标签：#ev

After months of building in public, is live on Product Hunt today! 🎉 The problem Every dev team I've worked with ends up in the same trap: Jira is too heavy and slows everyone down with ceremony, while Trello/Notion are too light and can't actually tell you if your sprint is on track. Nobody had a tool that combined real project management with AI that actually understands developer workflows. So I built one. What is Rahnuma.io? Rahnuma.io is an AI-powered DevOps platform that sits where project management meets your actual engineering workflow: 🧠 AI task generation — describe a feature in plain English, get a structured task with subtasks 📊 Deadline risk forecasting — a live risk score (0–100) built from time risk, blockers, and completion rate, so you know a sprint is in trouble before it blows up 🗂️ Kanban + sprints — drag-and-drop boards, WIP limits, burndown charts, story points 🤖 AI sprint retros — auto-generated "what went well / what didn't / action items" 🔗 GitHub & Bitbucket integration — see commits next to the tasks they belong to 📈 Reports that don't require a translator — including an "Explain to My Boss" button that turns your sprint into a plain-English executive summary 🔔 Slack notifications for task creation, assignment, and comments 🧾 Client portals — shareable, printable progress reports for non-technical stakeholders Why it's different Most "AI project management" tools just bolt a chatbot onto a Trello clone. AI is wired directly into the data model — it knows your sprint history, your velocity, your blockers — so the forecasts and summaries are grounded in your actual project state, not a generic prompt. Tech under the hood Next.js 15 (Turbopack) · TypeScript · Prisma + PostgreSQL · Clerk auth · Polar billing · Redis · xAI Grok with Groq fallback for AI · Server-Sent Events for realtime sync. Try it It's free to start, no credit card required. I'd love your feedback — especially from anyone who's felt the Jira-is-too-much / Trello-is-too-littl

The whole industry seems to have agreed on a standard for design tokens. The shift it sets up is still on its way. Design tokens are not new. The term was coined in 2014, at Salesforce, by Jina Anne and Jon Levine. 1 By 2017, Amazon had open-sourced Style Dictionary and the idea had spread well past Salesforce. We have been shipping design tokens for over a decade. What we never did, in all that time, was agree on a format. Every tool and every team rolled its own shape. There was never one neutral way to write a token down, its value and its meaning, so that any other tool could read it. Have you heard of DTCG? I hadn't, until recently. It is the Design Tokens Community Group, a W3C effort to finally settle that format. 2 The repo is quiet, but that is because the spec reached its first stable version in late 2025, not because anyone walked away. The quiet is a thing being finished, not abandoned. The list of who is backing it is not quiet at all. Adobe. Google. Microsoft. Meta. Amazon. Shopify. Salesforce. Sony. Pinterest. The New York Times. Disney. Framer. Penpot. Figma. Plus a dozen more. 2 That is not a side project. That is most of the industry quietly agreeing on something. One of those names, Figma , is the reason for the title of this piece. We will get to it, because the irony is the whole point. Here is my bet, and I will say up front that it is a bet. I think a storm is coming for design tooling. You do not have to believe me about the storm, because the bet does not depend on it. If you are wiring your tokens straight into one vendor's format, you are exposed. Anchor them to the open standard instead and you are not. The downside is lopsided. If I am wrong, you have lost almost nothing. If I am even half right, everyone hard-coded to a single tool is facing a rewrite. The format is young and already fragmenting. That is the point. The obvious objection is that the standard is too new to bet on, and already splintering. It is splintering. Google's DESIG

Agent-testing startup Patronus AI, founded by former Meta AI researchers, is experiencing nearly insatiable demand, its investor says.

Polestar moved some of its production to the US, but it may be locked out from selling its cars here soon.

Cloudflare has recently shared how they uncovered an issue in their Rust implementation of CUBIC, a congestion controller algorithm, which prevented it from recovering from a scenario of heavy packet loss at the start of a connection. By Gianmarco Nalin

