标签：#ev

I never set out to build VentureTwin AI as just another chatbot. The idea was much bigger than answering questions. I wanted to build a digital twin that could understand a student's entire journey—their projects, certifications, technical skills, academics, achievements, and career interests—and use all of that to provide meaningful career guidance. Instead of simply recommending jobs based on keywords or certificate counts, I wanted the system to answer a much harder question: What is this student actually good at, and where are they most likely to succeed? To make that possible, I designed the platform as a collection of independent intelligence modules. The Certificate Intelligence module retrieved and verified certifications. Resume Intelligence evaluated technical skills and experience. Project Intelligence analyzed project metadata such as technology stack, complexity, implementation, and impact. Each module produced its own output, which was then passed to a scoring engine that generated a Career Readiness Score. Individually, every module worked exactly as expected. Then I compared two student profiles. The first student had completed more than 20 online certifications but had only a couple of basic projects. The second student had fewer certifications, but had built full-stack applications, worked with AI models, contributed to open-source projects, and actively participated in hackathons and technical competitions. I expected the second profile to receive stronger recommendations. It didn't. Instead, the student with the larger collection of certificates consistently received the higher Career Readiness Score. At first, I assumed something was broken. I traced every stage of the scoring pipeline, inspected API responses from every module, verified the PostgreSQL records, and even recalculated the scores manually. Every value matched. Every API response was correct. The database contained exactly what it should. The scoring engine was behaving exactly as I

Originally published on 2022-07-04. Published on July 3rd, 2022 We have a ll been there.. We all have that long list of unfinished side projects that we hope to complete some day.. If you're anything like me, that 'some day' is always eluding you and never getting here.. Ripping up the bandaid Today I have decided to finally go ahead and finish one of my long list of unfinished tutorial projects. I recently read a long Twitter thread that gave me a lot of food for thought. To paraphrase my understanding of one tweet, 'success is a combination of all the small wins'. Therefore, by finishing and publishing one unfinished project today, I set myself up to finishing another one tomorrow. Small, consistent gains I just need to make it a habit of finishing what I have started so that they do not get out of hands. After all, my Github account has about 126 repositories, but my portfolio website only has a dozen completed and published projects. Almost Done I have finished up the tutorial project. My next step is to rebuild the project from scratch without the handholding of the tutorial. One of the mental blocks that prevented me from finishing up the project in the first place seems insignificant now. Next time that mental block tries me, I will be better prepared! The project we're talking about! Published Link: https://blockchain.tioye.dev

I Built Flowstate Because We Somehow Made Productivity More Complicated Than The Actual Work Live: https://flowstate.chromitedev.xyz/ GitHub: https://github.com/ChromiteDev/flowstate We have a strange problem. Humans built some of the most advanced technology in history. We created: Computers that fit in our pockets Instant communication across the planet Machines that explore space Software that can do incredible things And somehow... We still struggle with: "What should I actually focus on today?" That is the problem I wanted to solve. So I built Flowstate . The productivity paradox We have never had more productivity tools. Seriously. Think about it. There are apps for: Tasks Notes Calendars Habits Goals Projects Time tracking Team management There is probably an app to help you organize the apps that organize your life. At some point we stopped being productive and started managing productivity. The funniest part? Sometimes creating the perfect productivity system becomes the biggest productivity project. You spend two hours making a beautiful workspace... Then realize: You have done absolutely nothing. A masterpiece of organization. Zero progress. The moment I realized something was wrong I noticed a pattern. People were not struggling because they were lazy. They were struggling because their attention was constantly being divided. Every day we fight: Notifications Endless information Too many choices Too many responsibilities Too many things competing for our attention The internet gave us unlimited access to information. But our attention? That is still limited. The question behind Flowstate I kept coming back to one question: "What actually deserves my attention right now?" Not: "What are all the possible things I could do?" Not: "How can I create the most complicated workflow imaginable?" Not: "Should I reorganize my folders for the fifth time?" (We have all been there.) The goal was simple: Create a tool that helps people find clarity. Introducing Flowsta

