标签：#ev

With AI-powered noise reduction, an automatic speech-focusing system, and a simple, effective hearing test, it’s a shame these aids don't come with a better app.

You know what you want from a JSON document. You just don't want to memorize whether it's $[?(@.age > 18)] or $..users[?(@.active)] . Plain English in. JSONPath out. JSONPath Assistant on FormatList lets you paste JSON, describe what you need in natural language, and get a validated JSONPath expression plus the actual results — all in your browser. No account, no API key, no data sent to a server. How it works Paste your JSON — an API response, config file, or test fixture. Describe what you need — e.g. "get all user names" or "find products with tag tech". Generate — the assistant reads your JSON structure and maps your query to JSONPath. Validate & copy — the expression runs against your data immediately. Copy the path or the matched values in one click. If the first attempt returns no matches, the tool retries with a simpler variation automatically. Example queries You type Generated JSONPath Get all user names $.users[*].name Find users older than 18 $.users[?(@.age > 18)] Get names of active users $.users[?(@.active == true)].name Find products with tag tech $.products[?(@.tags.indexOf('tech') >= 0)] Get all order prices $.orders[*].price Get the first user's email $.users[0].email Get all pod names {.items[*].metadata.name} Get all pod IP addresses {.items[*].status.podIP} The tool ships with one-click examples for each of these — load one, hit Generate, and see how it works before trying your own JSON. What kinds of queries it understands Property access — "get all names", "list order prices" Numeric filters — "older than 18", "price under $10", "greater than 100" Boolean filters — "active users", "enabled devices" Tag / category searches — "with tag tech", "beauty category" Multi-condition — "both tech and mobile tags" Quantifiers — "the first user", "the last item" Kubernetes — "get all pod names", "pod IP addresses" It analyzes field names in your JSON — so users , products , orders , or whatever keys you actually have — and builds paths that match your sc

Contact Form 7 runs on millions of sites for a good reason: it's free, light, and gets out of your way. I shipped it on client sites for years. The problem isn't that CF7 is bad — it's that it answers exactly one question ("did the form submit?") and stays completely silent on the one that actually matters in production: did the notification arrive? Here's the call every developer who maintains WP sites has taken at least once: "I filled in your contact form last week and never heard back." You check. The form is fine. JavaScript fires, the success message shows, no console errors. CF7 did its job — it handed the message to wp_mail() and forgot it ever existed. There's no record the submission happened, and no log of whether the email was delivered, bounced, or quietly dropped by the host's unauthenticated sendmail. The lead is just gone, and you have nothing to debug with. The three gaps that bite in production No submissions database. CF7 sends an email and discards the data. If the email fails or lands in spam, the submission never existed. (Flamingo helps, but it's a bolt-on — separate screen, no filtering or export out of the box, not tied to your form config.) No delivery log. You can't tell whether mail was sent, rejected, or bounced. "I never got it" has no audit trail to check against. No native block. CF7 is still a shortcode — [contact-form-7 id="123"] . You can't drop it into a block template, control its layout with block spacing, or edit it inline in Gutenberg. You paste a shortcode and hope. None of these are dealbreakers for a throwaway contact form. All three are dealbreakers when a missed submission is a missed sale. Migrating without rebuilding by hand The reason most people put off switching isn't the feature gap — it's the thought of rebuilding every form field by field. That's the part I wanted to skip. The migration path I use reads CF7's stored form definitions directly and recreates them as native forms. What comes across automatically: All

An accessibility audit is not only a compliance activity. For engineering teams, it is also a quality review of how real users interact with the product. If you are preparing for a WCAG 2.2 AA audit, the biggest mistake is waiting for the auditor to tell you what information is missing. You can make the process much smoother by preparing the right workflows, accounts, test data, and remediation owners upfront. Scope the product by user flow Do not start with only a list of URLs. URLs matter, but accessibility bugs often appear inside stateful interactions: Form validation Custom dropdowns Modal dialogs Keyboard focus management Error recovery Dynamic tables Authenticated dashboards Document downloads Instead of asking, "Which pages should we test?" ask: What tasks must users be able to complete? That usually gives you a better audit scope. Prepare accounts and stable data If a workflow requires authentication, roles, or sample records, prepare them before the audit starts. Useful prep includes: Admin, standard user, and limited-role accounts Stable sample records Forms with prefilled data where needed Test payment or transaction flows if applicable Known feature flags Environment notes This avoids spending audit time debugging access problems. Confirm the standards WCAG 2.2 AA may be the target, but the report may also need to reference WCAG 2.1 AA, Section 508, EN 301 549, GIGW, or IS 17802. Engineering teams should know this early because it affects reporting language and remediation priority. Make evidence developer-friendly A useful issue should be reproducible. Good audit findings usually include: Affected URL or screen Component or selector Steps to reproduce User impact WCAG success criterion Expected behavior Screenshot or notes This helps teams move from report to ticket without guessing. Plan remediation ownership Accessibility issues do not always map cleanly to one discipline. Examples: Missing form label: engineering Confusing error copy: content and pr

