标签：#dev

Cloud teams waste between 40% and 60% of their infrastructure budget on a false choice: committing to reserved capacity they won't fully use or chasing spot instance savings they can't. Introduction: The Cloud Cost Optimization Dilemma Cloud teams waste between 40% and 60% of their infrastructure budget on a false choice: committing to reserved capacity they won't fully use or chasing spot instance savings they can't operationalize. The decision between commitment discounts and spot instances is not a preference. It is a calculation with three variables: workload predictability, failure tolerance, and the operational cost of managing interruptions. Commitment discounts lock you into capacity for one or three years. You pay upfront or monthly for compute resources whether you use them or not. The mechanism is simple: cloud providers offer 30% to 72% discounts because they can forecast their own capacity planning when customers commit. You save money when your actual usage matches your commitment. You lose money when usage drops below the committed level because you still pay for idle capacity. Spot instances offer 70% to 90% discounts by selling unused cloud capacity at auction prices. The provider can reclaim these instances with 30 seconds to 2 minutes of notice. You save money when your workload can tolerate interruptions and you build automation to handle instance termination. You lose money when interruptions cause failed jobs that must restart from scratch, consuming more compute time than the discount saved. Most engineering teams pick one strategy and apply it everywhere. This creates two failure modes. Teams that over-commit pay for capacity during low-traffic periods. Teams that over-rely on spot instances spend engineering time rebuilding checkpoint systems and retry logic that costs more than the discount delivers. The correct approach is workload-specific. Measure your actual usage patterns for 30 days. Calculate the cost of interruption handling. Then a

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is...

Introduction Modern cloud-native systems generate an enormous amount of telemetry data every second. Applications, containers, Kubernetes clusters, APIs, databases, and infrastructure components continuously emit metrics, logs, and traces to help engineering teams understand system behavior and troubleshoot issues. While observability has become essential for operating distributed systems reliably, it has also introduced a new challenge: managing the scale, cost, and quality of telemetry. OpenTelemetry (OTel) has emerged as the industry standard for collecting and processing observability data. It provides a vendor-neutral framework for instrumenting applications and exporting telemetry to different observability backends. However, simply adopting OpenTelemetry is not enough. Without proper optimization strategies, organizations often face excessive telemetry ingestion costs, noisy dashboards, high-cardinality metrics, trace overload, and inefficient debugging workflows. This article explores practical approaches for optimizing observability using OpenTelemetry. It focuses on metrics, logs, and traces individually while also discussing broader optimization strategies across the telemetry pipeline. Understanding the OpenTelemetry observability pipeline OpenTelemetry provides a unified framework for generating, collecting, processing, and exporting telemetry data. At its core, the OTel ecosystem consists of SDKs, instrumentation libraries, collectors, processors, and exporters. Applications generate telemetry using OpenTelemetry SDKs or auto-instrumentation agents. This telemetry is then sent to the OpenTelemetry Collector, which acts as a centralized telemetry processing layer. The collector can receive telemetry from multiple sources, enrich it with metadata, apply filtering or sampling, and export it to one or more observability backends. The observability pipeline typically follows this flow: Application → OTel SDK → OTel Collector → Observability Backend The Open

In the hyper-competitive landscape of modern B2B outbound sales, speed-to-lead and outreach capacity are the ultimate drivers of pipeline volume . Yet, traditional Sales Development Representative (SDR) teams face a exhausting bottleneck: reaches and qualifications are limited by human bandwidth . A typical outbound SDR spends up to 80% of their day dialing numbers, navigating IVR phone trees, hitting voicemail, and dealing with incorrect contact records. When an inbound lead submits a form requesting a product demo, the average company takes 42 minutes to respond. By that time, prospect engagement has cooled by over 400%. To shatter this operational limit, modern revenue operations (RevOps) teams are transitioning from rigid auto-dialers and static voice bots to autonomous voice AI sales agents . By pairing the hyper-realistic conversational engine of ElevenLabs with the visual orchestration power of n8n , you can deploy a scalable, context-aware calling agent that handles inbound qualification and outbound follow-up calls in real-time. This technical blueprint provides an end-to-end guide to designing, securing, and deploying a production-grade Voice AI Sales Agent using ElevenLabs Conversational AI and n8n . We will cover how to manage conversation state, execute live database tool calls, secure webhook communication, route calls dynamically, and configure infrastructure to achieve sub-second response latency . The Architecture of an Enterprise Voice Agent Building a conversational voice agent requires a multi-layered system that operates in near real-time. When a human speaks over a telephony network, their voice must be digitized, transcribed, processed by a large language model (LLM), synthesized back into audio, and sent back down the line—all within a fraction of a second. To ensure stability, scalability, and absolute separation of concerns, our architecture decouples the telephony and voice generation layer from the logic and database integration layer . [

