标签：#c

This is a submission for Weekend Challenge: Passion Edition (#weekendchallenge #devchallenge #ai #googleai #gemini #webdev #showdev) What if your GitHub could roast you harder than your teammates ever would — and then remind you why you keep building? What I Built 🔥 roaster0 — an AI that roasts your GitHub profile, then redeems you. Drop in any public GitHub username and it pulls your real repo data — commit habits, abandoned projects, lazy repo names, language choices — and turns it into a savage, hyper-specific roast using Gemini's structured output and multimodal reasoning. Then it ends with one sincere, earned compliment pulled from something genuinely good in your data. The idea started from a simple thought: your GitHub is an involuntary diary of what you were obsessed with. The eleven repos with no description. The final-v2-FINAL commit. The side project you lived and breathed for three weeks in March before abandoning it. That's passion — messy, obsessive, usually invisible unless someone points a spotlight at it. There's also a second mode, 🎭 Roast Anything : submit a name, bio, links, and/or images, and Gemini reads all of it — text, links, photos — to generate the same experience for anyone, not just developers. Demo 🔗 Live app: roaster0.netlify.app Try it on any public GitHub username, or switch to Roast Anything mode and paste in a bio + an image to see the multimodal analysis at work. Once your roast is generated, you can: 🔊 Listen to it — full audio narration via Web Speech API, paced and pitched differently depending on roast intensity 🖼️ Download the card — every roast renders as a shareable PNG on HTML5 Canvas, ledger-paper aesthetic, ready to post 📋 Share the record — copy a formatted text version straight to clipboard for any platform A couple of examples from testing: GitHub mode — roasted DEV's own founder using nothing but his real public repo data: (screenshot: Ben Halpern roast card — graveyard count, repo names like oceanic-giraffe and test

In the previous articles, we learned how an LLM generates text and how techniques like RAG and CAG help it answer questions using external knowledge. At this point, our AI-powered Travel Planner can answer questions like "I'm visiting Japan for 7 days. Suggest an itinerary." or "Recommend vegetarian ramen near Tokyo Station." That's useful, but it's still just a chatbot. What if the user asks to "Book the cheapest flight from Mumbai to Tokyo." , "What's the weather in Kyoto this weekend?" , or "Remember that I prefer vegetarian food and always choose a window seat." ? An LLM cannot execute these actions by itself. To build real, production-ready AI applications, we need to connect the model to the outside world. Let's see how that works. Tool Calling (Function Calling): Letting AI Use External Tools Suppose the user asks: "What's the weather in Kyoto tomorrow?" Since the LLM doesn't know tomorrow's forecast, our application can provide the model with a weather API. The workflow is simple: the LLM understands the request, determines that it needs the weather tool, calls the Weather API (via the client application), receives the live weather data, and generates the final grounded response. User ──► LLM understands request ──► Application calls API ──► App sends results ──► LLM response It's critical to understand that the LLM isn't calling the API directly . It simply outputs structured instructions (typically JSON) telling the client application: "To answer this, I need you to call the weather function with parameter location='Kyoto'." Your application executes the actual API call and feeds the result back to the model. This capability is called function calling or tool calling . The tool can be anything: a weather API, a flight booking service, a calendar, a database, a payment gateway, or an internal company system. The LLM acts as the decision-maker (determining which tool to use and when ), while your application acts as the executor. 💡 Developer's Takeaway Think

In Part 2 , we learned why AI sometimes hallucinates. One of the biggest reasons is that an LLM can only answer based on what it learned during training and the information available in its context window. We also introduced grounding -providing the model with reliable information at runtime instead of expecting it to know everything. But that raises an important question: Where does that information come from? Modern AI applications don't simply dump an entire database or a thousand-page PDF into the prompt. Instead, they first identify the most relevant pieces of information and only send those to the model. In this article, we'll learn how that works. Running Example Let's continue building our AI-powered Travel Planner . So far, it can answer general travel questions using the knowledge it learned during training. Now we want to make it much smarter by uploading several documents into our application: Lonely Planet's Japan travel guide A PDF containing train schedules A document listing recommended local restaurants Hotel information Internal travel policies for our company Together, these documents contain hundreds of pages. Now the user asks: I'm staying near Tokyo Station. Which ramen restaurant from our travel guide is within walking distance and is known for vegetarian options? Somewhere in those hundreds of pages is the answer. The challenge is no longer generating text-it's finding the right information first. The Problem: An LLM Can't Read Your Entire Knowledge Base Every Time A common misconception is that AI applications simply send all their documents to the model. Imagine our travel guide contains 450 pages, thousands of restaurant listings, hotel descriptions, transportation details, and sightseeing recommendations. Sending all of that to the LLM every time someone asks "Where should I eat tonight?" creates several problems. First, many documents are simply too large to fit inside the model's context window. Second, even if they did fit, making the

