标签：#c

I build Voxis, an open-source Windows app that translates whatever your system is playing — a video, a game, the other side of a call — and plays the translation back as spoken voice, a few seconds behind the speaker. No subtitles, no virtual audio cable, no bot joining your meeting. The "no virtual cable" part is the bit worth writing about. Almost every system-audio tool on Windows tells you to install VB-CABLE or VoiceMeeter, or to drop a bot into your call. Voxis doesn't, for incoming audio. This post is how that capture engine works, and the sharp edges I hit building it in Python. I'll be specific about what's hard and honest about what's not mine to fix. The goal Read the exact audio the user is hearing — the post-mix system output — at 16 kHz mono, and do it without installing anything. Then stream it to a translation model and play the result back, all while the original keeps playing underneath. Three constraints fall out of that: Driverless. If it needs a reboot and a driver, it's not zero-setup. No self-feedback. The app plays translated audio into the same system mix it's capturing . Naively, it would capture its own voice and translate the translation. That has to be impossible by construction, not patched with an echo gate. Realtime-safe. Capture can't stall. If the downstream VAD or garbage collector hiccups, the WASAPI ring buffer must not overflow. WASAPI process-loopback: capturing the mix, minus yourself Windows 10 version 2004 added the ApplicationLoopback API — a way to activate an IAudioClient in loopback mode scoped to a process tree, either including only that tree or excluding it. Excluding our own process tree is exactly what constraint #2 needs: the captured mix is everything the user hears, with Voxis's own output removed. You don't get this client from the normal IMMDeviceEnumerator path. You activate it by name through ActivateAudioInterfaceAsync , passing the loopback parameters in a PROPVARIANT carrying a BLOB : params = AUDIOCLIENT_

And by viral I mean from $0 to $31. Umami told me Clew Directive got 14 visits last month. AWS told me I owed $31 for it. That works out to $2.21 a visitor, which would make it the most expensive free learning-path tool in California. Spoiler alert: 14 visitors, $31, and not a single one of them was the reason. Something was off. Here is how Amazon Q, Claude, and a few hours of reading my own code untangled it. The app turned out to be innocent. What Clew Directive is, quickly A free, stateless tool that builds you a personalized AI learning-path PDF. You take a 60-second Vibe Check, four questions about your goals and how you learn, and it maps you to free, verified resources and hands you a briefing. No accounts, no database, no paywall, nothing stored about you. It runs on Amazon Nova, which is why it costs close to nothing to operate, which is also why a $31 bill made no sense. The name is the Theseus kind of clew. A ball of thread to find your way out of the maze. Less hype, more direction. Live at clewdirective.com . The number that didn't add up Twelve visitors, 14 visits, 93% bounce, average session about a minute. Referrers from Bing, Google, Yahoo, GitHub. Visitors from the US, India, Netherlands, Egypt, Ethiopia, Singapore. Mostly crawlers stopping by to say hello. A few curious humans and a parade of bots is not a $31 month. So either every visit was doing something enormous, or the bill was never about visits at all. The dashboard lied, politely. An Amazon Q Story My cost tracker said Clew Directive was running on Claude Sonnet. Sonnet is the expensive one. Case closed, right? I opened the repo. Clew Directive does not run Sonnet. The Navigator agent runs Amazon Nova 2 Lite. Scout and Curator run Nova Micro. The IAM policy is scoped to Nova ARNs only, so a Sonnet call from these functions would come back AccessDenied. The app physically cannot bill Sonnet. The math agreed. A full learning-path generation on Nova costs about two-tenths of a cent. Fourtee

What just happened On June 22, 2026, AWS quietly launched Lambda MicroVMs. Not a Lambda feature update. A new compute primitive sitting between Lambda Functions (stateless, 15-min max) and EC2 (full VM, you manage everything). Each MicroVM is an isolated Firecracker VM with its own HTTPS endpoint, running your code from a pre-built snapshot. Stateful. Up to 8 hours. Suspend when idle, resume on demand. I tested it the same week. Here's what I found. The test setup A minimal Python HTTP server packaged as a Dockerfile: from http.server import HTTPServer , BaseHTTPRequestHandler import json , time , os class Handler ( BaseHTTPRequestHandler ): start_time = time . time () request_count = 0 def do_GET ( self ): Handler . request_count += 1 body = json . dumps ({ " message " : " Hello from Lambda MicroVM! " , " uptime_seconds " : round ( time . time () - Handler . start_time , 2 ), " requests_served " : Handler . request_count , " pid " : os . getpid () }) self . send_response ( 200 ) self . send_header ( " Content-Type " , " application/json " ) self . end_headers () self . wfile . write ( body . encode ()) HTTPServer (( " 0.0.0.0 " , 8080 ), Handler ). serve_forever () The Dockerfile: FROM public.ecr.aws/lambda/microvms:al2023-minimal RUN dnf install -y python3 && dnf clean all WORKDIR /app COPY app.py . EXPOSE 8080 CMD ["python3", "app.py"] How it works Three steps: Zip code + Dockerfile → upload to S3 create-microvm-image builds the container, starts the app, takes a Firecracker snapshot of memory and disk run-microvm launches from that snapshot Every launch resumes from the pre-initialized state. No cold boot. Your app is already running the moment the MicroVM starts. aws lambda-microvms create-microvm-image \ --name hello-microvm-test \ --code-artifact "uri=s3://my-bucket/artifact.zip" \ --base-image-arn arn:aws:lambda:us-east-1:aws:microvm-image:al2023-1 \ --build-role-arn arn:aws:iam::123456789:role/MicroVMBuildRole Image build took about 3 minutes. Once done: aw