Every Node.js developer has been burned by this at least once: const port = parseInt ( process . env . PORT ); // NaN if PORT is missing const db = process . env . DATABASE_URL ; // string | undefined — not safe! Your app starts fine locally, then crashes in production because someone forgot to set an env var. The error shows up 3 hours later, not at startup. The solution I built @harmand66/typesafe-env — a tiny, zero-dependency library that validates and types your environment variables at boot time. import { createEnv } from ' @harmand66/typesafe-env ' ; const env = createEnv ({ PORT : { type : ' number ' , default : 3000 }, DATABASE_URL : { type : ' string ' , required : true }, DEBUG : { type : ' boolean ' , default : false }, }); // ✅ TypeScript knows PORT is a number env . PORT + 1 // 3001 — not "30001" env . DATABASE_URL // string — guaranteed, never undefined If anything is missing or wrong, your app fails immediately at startup with a clear message: All errors at once — no more fixing them one by one. Why not Zod? Zod is great but it's 57kb and requires a lot of boilerplate for this specific use case. @harmand66/typesafe-env is zero dependencies and does one thing well. Try it npm install @harmand66/typesafe-env GitHub: https://github.com/giannielloemmanuele-lgtm/typesafe-env npm: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@harmand66/typesafe-env Would love any feedback or contributions! 🙏

The idea came from an extremely serious game of hide and seek with my cousins. We were adults, which made it ridiculous, but also strangely perfect. Someone was hiding behind a couch in plain sight, surviving only because the seeker did not look carefully enough. That made me wonder: what if looking carefully was not enough? What if the seeker could not freely look around the room? What if they could only see the world through their phone screen, while virtual obstacles blocked parts of their view? That became the core idea behind AR Hide and Seek: a local multiplayer hide and seek game where 2-5 players use the space they are already in. The hiders physically hide somewhere in the room, while the seeker views the environment through an iPhone. The phone fills the space with digital clutter, making familiar rooms harder to read. One phone. One seeker. Real hiding places. Virtual obstacles. Why LiDAR? LiDAR on iPhone Pro models gives the phone a real-time depth map of the environment, with centimeter-level understanding of the space around it. That means virtual objects can be placed in ways that respect real-world geometry: a crate can sit on the floor, a wall can align with an actual wall, and obstacles can feel like they belong in the room rather than floating on top of it. For a game where the virtual environment needs to feel like it genuinely fills the space, that difference matters immediately. Without reliable depth information, objects can drift, clip, or hover in ways that break the illusion. The tradeoff is device requirement. LiDAR is only available on iPhone Pro models, which narrows the audience. But for this game, the better AR experience was worth it. The seeker sees a version of the room cluttered with virtual obstacles. The hiders are still physically hiding behind real furniture; the phone does not make them disappear. It simply makes finding them harder. Designing the Core Loop The mechanic is simple on paper, but it took a surprising amount of tu

Today, we’re excited to launch UIAble v1.0, an open-source component library built for developers, by developers. We explored a lot of UI libraries built on Shadcn. Most of them feel nearly identical — same structure, same aesthetic, same tradeoffs. That’s what pushed us to build something different. Not another library that looks like Shadcn with a coat of paint, but a design system with its own identity and a clearer sense of what it’s actually for. Why UIAble exists After enough frontend projects, one thing becomes obvious: the same UI patterns get rebuilt again and again. Inputs. Dialogs. Tables. Alerts. Dropdowns. OTP fields. Form validation states. Not because they’re hard to build, but because most existing libraries never quite fit real project requirements. Some are too opinionated. Some pile on unnecessary abstraction. Some become rigid after initial setup. And some make simple UI unnecessarily complicated. That friction is what led to UIAble. Not to launch another oversized library, just to build a cleaner, more practical foundation for modern frontend development. What UIAble actually is UIAble is a free, open-source UI component library built with Tailwind CSS , Shadcn-style architecture , and Base UI principles . The idea is straightforward: reusable components should stay flexible, readable, and easy to maintain. Instead of pulling projects into a rigid ecosystem, UIAble gives you components you can copy directly into your codebase, edit freely, and scale without fighting the library. No lock-in. No unnecessary abstraction. No dependency trap. What makes it different in practice A few things actually matter here. You get the code. UIAble doesn’t hide logic behind layers of packaging. You see the component. You edit it. You ship it. That alone changes how teams work with UI. It’s built for real product UI, not showcase pages. A lot of UI kits look great in demos and fall apart in production. UIAble focuses on the unglamorous stuff, forms that don’t bre

