找到 1547 篇相关文章
OpenAI employees have donated more than $215,000 to a political effort opposing Leading the Future, a group backed by the company’s president, Greg Brockman.
Building a Lightweight Product Filter with Vanilla JavaScript While building a small e-commerce project, I wanted users to filter products instantly without refreshing the page. Instead of relying on a frontend framework, I opted for a simple solution using HTML data attributes, vanilla JavaScript, and a little CSS. The goal was straightforward: let visitors filter items by size while keeping the interface fast, responsive, and easy to maintain. HTML Structure Each product card stores its information in data-* attributes. This keeps the markup clean and makes filtering straightforward. <div class= "filters" > <button class= "filter-btn" data-filter= "all" > All </button> <button class= "filter-btn" data-filter= "small" > S </button> <button class= "filter-btn" data-filter= "medium" > M </button> <button class= "filter-btn" data-filter= "large" > L </button> </div> <div class= "product-grid" > <div class= "product-card" data-size= "medium" data-style= "cargo" > Cargo Shorts </div> <div class= "product-card" data-size= "large" data-style= "chino" > Chino Shorts </div> <!-- More product cards --> </div> Using data attributes means you can add new filter categories later without changing your overall structure. JavaScript Filtering Logic The filtering logic listens for button clicks and simply shows or hides product cards based on the selected size. const filterButtons = document . querySelectorAll ( " .filter-btn " ); const productCards = document . querySelectorAll ( " .product-card " ); filterButtons . forEach (( button ) => { button . addEventListener ( " click " , () => { const filterValue = button . dataset . filter ; productCards . forEach (( card ) => { const cardSize = card . dataset . size ; if ( filterValue === " all " || cardSize === filterValue ) { card . classList . remove ( " hidden " ); } else { card . classList . add ( " hidden " ); } }); filterButtons . forEach (( btn ) => btn . classList . remove ( " active " )); button . classList . add ( " active "
Hi guys ! I'm a new developer who's interested in data science and artificial intelligence. To showcase what I learnt thus far, I've started writing articles, with my first one being published here ! One of the most difficult parts of getting into machine learning was the overload of terminology that tutorials had, even when explaining basic concepts such as how a neural network itself would function. Because of this, I've written an article (see above) that simplifies it while ensuring the main concepts are sufficiently explained; it requires no mathematical background and will only take less than 5 minutes to read ! I hope you find it informative and well written, and I highly welcome any suggestions or corrections that might be suggested to improve my future articles !
WordPress major version upgrades (5.x → 6.x, and eventually 6.x → 7.x) are a different animal from minor releases. Minor releases (like 6.4.1 → 6.4.2) are mostly bug fixes with low compatibility risk. Majors land API deprecations, raised PHP minimum requirements, and core block replacements all at once — and those things hit operations hard. The " just hit Update in the admin and patch whatever breaks " workflow can survive on a single personal site, but it tends to fall apart under multi-site maintenance — simultaneous failures across sites overwhelm root-cause triage. This post collects the things worth verifying before you run a major upgrade, as a seven-item checklist . 1. Has the minimum PHP version been raised? Major WordPress releases sometimes raise the minimum supported PHP version (6.6 lifted it to PHP 7.2.24, and a future 7.0 will very likely require PHP 8.x). What matters operationally isn't just the server's PHP version and WordPress's stated minimum — it's the intersection with the PHP versions your plugins and themes actually run on . You can usually upgrade your server's PHP, but older themes and plugins not running on new PHP isn't rare. A subtle failure mode here: traps like PHP 8.2+ deprecated warnings leaking into older WP-CLI JSON output , where nothing visibly errors but your operational tooling silently breaks. Before upgrading, run wp plugin list --format=json on the production PHP environment and verify you're getting clean JSON. That one check catches a lot of post-upgrade pain. 2. Audit "Tested up to" for every plugin Each plugin's readme.txt carries a Tested up to: X.X line — the developer's declaration of the highest WordPress version they've actually tested against . It's the first signal for major-upgrade compatibility audits. WP-CLI gives you the inventory in one shot: wp plugin list --fields = name,version,update_version,update --format = table Plugins where "Tested up to" is old AND no updates in the last year deserve scrutiny. Acti