About a year ago, I turned my gaming PC into a local AI Lab. And yes, the most important word in that sentence is LOCAL . Let me tell you the story of how I sacrificed my gaming hours to build several tools, and now I'm going to tell you about this one that I use every single day. The Problem: Token bankruptcy Day to day, all of us developers who work with Artificial Intelligence share the same headache: tokens and rate limits . We're all victims of the high prices that come with constantly running inference with AI agents like Claude Code, Codex, or Gemini CLI (yeah, I love working from the terminal, I LOVE CLIs). While I was building AI systems (agent orchestration, LLM fine-tuning ), I was burning through way too many tokens. I tried tweaking the prompts and cleaning up the junk in my context, but the real devourer of my quota showed up when I had to learn a new tool. I was implementing solutions in QGIS (QGIS is a free, open-source Geographic Information System (GIS) software that allows users to create, edit, visualize, analyze, and publish geospatial data on maps) for a project and I didn't know the interface 100%. Like any dev facing something new, I leaned on AI agents: I'd take a screenshot, send it over, and ask for explanations. Here's an important fact that hurt my wallet: A screenshot on my MacBook (Full HD resolution of 1920x1080) burns about 258 tokens per tile on models like Claude. That adds up to roughly 1,548 tokens per image (sounds like a lot, and yeah my friend, it is way too much when we're talking about context). Now imagine sending dozens of these images a month trying to understand a complex interface as a 2x dev (99x, I'd say, in this new AI era). I was eating through my hourly Claude allowance just doing visual queries, leaving me with no quota left to generate the actual code I really needed for my development. The Epiphany (and the Hardware) One day, during a forced break thanks to a Claude rate limit , I looked over at my Gaming PC. I

You added a useLayoutEffect to measure a tooltip, shipped it, and the next time your Next.js (or Remix, or Gatsby) dev server rendered a page on the server, the console lit up: Warning: useLayoutEffect does nothing on the server, because its effect cannot be encoded into the server renderer's output format. This will lead to a mismatch between the initial, non-hydrated UI and the intended UI. To avoid this, useLayoutEffect should only be used in components that render exclusively on the client. The warning is correct, the suggested fix ("only use it on the client") is unhelpful, and the obvious workaround — just switch to useEffect — quietly reintroduces the visual bug you used useLayoutEffect to kill in the first place. useIsomorphicLayoutEffect is the small hook that resolves the standoff. This post explains exactly why the warning happens, why the two naive fixes are both wrong, and what the one-line hook actually does. Why useLayoutEffect Exists At All React gives you two effect hooks that look nearly identical: useEffect runs after the browser has painted. Its callback is queued and fires asynchronously once the frame is on screen. useLayoutEffect runs before the browser paints, synchronously, right after React has mutated the DOM but before the user sees anything. That timing difference is the whole point. If you need to read layout — getBoundingClientRect , scrollHeight , the measured width of a node — and then write a style based on it, you have to do it before paint. Otherwise the user sees one frame of the wrong layout, then a flicker as your useEffect corrects it. The canonical example is a tooltip that has to position itself relative to its own measured size: function Tooltip ({ targetRect , children }) { const ref = useRef < HTMLDivElement > ( null ); const [ pos , setPos ] = useState ({ top : 0 , left : 0 }); useLayoutEffect (() => { const { height , width } = ref . current ! . getBoundingClientRect (); // place the tooltip above the target, centered s