OpenAI is investigating issues with Codex usage limits Tibo wrote that the Codex team spent Sunday in a war room, digging through logs and looking for anything that could have caused faster usage drain for some users. As the investigation continues, OpenAI has issued a full reset of Codex usage limits for everyone. The funny part: this week at OpenAI is called RESET week. In US corporate culture, that usually means a lighter week to slow down, clear the calendar a bit, and recharge.

The AI Engineer World's Fair has attracted a lot of adults, and they brought their kids too, for...

GitLab's 2026 AI Accountability Report highlights an AI Paradox: although 78% of developers say they code faster, overall software delivery has not accelerated due to downstream testing and review bottlenecks and new challenges for enterprise governance and traceability. By Sergio De Simone

Hey everyone! I bring you my development journey on what I have discovered, accomplishments for this...

Voice interfaces are rapidly becoming the next major interaction layer after mobile and web UI. Instead of clicking, users will increasingly talk to systems that understand intent, context, and can execute actions in real time. In this article, we’ll build a production-grade architecture for a real-time AI voice system using modern web technologies such as Next.js, WebRTC, and OpenAI’s streaming capabilities. We’ll also explore how this architecture powers modern conversational systems like an AI Voice Agent platform, where AI can handle real-time interactions for business use cases like bookings, support, and sales automation. 1. Why Voice AI is the Next Interface Shift Text-based chatbots solved the first wave of automation. But voice introduces: Faster interaction (no typing) Higher emotional expressiveness Better accessibility Natural multitasking Businesses are now adopting systems like Voice AI for Business to replace traditional call centers and static IVR menus. The key challenge is not just speech-to-text, but building a low-latency conversational loop that feels human. 2. System Architecture Overview A production-ready AI voice system typically consists of: Frontend (Next.js) Audio capture via Web Audio API Streaming audio chunks UI for conversation state Backend (Node.js / Edge Functions) Session management Authentication Tool execution layer AI Layer OpenAI Realtime API (streaming) Function calling Context memory Audio Pipeline Speech-to-text streaming Text-to-speech streaming Optional noise cancellation 3. Core Concept: Real-Time Streaming Loop The core of a voice agent is a continuous loop: User speaks Audio is streamed to server Model transcribes in real time Model generates response token-by-token Response is converted to audio instantly Audio is played back with minimal delay The goal is to keep latency under ~800ms for a natural experience. 4. Building the Frontend (Next.js + Web Audio API) We start by capturing microphone input: const stream = awa

The AI Implementation Process I Use With Every Client Most AI projects do not fail at the model. They fail in the six weeks before anyone writes a prompt, and in the six weeks after the demo lands in a Slack channel and nobody knows who owns it. I have run enough of these now (from one-off automations to multi-agent content systems running unattended) that the process has converged into something stable. This is the version I actually use. It has five phases: scoping, POC, integration, evaluation, operations. Each phase has an exit criterion. If we cannot meet the exit criterion, we do not move forward. That single rule has saved more projects than any clever architecture choice. Phase 1: Scoping (1 to 2 weeks, fixed price) Scoping ends with a written document that names the workflow being automated, the system of record it touches, the success metric in hours or dollars, the data we have access to, and the smallest possible first slice. No model is chosen yet. No code is written. If we cannot produce that document, the engagement stops here and the client keeps the document. The hardest part of scoping is resisting the urge to solve the interesting problem. Clients almost always describe the AI-shaped fantasy ("an agent that handles all support tickets") when the real opportunity is narrower and uglier ("triage tier-1 tickets that mention billing, route to the right queue, draft a reply for human approval"). The narrower version ships. The fantasy does not. I run scoping as three sessions: Workflow walkthrough. Someone who actually does the work shows me their screen for an hour. I record it. I take timestamps. The point is to find the moments where a human is doing pattern matching that an LLM can do, and to find the moments where they are doing judgment that an LLM should not do. Data audit. Where does the input live? Where does the output need to go? What is the auth story? If the data is locked inside a SaaS product with no API and no export, that is the projec