May 2026 There's a touchscreen mounted in my kitchen — I call it the WallScreen. It runs recipes, the chore board, a calendar, the usual smart-home clutter. One day I decided it should also pull in free over-the-air television. No subscription, no streaming app, just the local broadcast towers that have been beaming HD into the air for free this whole time. I had a Raspberry Pi 5, a $30 USB tuner, and what I assumed would be a boring afternoon. It was not a boring afternoon. The tuner that didn't want to work The tuner I grabbed was a MyGica A681 — a tidy little USB TV stick. Plug it into Windows, install the bundled software, done. Plug it into a Raspberry Pi running a current Linux kernel and you get… nothing. The computer notices a device is there and otherwise shrugs. Here's why, in two sentences: Linux has no built-in driver for the chips inside this particular stick. The manufacturer's driver only works on regular PC processors — and even then, only as a sealed, prebuilt file with no source code. A Raspberry Pi uses a different kind of chip entirely, so that driver is a non-starter. That's the whole problem. The hardware is great. It's just that on a Pi, this tuner is a paperweight — and you can't buy or download your way out of it. The only way out was to write the driver myself. What writing the driver actually involved A USB TV tuner isn't one chip — it's a little team of them working together. One chip is the "translator" that lets the computer talk to the device over USB. Another tunes to a channel, like turning a radio dial. A third converts the broadcast signal into video data the computer can use. The good news: for the parts that handle tuning and decoding the signal, I was able to build on existing open-source work from the broader Linux TV community — code other people had already written and shared for the chips inside this stick. (It's all credited in the project.) The missing piece — the part nobody had written — was the translator layer : the co

Every form I ever shipped before React 19 needed the same three pieces of state, and I wired them up...

With plenty of range and stellar ride quality, the new C-Class is a brilliant EV with a dashboard that's a little too in your face.

TL;DR Modern web applications change constantly. Components are re-rendered, generated...

I have been building an open source tool called Agentic Ledger and it just reached the point where I need more eyes on it than my own. This post is an introduction and an ask. The problem AI agents run unattended. They call LLMs in loops, use tools, spawn sub-agents, and spend real money, and most of that happens where you cannot see it. When an overnight coding loop burns $40 getting stuck on the same failing test, or a multi-agent crew quietly retries itself into a huge bill, you usually find out from the invoice. The observability tools that exist mostly want you to instrument your code with an SDK, and each one speaks one framework. I wanted the opposite: something that watches everything, requires changing nothing, and keeps the data on my machine. What it is Agentic Ledger is a transparent proxy that sits between your agent and the LLM provider. You point your agent's base_url at it, and it records every request and response, assigns each call an action id, works out what it cost, and passes the response through untouched. Your agent never knows it is there. Your Agent -> Agentic Ledger Proxy -> OpenAI / Anthropic / any gateway | SQLite or Postgres | Live dashboard + API No SDK, no decorators, no monkey patching. It works with any framework and any provider because it operates at the only layer they all share: the HTTP call. Everything is local-first. Your prompts stay in a SQLite file on your machine (or your own Postgres). MIT licensed. Try it in two minutes pip install -U agentic-ledger AGENTICLEDGER_UPSTREAM_URL = https://api.openai.com python -m agenticledger.proxy Or with Docker (multi-arch, non-root, Sigstore-signed): docker run -p 8000:8000 \ -e AGENTICLEDGER_UPSTREAM_URL = https://api.openai.com \ -v $( pwd ) /data:/data \ ghcr.io/shekharbhardwaj/agentic-ledger:latest Then point your agent at it: client = OpenAI ( base_url = " http://localhost:8000/v1 " , default_headers = { " x-agenticledger-session-id " : " run-1 " }, ) For coding agents like Claude