Creating Short Links with PHP: A Practical Guide URL shorteners are everywhere. They're used in marketing campaigns, email newsletters, QR codes, social media posts, affiliate links, and analytics platforms. While most developers are familiar with services like Bitly, integrating a URL shortener directly into your application is often much more useful. In this article, we'll build short links from PHP using an API. Why Create Short Links Programmatically? Creating links through a dashboard works for occasional usage. But applications often need to generate links automatically. Common examples include: Email campaigns User invitations Affiliate systems QR code generation Marketing automation Analytics tracking Customer portals An API allows applications to create and manage links without human interaction. The Traditional HTTP Approach Most URL shortener APIs work through simple HTTP requests. For example: $client = new GuzzleHttp\Client (); $response = $client -> post ( 'https://example.com/api/links' , [ 'headers' => [ 'X-Api-Key' => $apiKey , 'Content-Type' => 'application/json' , ], 'json' => [ 'url' => 'https://example.com/article' ] ] ); $data = json_decode ( $response -> getBody (), true ); echo $data [ 'short_url' ]; This works. But once your application creates dozens or hundreds of links, the amount of boilerplate code starts growing. Using a PHP SDK A PHP SDK removes most of the repetitive work. Installation is usually straightforward: composer require lix-url/php-sdk Creating a link becomes much simpler: $link = $client -> links () -> create ([ 'url' => 'https://example.com/article' ]); echo $link -> shortUrl ; The SDK handles: Authentication HTTP requests Response parsing Error handling DTO mapping This allows your application code to remain clean. Creating Your First Short Link Let's imagine an application that sends invitation emails. $inviteLink = $client -> links () -> create ([ 'url' => 'https://myapp.com/invite/abc123' ]); echo $inviteLink -> short

This is a complete, copy‑pasteable guide for shipping a backend app to a single Linux server using Docker Compose , with a GitHub Actions pipeline that builds the image, scans it, and deploys it over SSH. It is written to be language- and framework-agnostic . The examples use a Node/TypeScript API with PostgreSQL, Redis, and a background worker, but the same shape works for Python/Django, Go, Java/Spring, Ruby, etc. Anywhere you see your-app , your-org , your-server-ip , or example.com , substitute your own values. Every file is included in full, and every non-obvious line is explained. The last section — Common errors and how to fix them — is the part most guides skip, and it is the part that will actually save your afternoon. All of it comes from a real deployment, mistakes included. 1. The mental model (read this first) Before any YAML, understand the shape of what we're building. There are only three places anything lives: Your Git repository the single source of truth. Your code, your Dockerfile , your docker-compose.prod.yml , and your CI/CD workflows all live here. You only ever edit things here. A container registry (we use GHCR, GitHub's built-in registry) — a warehouse for the built application image. CI builds the image and pushes it here. Your server (a plain Linux VPS) pulls the image from the registry and runs it. It holds exactly two files: the compose file (copied from your repo by the pipeline) and a secrets file ( .env ) that never leaves the server. The flow, end to end: You push to main │ ▼ GitHub Actions: build image ──► push to registry ──► scan image │ ▼ GitHub Actions: SSH to server ──► pull image ──► run migrations ──► start app ──► health-check The single most important rule: the server is disposable . You never hand-edit files on the server, because the pipeline overwrites them from the repo on every deploy. If you fix something by editing on the server, the next deploy silently erases your fix. Edit in the repo, commit, push. (I learned t

Did Full Self-Driving (Supervised), Tesla’s driver assistance feature, play a role in a woman’s death?

The Oppo Bubble is a smart second screen for your phone, one that can be attached and detached at will, connects wirelessly, and serves as either a selfie screen or a wireless camera remote. It's the best version of this idea I've used yet, but also a frustrating reminder that it could be even better […]

I have long been on the hunt for the perfect distraction-free writing setup. The latest contender is BYOK, which stands for Bring Your Own Keyboard. It's a simple $199 black plastic rectangle with a low-resolution LCD screen that lets you edit text and does almost nothing else. I've tried dedicated apps. I've even converted an […]

We talk a lot about what AI can build. Code generation. Faster prototypes. Automated debugging. One-shot apps. Entire products created in hours. And yes, AI is powerful. But there is a quieter cost we are not talking about enough: AI hype is starting to weaken the motivation to learn core engineering deeply. That should worry us. 1. The "Why Bother?" Mindset When the dominant narrative says AI can generate code instantly, many engineers start asking: Why should I spend months mastering frameworks, architecture, databases, networking, or system design? At first, that sounds practical. If a tool can help, why not use it? But there is a difference between using AI to move faster and using AI to avoid understanding. Core engineering is not just about writing code. It is about knowing why something works, where it breaks, how it scales, and how to fix it when the generated answer is wrong. If we skip that learning, we create engineers who can prompt systems but cannot reason deeply about systems. That is a dangerous tradeoff. 2. The Funding and Praise Monopoly Right now, AI gets most of the attention. Budgets move toward AI. Leadership praises AI initiatives. Teams are pushed to add AI features even when the fundamentals are still weak. Meanwhile, excellent core engineering often goes unnoticed. The people improving reliability, performance, developer experience, infrastructure, security, and maintainability are still doing high-impact work. But in many places, that work is being treated as less exciting simply because it is not branded as AI. This creates pressure. Engineers feel they must pivot to AI, not always out of interest, but out of fear. Fear of being left behind. Fear of being replaced. Fear that their existing expertise is no longer valued. That is not innovation. That is anxiety disguised as progress. 3. The "AI-First" Discount There is another subtle problem. When someone builds something impressive today, the reaction is often: AI probably generated that.