Originally published on bckinfo.com Redis with Docker Compose: Persistence, Security, and Production-Ready Configuration Table of Contents Why Redis Containers Lose Data RDB vs AOF: Choosing a Persistence Strategy Basic Setup with Docker Compose Full Persistence Configuration Securing Redis in Docker Setting Resource Limits Redis in a Multi-Service Stack Backing Up and Restoring a Redis Volume Common Issues and Quick Fixes Closing Notes Redis is one of the most common services to run in Docker — it's fast to spin up, lightweight, and perfect for caching, session storage, and queues. But that same simplicity hides a trap: by default, Redis in Docker stores everything in memory, and the moment a container is removed, all of that data disappears . This guide walks through setting up Redis with Docker Compose the right way — covering persistence, authentication, resource limits, and the health checks you need before putting it anywhere near production. Why Redis Containers Lose Data A Docker container is meant to be disposable. That's a feature for stateless services, but it's a liability for a database like Redis. If you start a plain Redis container without a mounted volume, here's what happens: The container writes its dataset only inside its own writable layer. docker compose down or docker rm removes that layer entirely. The next time the container starts, Redis initializes with an empty dataset. This single oversight accounts for a large share of "we lost our session data" incidents in small teams running Redis in containers for the first time. The fix is straightforward once you understand the two persistence mechanisms Redis offers. RDB vs AOF: Choosing a Persistence Strategy Redis supports two persistence models, and production setups typically combine both: RDB (Redis Database snapshots) Point-in-time snapshots of the dataset, saved at intervals you define. Fast to restore, but you can lose any writes that happened after the last snapshot. AOF (Append Only Fil

Imagine if there were a way for us to somehow ship a full-stack package that you could plug into your...

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

Last month, I had a problem with a popular mobile banking app in Southeast Asia. Nothing exotic. A transaction didn't go through, and my support ticket had been sitting untouched for two weeks. So I opened the app's chatbot. It greeted me warmly, asked how it could help, and then couldn't do a single useful thing. It couldn't look up my transaction. It couldn't check the status of my ticket. It couldn't tell me why my issue was unresolved. It could answer FAQ questions, and that was it. I called the hotline instead. Spent an hour navigating prompts, got bounced between menus, and every path ended the same way: "Please contact our chatbot or check your existing ticket." The system was built for deflection, not resolution. The ticket that nobody had touched for fourteen days. I gave up. And somewhere in that company's dashboard, my interaction counted as a successful AI chatbot deflection. The uncomfortable part: if you shipped a deflection-optimized bot this quarter, a customer somewhere is living this exact loop right now. Your dashboard is calling it a win. The Deflection Metric Everyone Loves (and Nobody Questions) Deflection rate measures the percentage of customer contacts handled without a human agent. It's cheap to track, easy to celebrate, and it maps directly to cost savings. Industry benchmarks citing McKinsey's 2026 service operations data put AI resolutions at $0.62 per ticket versus $7.40 for human agents. That's a 12x cost difference. Of course executives love this number. But deflection doesn't measure whether the customer's problem got solved. It measures whether the customer stopped asking. Those are very different things. This is Goodhart's Law applied to customer experience: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Deflection is cheap and easy to optimize. Resolution is hard and expensive to track. So companies optimize the proxy and stop looking at the goal. Gartner data, as reported by Forbes , confirms the gap: only 14% o