Recently i have been trying to learn full stack skills, springboot and react.js , These things are so overwhelming, I haven't started react.js yet, I mean there are so many things to remember ModelMapper, ObjectMapper, GrantedAuthority, User details, User detailsService,Logger, so many annotations, So many features Really getting confused, trying to build a resume based Ecommerce Project Even If I am able to make it , I know many will comment " It's very common, it's a basic project" dude it was so tough for me how can u say that submitted by /u/faangPagluuu [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/fagnerbrack [link] [留言]

Microsoft used their Build 2026 event to announce new functionality for Microsoft Foundry. Citing Foundry as "the place where AI agents move from experiments to production systems," in a blog post, Nick Brady writes that the release brings “runtime, tools, memory, grounding, models, observability, and governance” that developers need for production agents, rather than just new model endpoints. By Matt Saunders

Kafka is used for handling messages/events between different services. Here's how I understand it: A Producer sends an event/message to Kafka. The message contains things like Topic, Key-Value data, and Timestamp. Kafka stores these messages in Brokers (Kafka servers). Topics can be divided into multiple Partitions. Each partition has one Leader and multiple Followers (Replicas). All read and write operations happen through the Leader, while Replicas act as backups if a broker fails. Now Kafka does not immediately delete messages after they are consumed, unlike many traditional queues. There is a term called Offsets. You can think of an offset like the index of a message inside a partition. For example: A user places an order → payment is processed → email is sent → analytics service processes the event. Suppose during that analytics service goes down, Kafka knows which offset was last processed. When the service comes back up, it can continue from that offset instead of starting from the beginning. This is also one reason why Kafka keeps messages for some time after consumption. Any corrections? Is there anything else I should know about this topic? Please let me know. submitted by /u/No-Resolution-4054 [link] [留言]

Building a production TypeScript CLI in 2026: oclif vs commander vs custom. I shipped my first Node CLI in 2019 with a 12-line arg slicer and process.argv . It worked until it needed a second command and then collapsed into spaghetti. The other extreme is grabbing a full framework for a tool that runs one command. In 2026 there are three reasonable paths between those extremes, and each one wins on a specific slice of the problem. This post covers @oclif/core v4, commander v14, and a zero-dependency parser that fits in 30 lines. Same "greet" command in all three. Same distribution steps at the end. Honest tradeoffs throughout. TL;DR oclif v4 commander v14 zero-dep npm install size ~8 MB ~220 kB 0 B Type inference on flags Full, generated Good, manual Manual Plugin ecosystem Yes (Heroku, Salesforce) No No Learning curve High (day 1) Low (hour 1) None Best for Multi-team, multi-command CLIs Most real-world tools One-shot scripts 1. The decision: framework vs no framework Reach for a framework when the tool needs subcommands, a plugin system, or auto-generated help text. The second engineer who touches the CLI should be able to find where things live without reading your code twice. Build your own when the tool does one thing, ships as a one-file script, or lives inside a monorepo where pulling in 8 MB of transitive deps is not welcome. A zero-dep parser also removes the surface area for supply-chain incidents, a real concern on tools that run in CI. Commander sits in the middle: a 220 kB install that covers most real tools without the scaffolding overhead of oclif. 2. Project skeleton Every path shares the same bin setup. Start with a package.json that declares the executable: { "name" : "greet-cli" , "version" : "1.0.0" , "bin" : { "greet" : "./dist/cli.js" }, "scripts" : { "build" : "tsc" , "dev" : "tsx src/cli.ts" }, "type" : "module" } The tsconfig.json for a CLI targets the Node release line you plan to support. Node 24 LTS handles ESM natively, so use "module":