We've all had the same experience. You ask your coding agent to integrate with a new platform. It confidently writes code. It references endpoints that don't exist anymore. It misses required headers. It mixes API versions. It hallucinates authentication flows. None of this is surprising. Large language models don't "know" an API. They know about an API from their training data. Even when you hand them documentation, they're still trying to reconstruct a mental model from hundreds or thousands of pages of text. The problem isn't writing code. It's building context. Understanding an API is still mostly manual Every integration starts the same way. Read the authentication docs. Figure out the important entities. Learn the object relationships. Understand the common workflows. Find the endpoints that matter. Jump between documentation tabs for an hour. Only then do you actually start building. Ironically, AI made writing code dramatically faster while leaving this entire process mostly unchanged. Documentation wasn't designed for AI Most documentation is optimized for humans. OpenAPI specifications are optimized for machines. Neither tells the complete story on its own. The spec explains what exists. The documentation explains why it exists. Neither builds a coherent mental model. I wanted a better starting point That's why I built Scout. Scout takes an OpenAPI specification and the accompanying documentation, then synthesizes them into a grounded understanding of the platform. Instead of asking: "Can Claude figure this out?" The workflow becomes: import the API crawl the documentation build an understanding ask questions against grounded context generate integration code expose the same understanding to coding agents through MCP Everything runs locally. No hosted backend. No accounts. No telemetry. The interesting part isn't the AI The AI chat isn't the product. The generated code isn't the product. The MCP server isn't even the product. The product is the context tho

When an application starts using more than one language model provider, the hard part is rarely the first API call. The hard part is everything that follows: separate credentials, different request shapes, provider-specific errors, billing dashboards, and model migrations scattered across the codebase. A useful way to reduce that surface area is to keep one OpenAI-compatible client contract and move provider choice into configuration. This guide shows the smallest working setup with Routara , plus the production checks I recommend before sending real traffic. 1. Keep the SDK, change the endpoint If your project already uses the OpenAI Python SDK, the client initialization is the only part that needs to change: import os from openai import OpenAI client = OpenAI ( api_key = os . environ [ " ROUTARA_API_KEY " ], base_url = " https://api.routara.ai/v1 " , ) response = client . chat . completions . create ( model = " deepseek-chat " , messages = [ { " role " : " user " , " content " : " Explain idempotency in two sentences. " } ], ) print ( response . choices [ 0 ]. message . content ) Store the key in an environment variable. Do not put it in browser code, a public repository, screenshots, or support messages. The same pattern works in Node.js: import OpenAI from " openai " ; const client = new OpenAI ({ apiKey : process . env . ROUTARA_API_KEY , baseURL : " https://api.routara.ai/v1 " , }); const result = await client . chat . completions . create ({ model : " deepseek-chat " , messages : [{ role : " user " , content : " Return one short test sentence. " }], }); console . log ( result . choices [ 0 ]. message . content ); 2. Treat model IDs as configuration Do not spread model names throughout the application. Put them in environment variables or a typed configuration object: model_id = os . environ . get ( " ROUTARA_MODEL " , " deepseek-chat " ) That makes model evaluation and rollback much safer. Routara's live model catalog is the source of truth for current availa