This is a submission for the GitHub Finish-Up-A-Thon Challenge What I Built Some time ago, I needed to calculate hashes of directory trees across multiple platforms and architectures. Many existing solutions were based on GNU find, but I quickly realized that this approach has a number of shortcomings. As a result, hashdir was born: a cross-platform tool that takes into account many of the quirks and edge cases involved in calculating directory hashes, including character encoding, path separators, path overlaps, symlinks, and more. For use cases involving directory structures that contain very large binary files, I also added support for the imohash algorithm, which can hash large files quickly while maintaining an acceptable error rate. Once it had solved my original problem, I decided to share it with the world. Demo A short demo, along with installation and usage instructions can be found in the repository . The Comeback Story To my pleasant surprise, people began engaging with hashdir in various ways. One user reached out to tell me they were using it in their work and requested additional features, while another packaged it for their own use. Their interest motivated me to expand the feature set, improve test coverage and continuous integration, and further strengthen the codebase's robustness and overall quality.

Code generation tools are powerful and can significantly accelerate development work. Their main limitation is not capability, but context. Without access to organizational knowledge, internal conventions, and system-specific patterns, generated output often requires careful verification. This is why generation tools work best when paired with AI code search, as the latter provides immediate visibility into the existing codebase, making it easier to align AI-generated changes with the realities of the system. In regulated environments, the adoption model may look different. Security or compliance constraints can restrict the use of cloud-based code generation. AI code search still improves developer efficiency across implementation, review, and documentation workflows by enabling fast navigation and comprehension of large multi-repository codebases. What is AI code intelligence, and how does it help in practice? Code intelligence tools help developers find and understand existing code. If a search returns a poor result, the developer simply searches again. Nothing changes in your codebase. Code search also integrates without friction. No new review processes, no changes to CI/CD, no new permissions. Generation tools require policies for AI-written code that stall many pilots before they produce data. Clear metrics for measuring AI code intelligence An AI code search assistant only reads your code, which makes it much easier to measure its impact. You can track simple things like: • how long it takes to find the right piece of code • how quickly new developers get up to speed • how many hours the team spends searching each week If your team of 20 developers each spends 5 hours weekly understanding code, that equals 100 hours of engineering time. At $75 per hour, that’s $360,000 per year. Assume 10% reduction recovers $36,000, a realistic input for an AI ROI framework for tech teams. Faster path to Phase 3 expansion Code generation tools face tough questions from secu

The agents were doing exactly what I told them to. That was the problem. I'd built a pipeline where AI agents could take a spec file, implement a feature, run the tests, review the result, and commit — without me writing a line of code. It mostly worked. Dozens of features shipped. But I kept reviewing the output and feeling like something was off. Not broken. Just subtly wrong in a way that was hard to name. I spent a while blaming the models. Then the prompts. Then the validation steps. Eventually I had to sit with the obvious: the agents were implementing exactly what I'd written. My specs were underspecified. The bottleneck was always me, at the planning stage. The thing most people throw away There's something that feels right about vibe coding. You're operating at the level of intent — describing what you want and letting the model handle the mechanics. That part is genuinely useful. But watch what most people do with the output: Traditional development: Source code → Compiler → Binary (keep the source; regenerate binary anytime) Vibe coding done wrong: Prompt → LLM → Generated code (delete the prompt; commit the code) You've shredded the source and carefully version-controlled the binary. The prompt — your structured description of what you wanted, why, and what "correct" meant — is the valuable artifact. The generated code is what compiles from it. When you discard the prompt and commit only the output, you've lost the thing that actually mattered. The practical consequence shows up six months later: you're staring at code you wrote and spending twenty minutes reverse-engineering your own intent. The spec would have been a thirty-second read. What a spec-driven pipeline is I built what I call an SDLC (Software Development Lifecycle) harness — a system where instead of writing code directly, you write a spec describing what needs to be built, and AI agents handle the implementation, testing, review, and documentation. The spec is the source. The code is what

