the preference was not represented as durable system state. I built /calibrate-comms to make that state explicit. It is an open-source skill inside an Obsidian vault, used by both Claude Code and Codex. The model: nine operational dials The skill does not try to discover a personality type. It calibrates nine choices that directly change how an answer is rendered: Dial Practical question Density Tight sections or full reasoning? Sequence Answer first or chronological build-up? Modality Prose or diagrams for relational content? Abstraction Concrete example or principle first? Tradeoff One recommendation or several options? Detail Main path or edge cases too? Jargon Define terms or assume expertise? Tone Casual, neutral, or formal? Context-giving Should the agent extract missing context or split an overloaded brief? Prior → calibration → directives The workflow has three stages: L1 PRIOR → L2 SAMPLE REACTION → COMPILE → CLAUDE.md hypothesis empirical override shared by both agents Quick mode asks one bespoke forced-choice proxy per axis. Those questions are deliberately labelled as proxies, not validated psychometrics. Deep mode must fetch the exact items from supported open-access instruments before use; if the source cannot be obtained, the skill stays in Quick mode and makes no validation claim. The prior is then challenged through pairwise samples. For sequence, the contrast looks like this: Build-up first: We traced the latency spike to N+1 queries, then found lazy loading in a loop—so the fix is eager loading. Answer first: Fix: eager-load the association. Why: lazy loading in a loop caused N+1 queries and the latency spike. The user's pick is revealed preference. If it contradicts the prior, the sample wins. The compiler is the useful part The final profile is not a score report. A deterministi

In the global streaming economy, Spotify, Apple Music, and other DSPs process billions of plays daily. Behind this massive transaction layer lies a fragmented, dual-copyright structure: The Recording Copyright (Master Right): Identifies the audio file, registered using the ISRC (International Standard Recording Code). The Composition Copyright (Publishing Right): Identifies the melody, lyrics, and arrangement, registered using the ISWC (International Standard Musical Work Code). Because these registries are managed by separate global entities (IFPI for ISRCs and CISAC for ISWCs), there is no central mapping registry between them. This gap causes millions of dollars in mechanical royalties to sit unclaimed in collective management organization (CMO) "Black Boxes" before being liquidated to major publishers. In this article, we'll design and implement a high-performance Semantic Entity Resolution Protocol (SERP) to bridge this metadata gap programmatically. The SERP Resolution Pipeline Reconciling these records requires a multi-layered classification pipeline. Since manual matching is logistically impossible, we implement a three-tiered algorithmic approach: ┌────────────────────────┐ │ Raw Recording & Work │ │ Data Ingestion │ └───────────┬────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌────────────────────────┐ │ 1. Normalized Title │ ──[Similarity < 0.85]──> [Unmatched Queue] │ Distance Filter │ └───────────┬────────────┘ │ [Similarity >= 0.85] ▼ ┌────────────────────────┐ │ 2. Creator Overlap │ ──[No Overlap]──────────> [Unmatched Queue] │ Intersection Matrix │ └───────────┬────────────┘ │ [Intersection >= 1] ▼ ┌────────────────────────┐ │ 3. Duration Tolerance │ ──[Delta > 4s]──────────> [Manual Verification] │ Guard Check │ └───────────┬────────────┘ │ [Delta <= 4s] ▼ ┌────────────────────────┐ │ Verified Link & │ │ CMO Dispute Ready │ └────────────────────────┘ Step 1: Normalization & String Similarity Filter Title comparisons often fail due to punctuation mismatches, subtitle variations,