JWT authentication has more failure modes than most developers realise. Correct signature verification is necessary but far from sufficient. This checklist is what I run through before every production JWT deployment. 1. Secret Is Generated With a CSPRNG Not a password. Not a UUID. Not a timestamp. A cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator output. In Node.js: crypto.randomBytes(32).toString('hex') In Python: secrets.token_hex(32) In the browser: jwtsecretgenerator.com/tools/jwt-secret-generator A 256-bit CSPRNG secret takes 10^59 years to brute force at current GPU speeds. 2. Algorithm Is Explicitly Specified in verify() // Wrong jwt . verify ( token , secret ); // Right jwt . verify ( token , secret , { algorithms : [ ' HS256 ' ] }); 3. exp Claim Is Present and Validated Short-lived tokens (15 minutes) limit the damage from leaks. Verify your library is actually checking exp — some require explicit configuration. 4. iss and aud Claims Are Validated Validates the token was issued by your service and intended for your API. Prevents token reuse across services. 5. Tokens Are in httpOnly Cookies, Not localStorage localStorage is readable by any script on the page. httpOnly cookies are invisible to JavaScript. 6. HTTPS Is Enforced JWT in a query parameter over HTTP is visible in every proxy, CDN, and server log on the path. Use the Authorization: Bearer header over HTTPS only. 7. Refresh Tokens Are Server-Side Revocable Short access tokens + server-side refresh tokens = the ability to end sessions immediately. Long-lived access tokens without refresh logic cannot be revoked. 8. The jti Claim Is Used If You Need Immediate Revocation Store revoked jti values in Redis with TTL matching token expiry. Check on every request. Adds one Redis lookup per request — worth it for high-security endpoints. 9. Different Secrets for Each Environment Dev secret leaks should not compromise production. Keep them separate. 10. Secret Is Not in Source Code or Version Control

This is a submission for DEV's Summer Bug Smash: Clear the Lineup powered by Sentry . Project Overview Staxa is a multi-tenant deployment platform I am building solo under Stackforge Labs. The backend is a single Go binary ( staxad ) using the chi router, with about 60 API endpoints, running on K3s on a Hetzner CAX21 ARM64 server that costs around $11/month. Each tenant gets an isolated Kubernetes namespace with their own app container, a PostgreSQL 16 or MySQL 8 database, a subdomain with automatic SSL, and resource quotas. Container builds run through Buildah, and the frontend is Next.js (App Router) with shadcn/ui and Clerk for auth. Bug Fix or Performance Improvement The symptom: POST /api/v1/tenants/{id}/deployments/{depId}/rollback accepted a deployment ID in the URL path and then completely ignored it. Whatever version you asked for, you got the most recent successful deployment instead. The route was wired up correctly in internal/api/router.go:149 : r . Post ( "/tenants/{id}/deployments/{depId}/rollback" , srv . handleRollbackDeployment ) But handleRollbackDeployment never called chi.URLParam(r, "depId") . It read {id} for the tenant and stopped there. How I found it: I was auditing my published API docs against the actual handlers, endpoint by endpoint. When I got to the rollback entry I went to write down what {depId} did, went to the handler to confirm, and found nothing reading it. The docs described an ID that the code never looked at. The worst part is that it returned 202 Accepted and then performed a real, successful rollback. Just not the one you asked for. There was no error to notice, no failed request in any log. The frontend had been passing the deployment ID into the URL since it was written ( src/lib/api.ts ), so the UI always believed the parameter was honored. Root cause: the handler created a rollback deployment row with no reference to any target, and the worker independently decided what to restore. In internal/worker/pipeline.go , runRo

Poland runs a national e-invoicing system called KSeF (Krajowy System e-Faktur). Business-to-business invoices are submitted to a government API in a schema called FA(3) , and the system hands back an official confirmation of receipt. If you sell software to Polish companies, you will meet it. The Ministry of Finance publishes official SDKs for Java and .NET . There is nothing for JavaScript. A full client is a real project: authentication, session handling, certificates, XML signing. But a large share of rejected invoices have nothing to do with any of that. They are structural. A tax ID with a bad checksum. Net plus VAT that does not add up to gross. A date that does not exist. Those are worth catching on your side, before you build a session with anyone. So I pulled that layer out of a product I work on, rewrote it standalone, and published it: ksef-invoice-validate . Zero dependencies, no network calls, runs in the browser. npm i ksef-invoice-validate import { validateInvoiceForKsef } from " ksef-invoice-validate " ; const result = validateInvoiceForKsef ({ invoice_number : " FV/2026/07/1 " , issue_date : " 2026-07-01 " , seller_nip : " 1111111111 " , buyer_nip : " 1111111111 " , amount_net : 1000 , amount_vat : 230 , amount_gross : 1230 , }); Three things in it were more interesting than I expected. The NIP checksum A Polish tax identification number (NIP) is ten digits. The tenth is a checksum over the first nine, each weighted and reduced modulo 11. const weights = [ 6 , 5 , 7 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]; const digits = cleaned . split ( "" ). map ( Number ); const checksum = weights . reduce (( sum , w , i ) => sum + w * digits [ i ], 0 ) % 11 ; if ( checksum !== digits [ 9 ]) { // invalid } There is a small elegance here. The remainder can be 10, and no single digit equals 10, so those numbers simply cannot exist as valid NIPs. You do not need a special case. The comparison rejects them on its own. This alone catches a surprising amount. Most bad tax IDs in t