Over the past year, one concept has fundamentally changed how I think about AI applications. Not larger language models. Not better prompts. Not even AI agents. It's Model Context Protocol (MCP) . For a long time, most AI applications lived inside a closed environment. They could generate text, answer questions, or write code, but they couldn't easily interact with external systems. MCP changes that. It provides a standardized way for AI models to communicate with tools, databases, APIs, and applications. Instead of building custom integrations for every project, developers can expose capabilities through MCP servers. After experimenting with different workflows, these are five MCP servers that have had the biggest impact on how I build AI applications. 1. GitHub MCP Server If you're building software with AI, GitHub integration is one of the most valuable capabilities you can add. Imagine asking an AI assistant to: Read a repository Review pull requests Search issues Create commits Open new issues Inspect project structure Instead of manually copying files into ChatGPT, the AI can interact directly with your repository. For developers, this dramatically improves productivity. Typical workflow: Developer Request ↓ GitHub MCP Server ↓ Repository ↓ LLM ↓ Action or Response This is far more scalable than copying snippets of code into prompts. 2. Filesystem MCP Server Almost every AI workflow eventually needs access to local files. Examples include: Reading documentation Editing Markdown Creating reports Refactoring code Updating configuration files Without an MCP server, these tasks often require multiple manual steps. With a Filesystem MCP server, an AI application can safely interact with project directories. For example: Read: /docs/api.md Update: /src/routes.py Create: /reports/summary.md This makes AI assistants feel much more like development partners. 3. PostgreSQL MCP Server One limitation of traditional chatbots is that they don't know your data. Connecting an

We're upgrading Crawlberg to a new version: Crawlberg v1.0.0. It builds on the previous kreuzcrawl. It declares the public API frozen under the new project name. All technical features below shipped in v0.3.0 (2026-06-23); v1.0.0 is a stability declaration and rename, not a new feature release. The four production-facing changes most likely to require operational action: Package and env var rename - every artifact identifier has changed; see the migration table. SSRF defense is now on by default - internal crawl targets (localhost, RFC 1918, cloud metadata) will fail without CRAWLBERG_ALLOW_PRIVATE_NETWORK=1 . CrawlError::WafBlocked is now a struct variant - exhaustive match arms will not compile until updated. max_retries semantics changed - off-by-one fixed; max_retries=3 now produces exactly 3 retries. Precompiled binaries cover Linux (x86_64/aarch64), macOS (ARM64 and x86_64), and Windows x64. Homebrew bottles and Docker images on GHCR are also available. What Is Crawlberg? Crawlberg is a web crawling engine written primarily in Rust that exposes a single consistent API across 14 language runtimes. It handles HTTP transport, JavaScript rendering, robots.txt compliance, per-domain rate limiting, SSRF safety, and structured extraction. Extension points ( Frontier , RateLimiter , CrawlStore , EventEmitter , ContentFilter , WafClassifier , ProxyProvider ) are injectable traits; wire in your own frontier, storage backend, or proxy pool without forking the engine. A single scrape() call returns text, metadata, links, images, assets, JSON-LD, Open Graph tags, hreflang, favicons, headings, response headers, and clean HTML→Markdown. When a site requires JavaScript, the optional headless browser tier handles it transparently. v1.0.0 promotes v1.0.0-rc.2 and freezes the public API under the new project name. The features described in the sections below represent the platform that 1.0.0 declares stable; they shipped in v0.3.0. What v1.0.0 Declares Stable These capabilities

I spend a lot of time in the AI space -- reading papers, building things, talking to engineers who are actually shipping. And there is a gap between what the demos show and what production systems actually look like that nobody is being fully honest about. So here is my honest take on where things actually are. The Problem With How We Talk About AI Agents Everyone is calling everything an "agent" right now. A function that calls a tool? Agent. A chatbot with memory? Agent. A script with a loop? Agent. This dilution is not just semantic. It is causing real engineering mistakes. When you do not have a precise definition for what you are building, you end up over-engineering simple pipelines and under-engineering genuinely complex ones. I have seen teams spend weeks adding "agentic" orchestration to workflows that would have been fine as a single well-structured prompt. Here is the definition I keep coming back to: an agent is a system that has an objective, not just an instruction. It decides what to do next. It handles failure. It knows when it is done. Everything else is just a fancy function call. 🟢 If your system needs a human to tell it each step, it is not an agent. It is a chat interface. 🔵 If your system can recover from a failed tool call and try a different approach, you are getting somewhere. ✅ If your system can decompose a goal into subtasks and delegate them, that is the real thing. What Is Actually Happening in Production Right Now The honest picture from teams I follow and talk to: Most real agent deployments are narrow. They do one thing well. Customer support triage. Document extraction. Code review on a specific codebase. They are not general-purpose reasoning engines. They are purpose-built pipelines with some intelligence in the decision layer. The teams getting good results are not chasing the latest model release. They are obsessing over: ☑️ Tool design -- what can the agent actually call, and how clean is the interface ☑️ Failure handling -- wh