A few months ago I was trying to prepare for a cloud certification exam. I went looking for practice questions - good ones. Not just answer lists, but questions that actually trained the reasoning the exam tests. I found some scattered GitHub repos, a few YouTube playlists, sites with outdated question dumps. Nothing that felt structured. Nothing that explained why an answer was right, not just what it was. So I started building my own study tool. Mock questions, practice sets, AI-generated explanations. The kind of thing I wished existed. Six weeks later that became ArchReady - a certification prep platform for AWS, GCP, and PSM1. It's live now. What it does Practice questions across AWS (CCP, SAA, DVA, SAP), GCP ACE, and PSM1 Explanations for wrong answers - walks through the reasoning, not just the correct option AI-powered explanations coming soon Claude (Anthropic) Confidence tracking - shows which topics you're weak on Free to practice, no signup required. Pro unlocks full history and tracking. The stack Frontend: Next.js 14 (App Router) Backend: FastAPI (Python) AI: Claude (Anthropic) - explanations launching soon Payments: Dodo Hosting: Vercel (web) + Railway (API) Nothing exotic. I kept it boring on purpose - solo founder, 2-5 hrs/week, I can't afford interesting infrastructure problems. What I actually learned Ship before it feels ready. I had a list of 12 features I thought were "required for launch." I launched with 4. Nobody noticed the missing 8. Questions sourced from open-source + AI is good enough to start. Questions come from curated GitHub repos and AI-generated content built around official exam frameworks. That's enough to be useful. Perfection is a later problem. The hardest part isn't building - it's the first 10 users. The product exists. Getting people to try it is the actual work now. Where it is today Live at archready.io . Early stage. Still building. If you're prepping for AWS, GCP, or PSM1 - try it free, no account needed. Honest feedba

Something I keep noticing across teams and orgs that are actually getting value from AI versus the ones that aren't. The difference rarely comes down to the model or the algorithm. Most organizations are already drowning in data. Logs, metrics, alerts, reports, dashboards, tickets. The information exists. The bottleneck is what happens after the data shows up. How long does it take to interpret what the signal means? Who decides what to prioritize when three things need attention at once? How fast can the right people coordinate a response once a decision is made? That's where AI actually earns its keep. Not by replacing the human in the loop but by compressing the time between something happening and someone doing something useful about it. Signal to understanding to action. That's the chain that matters. Think about it in terms you deal with every day. A vulnerability gets disclosed. The CVE exists, the advisory is public, your scanner picked it up. None of that is the bottleneck. The bottleneck is figuring out which of your services are affected, who owns them, how bad the exposure actually is in your specific context, and getting a patch scheduled before someone exploits it. AI that helps you answer those questions in minutes instead of days is genuinely valuable. AI that and adds another dashboard to look at isn't. This applies across the board. Incident response, infrastructure management, risk assessment, customer systems, operational workflows. The teams getting real value aren't the ones with the fanciest models. They're the ones who figured out where their decision bottlenecks actually are and pointed AI at those specific gaps. The strategic advantage is rarely in the algorithm. It's in organizational responsiveness. How fast can you go from "something happened" to "we're handling it". The AI is just the thing that compresses that timeline. Where's the biggest decision bottleneck in your current workflow?

A tweet landed on my timeline from Peter Steinberger — OpenClaw founder, now at OpenAI: "Here's...

Built a small scripted pipeline to benchmark accessibility on 100 German online shops and the numbers were rougher than I expected, so here is the setup in case it is useful for your own CI. Stack: Puppeteer drives a headless Chromium through up to five routes per shop (home through checkout). Then pa11y 9.1.1 runs HTML_CodeSniffer and axe-core 4.10.2 runs on the same loaded DOM. Results get deduped by selector and rule id so the two engines do not double-count. Shops were picked to match German platform share. Shopify was the biggest block at 40 of 100, with Shopware and WooCommerce next. Output: 29,745 hard errors across the sample, with every one of the 100 shops failing WCAG 2.1 AA and homepages averaging 99.8 errors. The recurring offenders were touch targets under 44px on all 100, low contrast on 67, broken heading order on 61 and unnamed links on 58. Two practical notes for anyone scripting this. Checkout was only reachable on 82 of 100 without an account or a real cart, so deep-page coverage is uneven and you should log it per route instead of pretending you scanned everything. And automated detection is about 57% of real issues, so this is a smoke test, not an audit. submitted by /u/Loewenkompass [link] [留言]