A few months ago I got obsessed with a question: can you run a real LLM entirely inside a browser tab, with zero backend, zero GPU, and zero install? The answer is yes. Here's what I built. ghost is a single HTML file that downloads a quantized language model into your browser's cache on first visit, then runs inference locally in WebAssembly forever after. Fully offline after that first download. No API key. No npm. No build step. Open the file, pick a model, chat. How it works The inference engine is wllama — a WebAssembly binding for llama.cpp. It runs GGUF quantized models directly in the browser using WASM SIMD. I pin it to a specific version so the JS and WASM files always match (learned this the hard way after a fun debugging session involving mismatched memory imports). Models are downloaded from HuggingFace on first load and cached via the browser's Cache API. On every subsequent visit they load instantly from cache, no network needed. Features Three models: Qwen2.5 1.5B (smart), Qwen2 0.5B (fast), TinyLlama (lightweight) Markdown rendering from scratch — no library, just regex transforms RAG: drag a .txt or .pdf onto the chat window. It chunks the text, embeds each chunk using wllama's embedding API, stores vectors in memory, and retrieves the top-3 relevant chunks on each message. Fully local, fully offline Voice input via the Web Speech API — mic button auto-sends on silence Multi-turn conversation memory capped at 10 turns PWA installable — works on mobile home screen too The hard parts Getting wllama to load from a cached model was genuinely tricky. Blob URLs created in the main thread aren't accessible from wllama's internal Web Worker. IndexedDB chunk reconstruction hit a 2GB ArrayBuffer limit on Windows Chrome. The final solution was using wllama's built-in loadModelFromHF with useCache: true which handles everything internally. The embeddings API requires toggling a flag (embeddings: true) that conflicts with normal chat completion — so I toggle it

Introduction Hello from Japan! 🇯🇵 I am a professional truck driver teaching myself Python and web development while working toward a career transition into web engineering. This article records what I learned after approximately 122 hours of programming study , starting on May 12, 2026. Recently, I added a ripple animation effect to the answer buttons in my self-developed application: 🚛 DPT — Driver Personality Test https://qiita.com/tosane932/items/220d0f7d36bd79b2aa81 At first, I thought it would be a small visual improvement. However, while implementing it, I realized that the blinking light on my toilet control panel and a JavaScript flag named isProcessing were performing exactly the same role. This article explains that connection. It Started as Protection Against Repeated Clicks In DPT, clicking an answer button moves the user to the next question. In the original version, the next question appeared immediately after the button was clicked. However, this created a problem. If a user repeatedly clicked the button, the application continued advancing through the questions at the same speed. In an extreme case, someone could finish all 50 questions in only a few seconds. That would reduce the reliability of the personality test and could also create invalid answer records. To prevent this, I introduced a processing-state flag . let isProcessing = false ; testContainer . addEventListener ( " click " , ( event ) => { if ( isProcessing ) return ; const button = event . target . closest ( " .option-btn " ); if ( ! button ) return ; isProcessing = true ; createRipple ({ currentTarget : button , clientX : event . clientX , clientY : event . clientY }); const qIdx = Number ( button . dataset . qIndex ); const oIdx = Number ( button . dataset . oIndex ); setTimeout (() => { if ( oIdx === - 1 ) { handleAnswer ( qIdx , - 1 , " No answer " , 0 ); } else { const option = shuffledQuestions [ qIdx ]. shuffledOptions [ oIdx ]; handleAnswer ( qIdx , oIdx , option . text , optio