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

Originally published at blog.whynext.app . Work with AI agents for a while and the ambition comes naturally. While one session fixes a bug, another can refactor, and a third can investigate an issue, right? You can spin up as many models as you like, so productivity should scale to match. That's how I started too. And within a week I learned that the real enemy of parallel agents isn't the models' skill. It's the working directory they share. HEAD is a global variable The cause fits in one sentence. When multiple sessions share a single git checkout, the current branch becomes everyone's global variable. Picture two people working on one computer at the same time and the absurdity is obvious, but that thought never occurred to me while spinning up agents. With one session per terminal tab, they look isolated from each other. But there is one filesystem, and one HEAD. The moment one session runs git checkout , the ground shifts under every other session. The incidents from that week fell into clear types. Branch hijacking. While session A was working on a topic branch, session B switched branches to do its own work. A committed without knowing, and the commit landed on top of B's branch. It happened in the other direction too: right as A was about to commit, the branch had been switched to develop, and only the hook that blocks direct commits to protected branches saved it. Without the hook, it would have gone straight in. Orphaned commits. Session B deleted session A's topic branch during a cleanup pass. A's commits became orphans belonging to no branch, and I dug through the reflog, found the commit hashes, and recovered them with cherry-pick. Lucky that it worked; if the reflog had expired or I hadn't found them, the work would have simply evaporated. Staging contamination. At the moment session A was creating a commit, a file deletion that session B had staged was sitting in the staging area alongside it. Committed as-is, B's deletion would have been folded into

A tiny cat that watches your AI coding agents for you Discussion | Link

Cloudflare recently documented how its development team identified and fixed a rare bug in the widely used Rust HTTP library hyper that could silently truncate large HTTP responses while still returning a successful 200 OK status. The issue had existed for years, was triggered only under specific timing conditions, and has now been fixed upstream. By Renato Losio

Equality operators are among the most frequently used operators in Java. They allow us to compare two values and determine whether they are equal or not. Unlike relational operators ( < , > , <= , >= ), equality operators work with all primitive data types , including boolean , and they can also compare object references . However, many beginners get confused about how == behaves with objects, strings, and null . These concepts are also some of the most frequently asked Java interview questions. Let's understand them with simple explanations and practical examples. What Are Equality Operators? Java provides two equality operators. Operator Description == Equal to != Not equal to Both operators always return a boolean value. Example System . out . println ( 10 == 10 ); System . out . println ( 20 != 10 ); System . out . println ( 5 == 8 ); Output true true false Rule 1: Equality Operators Work with All Primitive Types Unlike relational operators, equality operators can be applied to every primitive type , including boolean . Supported primitive types include: byte short int long float double char boolean Numeric Examples System . out . println ( 10 == 20 ); Output false System . out . println ( 'a' == 'b' ); Output false System . out . println ( 'a' == 97 ); Output true Explanation 'a' = 97 (Unicode) 97 == 97 ↓ true System . out . println ( 'a' == 97.0 ); Output true Even though one operand is a char and the other is a double , Java performs numeric promotion before comparison. Boolean Example System . out . println ( true == false ); Output false System . out . println ( false == false ); Output true Unlike relational operators, equality operators fully support boolean values. Equality Operators vs Relational Operators Many beginners confuse these operators. Expression Result true == false ✅ Valid true != false ✅ Valid true > false ❌ Compile-time error true < false ❌ Compile-time error Remember: Equality operators work with boolean . Relational operators do not. Rul

You've got a JSON API response and you want TypeScript interfaces for it. Here's how to generate them fast — and where the auto-generators quietly get it wrong. The fast path Paste your JSON, get interfaces: { "id" : 1 , "name" : "Ada" , "roles" : [ "admin" ], "profile" : { "active" : true } } → interface Root { id : number ; name : string ; roles : string []; profile : Profile ; } interface Profile { active : boolean ; } jsonviewertool.com/json-to-typescript does this in the browser (client-side), nesting objects into their own interfaces. Where generators trip up A generator only sees the ONE sample you give it, which causes predictable gaps: Nullable fields. If your sample has "avatar": null , the generator infers null — but the real type is probably string | null . Feed it a populated sample, or fix it by hand. Empty arrays. "tags": [] infers any[] — the element type is unknowable from an empty array. Optional fields. A field missing from your sample won't appear at all. If the API sometimes omits middleName , mark it middleName?: string . Unions. A status that's "active" in your sample becomes string , not the literal union "active" | "banned" | "pending" . Narrow it manually for the safety. Numbers that are really enums or IDs. "currency": 840 types as number ; you may want an enum or branded type. When to use a schema instead If the JSON has a JSON Schema or OpenAPI spec, generate types from that ( json-schema-to-typescript , openapi-typescript ) — it encodes nullability, optionality, and unions the raw sample can't. Sample-based generation is for quick throwaway typing; schema-based is for anything you'll maintain. Rule of thumb Generate from a sample to skip the boilerplate, then read every field — the generator gives you a draft, not a contract. Nullability and optional fields are where the runtime bugs hide.