A follow-up to Part 1 ( EN on LinkedIn · RU on Habr ), where we stood up a two-tier PKI: a Root CA and three intermediate CAs — Person, Server and Code. At the end of Part 1 I promised we'd learn to revoke certificates and run OCSP. That's what we'll do here. Like Part 1, this article is meant as a hands-on manual : for every command and extension we touch, there's an extended reference of the parameters you can actually use — with syntax, allowed values, defaults and gotchas. If you don't need a given option right now, just skim past the table; it's there so you don't have to dig through man later. Each section has the same shape: first the working commands for the common case, then the full parameter reference. Tested on versions. Flag names, defaults and extension syntax were verified against the official documentation of OpenSSL master , plus nginx and Apache mod_ssl. OpenSSL evolves per branch: anything marked "OpenSSL 4.0 / master" (for example the nonss qualifier on authorityKeyIdentifier ) is not yet available in the stable 3.x line. If you're on OpenSSL 3.0–3.6, double-check the disputed options with openssl <cmd> --help or your version's man before copy-pasting config. The numeric openssl verify error codes above 40 also shifted between branches — confirm them against your version's header. In this part: How a revoked certificate differs from an expired one, and why we need two mechanisms — CRL and OCSP. Adding the distribution points (CDP) and AIA to the config so issued certificates "tell" verifiers where to check them. Revoking a certificate and working with the CA database. Generating a CRL and inspecting it with openssl crl . Checking revocation with openssl verify . Running an OCSP responder: issuing its certificate, starting the daemon, querying status. Publishing the CRL and OCSP over HTTP (nginx), configuring OCSP stapling and revocation checking on the web server. All paths, file names and config sections are the same as in Part 1. Where you name

The Department of Commerce declined to give the Chinese-owned automaker a special authorization to keep selling EVs in the U.S.

"There is no natural explanation," says paleoanthropologist John Hawks.

The Amble One is a street-legal $25,000 electric buggy designed for luxury resorts—but a car is also coming.

For three months, I weighed myself every morning and took body measurements every Sunday. I used a caliper, a tape measure, and a scale that probably lies to me about hydration levels. The goal wasn't to get ripped. It was to understand whether any of these measurements actually mean something day to day. The Problem With Most Health Calculators Most body fat calculators fall into one of two camps: Too simple — plug in height and weight, get a BMI number that tells you nothing about your actual composition. Too complicated — requires measurements you need a degree to take correctly, plus an email signup and a paid subscription. Neither is useful for someone who just wants to know "am I making progress?" Building Something Practical I put together a calculator that uses the Navy Method — it takes neck, waist, and hip measurements and estimates body fat percentage. The math has been around since the 80s and correlates reasonably well with DEXA scans for most people: function navyBodyFat ( gender , neck , waist , hip , height ) { if ( gender === ' male ' ) { return 86.010 * Math . log10 ( waist - neck ) - 70.041 * Math . log10 ( height ) + 36.76 } return 163.205 * Math . log10 ( waist + hip - neck ) - 97.684 * Math . log10 ( height ) - 78.387 } The inputs are simple enough that anyone can take them with a tape measure. The output gives you a ballpark number that's consistent enough to track trends over time. What 90 Days of Data Taught Me Three things stood out: Daily weight is useless; weekly trend is everything. My weight would swing 2-3 pounds daily due to water, food, and sleep. The weekly moving average was the only signal worth watching. Body fat percentage changes slowly. Like, frustratingly slowly. In 90 days of consistent training, I moved maybe 2%. But that's real — if a calculator tells you you dropped 5% body fat in a month, it's broken. Consistency beats precision. Taking measurements at the same time, under the same conditions, with the same method matter

We have all been there: you build a utility app that relies on precise location or time-based triggers, only to find that it works perfectly on your Pixel but dies silently on a Samsung or Xiaomi device. When I started building Muffle, an app designed to automate sound profiles based on prayer times and GPS, I realized that standard AlarmManager usage wasn't enough to survive aggressive battery optimizations. The Problem with OEM Kill-Switches Modern Android versions enforce strict background execution limits. If your app isn't a high-priority foreground service, OEMs will frequently kill your process to save a few milliwatts of battery. For Muffle, if the process dies, the user misses their silent profile trigger, which defeats the entire purpose of the app. I had to move away from relying on a long-running background service and rethink my architecture entirely. Moving to WorkManager with Expedited Jobs Instead of a persistent service, I transitioned the core logic to WorkManager . By utilizing ExistingPeriodicWorkPolicy.UPDATE , I ensure that the scheduling remains consistent even across reboots. However, WorkManager alone can be delayed by Doze mode. To combat this, I implemented setExpedited(OutOfQuotaPolicy.RUN_AS_NON_EXPEDITED_WORK_REQUEST) for critical profile switches. This tells the system that the work is time-sensitive. kotlin val workRequest = PeriodicWorkRequestBuilder(15, TimeUnit.MINUTES) .setConstraints(Constraints.Builder().build()) .setExpedited(OutOfQuotaPolicy.RUN_AS_NON_EXPEDITED_WORK_REQUEST) .build() Leveraging Foreground Services with Notifications For features requiring immediate precision—like geofencing—I had to accept that a persistent notification is non-negotiable. To keep the app from being perceived as 'spammy,' I designed the notification to be low-priority, showing only when a profile is actively being managed. I also had to handle the onTaskRemoved callback in my Service implementation. By calling startService again with a sticky