Manually checking what technologies power a website works once or twice. After that it gets slow, repetitive, and impossible to scale. Modern developers skip the manual step and detect tech stacks in code instead. Your program reads a response, pulls out the signals, and tells you what's running. No DevTools, no guesswork. This guide shows how that detection works and how to build it in Go with the open-source tooling ProjectDiscovery maintains. External resources: github.com/projectdiscovery/wappalyzergo projectdiscovery.io If you're new to the concept, start with technology fingerprinting for developers to understand the signals behind detection. What does "programmatic detection" mean? Programmatic detection just means letting software identify technologies instead of a person doing it by hand. Your application does five things: Sends a request Reads the response Extracts signals Matches fingerprints Outputs technologies No browser, no manual inspection. The same pipeline shows up in recon platforms, developer tooling, automation pipelines, and security workflows. Read detecting website technologies using Go first if you want the foundational walkthrough. Why developers prefer automated detection Manual workflows fall apart as systems grow. Scripted detection holds up because it's fast, consistent, and drops straight into a pipeline. Speed: scan hundreds of targets in minutes. Consistency: scripts don't skip clues a tired human would. Automation: pipe results straight into the rest of your tooling. Intelligence: raw HTTP turns into something you can act on. Building a fingerprint engine yourself means reimplementing years of pattern work. A mature library like wappalyzergo saves you those hundreds of hours. How programmatic fingerprinting works Most detectors run the same four-stage pipeline. Step 1: Fetch the target Send an HTTP request and keep the headers and body. Step 2: Extract signals Look for the clues a stack leaves behind: response headers, cookies, scr

Did you know that Kiro doesn't just have a Spec-Driven Development (SDD) flow, but also a bug fix workflow that helps you resolve one issue at a time? That's one of seven features worth knowing about. If you're completely new to Kiro, it's an agentic harness for the CLI, web, IDE, iOS, and more. It helps teams and individuals do their best work while coding. I've been using it since it launched in July last year, and I keep finding features I didn't know were there. (Full disclosure: I'm a Developer Advocate at AWS, and Kiro is a part of AWS. I use it every day, and I'll be forthcoming about the parts that are still preview or experimental.) Heads up: Kiro ships fast. I've flagged the version-sensitive bits of these features inline. Check the docs if something looks different in your build. 1. Stop approving every single command After talking to a lot of people about Kiro, one of the main pieces of feedback I get is on approving commands. When Kiro asks permission to run a shell command, the default reaction is to hit yes and move on. Then it asks again for the next git command. And the next one. Press Tab instead in the CLI. This allows you to edit it and put the exact permissions you'd like. For example you can be pickier on the trust tiers: git pull --rebase # this exact command git pull * # git pull with any arguments git * # anything git * # the entire shell tool Whatever you pick persists for the session and gets stored as a regex in your agent's allowedCommands . There's also /tools trust-all , which trusts everything. It's the documented replacement for the old /acceptall , and the security docs are blunt about it: don't use it in production or with sensitive data, and you're responsible for whatever it does. One version note: on CLI v3 this moves to a permissions.yaml file, so the agent JSON advice above is v2. More on v3 in a minute. Full details: tool permissions 2. The # menu is bigger than #file in the IDE Type # in the IDE chat and you get a list of co

This $9 NFC key requires you to physically scan it to unlock distracting apps on your phone.

After two years in stealth, Safe Superintelligence has announced a long-term partnership with Nvidia as it prepares to scale to its next phase.

Framework laptops always come with compromises in exchange for their unique DIY premise. Even though you pay extra for one compared to sleeker options from competitors, it's easier to excuse minor flaws for modular ports, easy repairs, and an impressive range of upgradeable parts. So what happens when Framework goes "Pro"? We get a one-of-a-kind […]