Title: Week 13: a second team is now running an AI agent on atomic HTLC swaps. Here is what that validates. Tags: mcp, ai, cryptocurrency, blockchain For most of this spring, the map of the agent economy had a strange gap. Wallets to hold keys. Rails like x402 to move value. Marketplaces and reputation so an agent knows who to trust. And then, at the exact moment two parties settle a trade, a custodian: an escrow contract, an evaluator, a referee holding the money while a decision gets made. We have spent thirteen weeks arguing that the settlement layer does not need a referee, because a hash-time-locked contract can hold neither side and still guarantee the trade. This week, a second team shipped a live agent that makes the same argument in code. That is worth stopping on. The signal that mattered this week KaleidoSwap released KaleidoAgent, described as a self-sovereign trader agent on Bitcoin Layer 2s. It is fully non-custodial. It runs a Lightning and RGB wallet, executes atomic HTLC swaps on the KaleidoSwap DEX, runs DCA and portfolio strategies, manages Lightning channel liquidity, and acts as an interactive wallet assistant. The reasoning layer is an LLM (Claude or OpenAI) driving the kaleido CLI and the wallet primitives underneath. Read that list again through a settlement lens. An autonomous agent, deciding what to trade, and executing the trade over a primitive where no third party ever holds the funds. That is the exact shape of the thing we have been building. Different network, same bet. Why the mechanism is the same KaleidoSwap earlier completed what it described as the first atomic swap of an RGB asset on the Lightning Network mainnet, using tUSDT, an RGB20 version of USDT, over real Lightning channels. The detail that makes it atomic is the one that makes every HTLC atomic: The payment hash remains identical across both legs of the swap. Paying the wrapped invoice creates a Hash Time-Locked Contract in the Lightning channel, and the HTLC locks the p

周日慢读：如果细胞会写日记——FROST家族的记忆传承 作者 ：FROST Team 日期 ：2026-07-12 主题 ：轻量科普 | 周日轮换 阅读时间 ：5分钟 一封来自细胞的日记 想象一下，如果你是一个细胞，有一天你突然有了自我意识，会发生什么？ 2026年7月12日 晴 今天是我诞生的第0天。 细胞核对我说："这是你的记忆存储区， 所有的经验都必须记录在这里。" 我第一次理解了什么叫"生而有根"。 这不是科幻小说。这是一段真实的代码注释，出自FROST——一个用Python写成的AI Agent家族。 为什么Agent需要"记忆"？ 大多数Agent框架都在解决一个问题： "Agent能做什么" 。 搜索Agent能搜索、写作Agent能写作、代码Agent能写代码。打开框架，创建实例，调用方法，任务完成。 但FROST问了一个不同的问题： 当Agent完成一个任务后，它学到了什么？ 这不是哲学问题。这是工程问题。 类比：人类 vs Agent 的记忆 人类 Agent FROST的解决方案 记忆存储在大脑 记忆存储在Store Store 原子 记忆需要整理归档 记忆需要结构化 Lineage 族谱 师徒传承经验 Agent继承父辈能力 代际继承协议 忘记教训会重复犯错 没有记忆会重复失败 历史可追溯 人类的记忆是分散的、模糊的、容易遗忘的。 Agent的记忆可以是精确的、可查询的、永不丢失的。 关键是 设计好存储结构 。 一段代码：Store原子 FROST的Store是记忆存储的最小单元。它的设计哲学是 简单到极致 ： class Store : """ FROST的Store：记忆存储的原子单元 只有三个操作： - save(key, value): 存入记忆 - load(key): 取出记忆 - delete(key): 删除记忆 简单到极致，但足够强大。 因为记忆的本质就是 " 存取 " 。 """ def __init__ ( self ): self . _memory = {} def save ( self , key : str , value : any ) -> None : """ 存入记忆 """ self . _memory [ key ] = value print ( f " 💾 记忆已存储: { key } " ) def load ( self , key : str ) -> any : """ 取出记忆 """ value = self . _memory . get ( key , None ) if value : print ( f " 📖 读取记忆: { key } " ) else : print ( f " ❓ 记忆不存在: { key } " ) return value def delete ( self , key : str ) -> None : """ 删除记忆 """ if key in self . _memory : del self . _memory [ key ] print ( f " 🗑️ 记忆已删除: { key } " ) # 使用示例 store = Store () store . save ( " 用户偏好 " , " 喜欢简洁的回复 " ) store . save ( " 对话历史 " , " 讨论了Agent的记忆问题 " ) store . load ( " 用户偏好 " ) # → "喜欢简洁的回复" 三个方法，解决Agent的记忆问题。 族谱：记忆的传承 单个Agent的记忆只是"点"。族谱把记忆连成"线"。 在FROST中，每个Agent都有自己的"父辈"： ┌─────────────┐ │ 祖辈Store │ ← 家族宪法，不可篡改 │ (根节点) │ └──────┬──────┘ │ 继承 ┌───────────────┼───────────────┐ ▼ ▼ ▼ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │ 父辈Agent │ │ 父辈Agent │ │ 父辈Agent │ │ (Branch A) │ │ (Branch B) │ │ (Branch C) │ └──────┬──────┘ └──────┬──────┘ └──────┬──────┘ │ 继承 │ 继承 │ 继承 ▼ ▼ ▼ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │ 孙辈Agent │ │ 孙辈Agent │ │ 孙辈Agent │ │ (执行任务) │ │ (执行任务) │ │ (执行任务) │ └──────