Why I Still Believe in Zero-Cost BFF Layers After 6 Months (And What Broke) Honestly, I didn't expect to be writing this article. Six months ago, I built capa-bff — a zero-cost BFF framework that won a hackathon gold medal — and I thought I had it all figured out. "This is perfect," I told myself. "Zero configuration, works with any Spring Boot app, solves all the frontend aggregation problems." Spoiler alert: It didn't. Don't get me wrong — it's still great for what it is. But here's the thing about building developer tools: the real world has a way of humbling you. Let me walk you through what I learned, what works, what doesn't, and who should actually use this thing. What Even Is a BFF Anyway? If you're new to the term, BFF stands for Backend For Frontend . It's that intermediate layer between your frontend clients (web, mobile, mini-programs) and your backend services. The idea is simple: instead of making the frontend stitch together data from multiple backend APIs, you have this middle layer that does it for you. ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │ Frontend │ -> │ BFF │ -> │ Backend │ │ (Web/Mobile)│ │ Aggregation │ │ Services │ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ The benefits are clear: Fewer network calls from the client Customized responses for each client type Better caching opportunities One place to handle auth/transformations But here's the catch most articles don't tell you: adding a BFF layer means another service to maintain , another deployment , another thing that can break . For small teams and startups, that cost can feel too high. That's exactly why I built capa-bff: I wanted a zero-cost BFF layer that you can just drop into your existing Spring Boot app. No new service, no extra deployment — just add the dependency and start aggregating APIs. How It Actually Works (Code Example) Let me show you the basics. With capa-bff, you define your aggregation in a simple annotation: @BffRoute ( path = "/user-dashboard" ) public

For years, scam prevention has leaned heavily on awareness. Be careful. Do not click suspicious links. Check the sender. Call the organisation directly. Do not trust urgent payment requests. Slow down before you act. These messages are useful, and they should not disappear. But awareness is no longer enough to describe what serious scam defence requires. The Scams Prevention Framework, or SPF, moves the conversation from “make users more careful” to “make the scam ecosystem harder to exploit.” That shift is important. Modern scams do not succeed only because a user failed to notice a warning sign. They succeed because scam operators move through gaps between messaging channels, platforms, brand impersonation, payment pressure, fake infrastructure, multilingual persuasion, reporting delays, and weak post-report disruption. Awareness helps at the point of decision. SPF requires capability across the whole chain. In my view, awareness alone covers about 28% of the real scam defence problem. The rest sits in evidence quality, intelligence sharing, infrastructure disruption, multilingual interpretation, safe financial harm context, recurrence monitoring, and operational response. That is why SPF should not be read as an education policy. It should be read as an operating model. The Awareness Ceiling Awareness is a front-line control, not a full defence system. It helps users recognise risk, but it cannot remove the fake page, connect related reports, preserve evidence, disrupt a fake app, identify a phone-linked abuse path, or monitor the next replacement domain. It also assumes the user has enough time, confidence, language support, and emotional distance to make a calm decision. Many scam situations are built specifically to remove those conditions. Scammers do not only trick uninformed people. They create urgency for informed people. They create authority for cautious people. They create routine-looking payment requests for busy people. They create private pressure fo

Claude Code is a genuinely powerful CLI coding agent. Its context window handling and multi-file reasoning set a high bar in 2026. But it comes with real constraints - it requires an Anthropic API key, charges per token, locks you into Claude models only, and its source code is closed. For developers running local-first workflows, working in air-gapped environments, or simply preferring auditable tooling, those limitations are dealbreakers. The good news: the open-source ecosystem has matured significantly. Nine production-ready alternatives now cover every major workflow pattern - from terminal-first pair programming to fully autonomous task execution. Why Open Source Matters for AI Coding Agents AI coding agents operate at a high level of system trust. They write files, run commands, and modify your repository. That makes transparency genuinely important - not just philosophically. Open-source licensing lets you read the code, audit its behavior, self-host without sending data to a third party, and customize it for your team's needs. Beyond trust, the practical advantages are real. Open-source agents are model-agnostic by design. They connect to whichever LLM you prefer - Claude, GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, or a local model via Ollama - letting you optimize for cost and capability on a per-task basis rather than being locked to one pricing tier. OpenCode - The Closest Open-Source Drop-In for Claude Code OpenCode has emerged as the de facto open-source answer to Claude Code in 2026, crossing 161,000 GitHub stars under an MIT license. It connects to over 75 LLM providers via Models.dev - including local Ollama models - and lets you switch providers mid-session. Internally it uses a dual-agent architecture: a Plan agent handles task decomposition while a Build agent executes changes. LSP integration brings symbol resolution into the terminal. Multi-session support lets you run parallel agents on the same project simultaneously. OpenAI Codex CLI - Auditable and Sandbox-Fir

I had been running a small (3 people) software company for about 4 years. Since closing down, I recently hung out at a friend's company to see what they were working on (15 ppl). To preface: I'm a heavy user of Claude (rarely write code by hand), but what I'm seeing in person has been rather shocking to me, and I wanted to calibrate with others. In particular: - the code is not the source of truth anymore; it's ask claude to write, and ask claude to explain - LoC, abstractions, and all those "so

Grab's security team built Palana, a Kubernetes-native secure execution platform, to run autonomous AI agents safely. Unlike deterministic software, model-driven agents exhibit unpredictable tool-use, code-writing, and prompt injection risks. Palana contains these threats at the infrastructure level using isolated namespaces, out-of-process control planes, and proxy-mediated, Vault-backed secrets. By Patrick Farry

A new OpenAI research paper shows how AI agents are transforming work, enabling longer, more complex tasks and expanding productivity across roles.