Terraform can provision an AWS EC2 instance and set up a Python virtual environment in a single, reproducible run — the whole workflow is declarative and version‑controlled. 📑 Table of Contents 💻 Terraform — How to Provision an EC2 Instance 🔧 AWS Provider — Configuring Credentials 🐍 Python Environment — Setting up a Virtualenv on the Instance 📦 Installing Python and venv 📦 Activating and Using the Environment 📦 User Data — Automating Installation with Terraform 🟩 Final Thoughts ❓ Frequently Asked Questions How do I store the Terraform state securely? Can I use a different Linux distribution for the EC2 instance? Is it possible to attach an Elastic IP to the instance? 📚 References & Further Reading 💻 Terraform — How to Provision an EC2 Instance A Terraform configuration file describes the desired state of AWS resources; applying it makes the real cloud match that state. First, install Terraform (version 1.5.0 or newer). The binary is a single executable, so the operating system loads it directly into memory and the process performs HTTP requests to AWS endpoints. $ terraform version Terraform v1.5.0 on linux_amd64 + provider registry.terraform.io/hashicorp/aws v5.12.0 Next, create a main.tf that declares an aws_instance resource. The provider block authenticates with AWS using either environment variables or a shared credentials file. # main.tf terraform { required_version = ">= 1.5.0" required_providers { aws = { source = "hashicorp/aws" version = "~> 5.12" } } } provider "aws" { region = "us-east-1" } resource "aws_instance" "app_server" { ami = "ami-0c02fb55956c7d316" # Amazon Linux 2 instance_type = "t3.micro" # User data will be defined later user_data = data.template_file.init.rendered tags = { Name = "terraform-ec2-python" } } Running terraform init contacts the provider registry, downloads the provider plugin, and stores it under .terraform . The generated .terraform.lock.hcl file records exact plugin checksums, guaranteeing that subsequent runs use the same

What are your thoughts since I’m pretty sure they partnered with Google submitted by /u/Classic-Grab-2866 [link] [留言]

At the beginning of my Engineering career, I worked in a place where I had a lot of freedom to implement and experiment any technology I found interesting. I tried many technologies like PHP, Java, EJBs, SOAP, Rest and JavaScript. This gave me a lot of perspective, but I lacked the guidance and mentoring from more experienced developers. One of the most problematic things I built was a login. I would like to share in this document things that I did in the past so you understand why it is problematic and how I would build them today. Earlier Mistakes My First PHP Login. This is not a terrible option when using a single host, small project, but the biggest problem comes when we need to scale horizontally. Session variables exist only on the servers they are created. If you add more servers + Load Balancer, there is no guarantee that your requests go to the same server. In terms of vulnerabilities, if somebody manages to read your session id, they can impersonate you, act on your behalf. This is not really different from other methods like JWT so it is important to set up SameSite cookies or CSRF tokens, but do you think I did that for my first login ? of course NOT! My first Password storage. If you are thinking on implementing a login please NEVER do what I am about to describe: The first time I implemented a password, I was worried that somebody would find out the "actual" password. I wasn't actually thinking about using HTTP (instead of HTTPs), so my take on this was "encrypting" the password into MD5. Then the password was saved in MD5, but I was NOT doing anything different than just sending the password AS is. Let me explain the problems with this approach: Over HTTP an MD5 password can be read, and anybody can simply replicate the request with the same MD5 MD5 was actually NOT encrypting, it was a hashing. There are databases all over the internet mapping MD5 and other hashed passwords available so finding an MD5 can actually be translated to an actual password

If you use Cursor, Claude Code, or Windsurf daily, you've probably had this experience: You open a fresh chat, ask for a small fix, and twenty minutes later the AI has rewritten your API layer, added three new dependencies, and switched your data-fetching pattern "for consistency." The model isn't broken. It's contextless. Every new session starts from zero. It doesn't know your stack, your conventions, or the things it must never touch. So you spend the first ten minutes re-explaining — and the last hour undoing. Here's what fixed it for me. The real problem isn't prompts Most devs collect prompts. Notes app, Slack snippets, old chat threads. That helps for one-off tasks, but it doesn't solve the session problem. What you need is persistent context — rules that load automatically before you type anything. Two files do this: CLAUDE.md — read by Claude Code (and usable as project context elsewhere) .cursorrules — loaded by Cursor on every session (rename to .windsurfrules for Windsurf) Drop them in your project root. Done. What goes in a good config file A useful config is not ten lines of "use TypeScript and write clean code." That's too vague to change behavior. Mine include: Project structure — where pages, components, and API routes live Stack + versions — Next.js 14 App Router, not Pages; Zod; shadcn/ui Commands — npm run dev, npm run typecheck, npm run test Coding conventions — naming, import aliases, Server vs Client Components DO NOT section — the most important part (more on this below) Workflow notes — use @folder, prefer editing existing files, minimal diffs Here's an excerpt from the DO NOT section that saved me the most time: DO NOT — Critical Anti-Patterns Do NOT create a pages/ directory or use the Pages Router Do NOT rewrite the entire API layer — extend existing route handlers Do NOT add new npm dependencies without stating why Do NOT make drive-by refactors in unrelated files Do NOT fetch data in useEffect when Server Components can fetch directly T

A pattern keeps repeating itself in AI projects. The model works. The demo works. The proof of...

submitted by /u/feross [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/feross [link] [留言]