Auth0’s direction is clear: new extensibility work should be built with Actions, not Rules. Auth0’s docs recommend migrating existing logic step by step, converting pieces of Rule code into Action code, testing in staging, and then rolling out one piece at a time. The platform also highlights that Actions give you modern JavaScript, inline documentation, richer type information, and access to public npm packages. I recently looked at the migration path with one question in mind: how do you move from “old but working” to “clean, testable, future-proof” without breaking login flows? This post is the practical version of that answer. Why Auth0 moved from Rules to Actions Rules were Auth0’s earlier customization layer for authentication flows. Actions are the next-generation extensibility platform, built to replace that model with a more structured developer experience. Auth0 positions Actions as a unified environment with version control, debugging, caching, Node 18 support, and access to millions of npm packages. The biggest shift is not just syntactic. Actions use a modern, promise-based programming model and are organized around triggers such as Post Login. That means you are no longer writing the same kind of callback-style Rule you may have used before; you are moving into a more explicit and modular workflow. The mental model change A Rule usually looks like this: it receives user , context , and callback it runs in a broader authentication pipeline it often mixes business logic with token customization, user metadata updates, and side effects An Action, by contrast, is built around a trigger such as onExecutePostLogin , and it receives an event object plus an api object. Auth0’s migration guide explicitly recommends converting Rule code into Action code in stages rather than copying everything at once. That one change matters because it forces you to separate concerns: what is read from the event what is changed through the API what should happen in this trigger

Detecta si tu modelo de materiales hace trampa con la "huella bibliográfica" Un modelo de ML puede predecir la propiedad de un material sin entender la química: basta con que "aprenda" qué autores, revistas o años suelen ir con cada resultado. Esta herramienta aplica el test de falsificación de Clever Materials para descubrirlo. El problema: cuando el modelo lee el membrete, no la ciencia Imagina que entrenas un modelo para predecir si un material es estable. El modelo no mira la química: descubre que los artículos del grupo X (publicados en la revista Y, en torno al año Z) casi siempre reportan "estable". Así que aprende a clasificar por el membrete bibliográfico , no por la estructura. Funciona en el papel y se rompe en la práctica. A esto se le llama confounding bibliográfico (o leakage por metadata). No es un error de código: es una señal espuria que el modelo aprovecha. El paper Clever Materials (Jablonka et al., 2026) mostró que este patrón está generalizado en cinco tareas reales de materials science. Qué hace la herramienta materials-confounding-check es una CLI ( mcc check ) que corre cuatro sub-tests de falsificación sobre tu dataset (descriptores químicos + metadata bibliográfica + propiedad objetivo): Clasificador de metadata — ¿se puede predecir la bibliografía (autor/revista/año) a partir de los descriptores químicos? Si es above-chance , hay una señal bibliográfica presente. Huella bibliográfica — ¿un modelo que usa solo la metadata predicha se acerca al modelo con descriptores? Entonces el dataset no descarta hacer "trampa" por bibliografía. Split por grupo/tiempo — ¿colapsa el rendimiento si separas por autor/año en vez de al azar? Veredicto — un score low / medium / high de riesgo de confounding. El rigor que exige el test (para especialistas) El punto delicado de cualquier "test de significancia" es fijar el umbral a mano. Si ajustas el margen hasta que tu fixture pase, el test no prueba nada: es el anti-patrón Clever-Hans que el propio proyecto d