The Hidden Cost of Manual IAM Review Most teams don't track how long they spend reviewing IAM policies. When I started measuring it on my own team, the numbers were worse than I expected. A thorough manual review of one IAM policy takes 10 to 15 minutes. Not a quick scan. A real review: read every statement, trace every cross-account trust, verify every condition key, check for privilege escalation paths, confirm the resource ARNs match what you think they should. At 4 engineers touching IAM once a week, that's 4 hours a month. 48 hours a year of senior engineers reading JSON documents. And that's the optimistic case. Add a security incident. Add an audit. Add the emergency Friday-afternoon policy change that needs review before deploy. The real number is higher. What manual review misses The problem isn't just the time. It's that humans are bad at repetitive structured-data review, especially under time pressure. Here are the things I've seen slip through manual IAM reviews on production systems: iam:PassRole with no condition. This is the big one. PassRole lets a principal pass a role to a service — and if there's no iam:PassedToService condition, that role can be passed to any service that accepts roles. Including services the attacker controls. The reviewer saw the action, mentally categorized it as "role stuff," and moved on. It was statement 47 of 52 — the reviewer had already been reading policies for 40 minutes. Wildcard resource with sensitive actions. s3:* on Resource: "*" is obvious. s3:GetObject on "arn:aws:s3:::*-backup/*" with a wildcard in the bucket name — that's subtle. The reviewer reads it as "restricted to backup buckets" and moves on. But the wildcard means any bucket ending in -backup , including ones in other accounts if cross-account access is configured. Missing aws:SourceArn on Lambda invocation permissions. When you grant another service permission to invoke your Lambda function, you need aws:SourceArn to prevent the confused deputy
The restrictions, which can be turned off, will include a crackdown on “addictive” app features and will be in addition to a total ban on children under 16 accessing platforms like TikTok and YouTube.
The cohesion paper series is now published in full — five papers that build a chain from the concept of cohesion to the Independent Variation Principle (IVP) . The chain: On the Nature of Cohesion — defines cohesion as a $2k$-tuple: for $k$ partitioning rules, $k$ (purity, completeness) pairs. Proves the knowledge-embodiment theorem: maximal cohesion under a rule coincides with exact knowledge embodiment under that rule. Shows that every published algorithmic cohesion metric measures a structural proxy (method-call overlap, shared-field density), not cohesion as defined by a principle. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20785752 Causal Cohesion — instantiates the schema under one concrete rule — change-driver-assignment identity: elements belong together iff $\Gamma(e_1) = \Gamma(e_2)$. Develops the metric $H_\text{causal}(M) = (\text{purity}(M), \text{completeness}(M))$, a two-dimensional score that fills one slot of the $2k$-tuple. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20785881 Four Necessary Conditions for Optimal Modularization — from the schema plus the objective of minimizing change propagation, proves four conditions — Admissibility, Element Form, Separation, Unification — are necessary and jointly exhaustive, uniquely pinning the $\Gamma$-equality partition $E / \tilde{\Gamma}$. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21362420 Why Minimizing Change Propagation Minimizes Maintenance Cost — decomposes total maintenance cost into access, alignment, cognitive, and domain-fixed components. Proves that minimizing change propagation cost is equivalent to minimizing total maintenance cost under an explicit coefficient condition, justifying the objective paper 5 assumed. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21362542 The Independent Variation Principle — synthesizes the chain into a single structural principle and examines the premises (change drivers, functional model, change isolation), preconditions (driver independence, decisional autonomy), and scope boundary. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21362618 Two derivations Last month's preprint — Der
The new Google image search will use your "unique interests" to create an always-updated gallery.
A new study found that social media platforms are referring people to sites where they can create nonconsensual, sexually explicit deepfakes for as little as $1 an image.
I had a tidy little helper that computed a thinking budget based on input size. Something like "give the model 30% of the context as thinking room." It worked great on Opus 4.5. Then I tried to point it at Opus 4.8 and got a 400. The whole concept I had built around is gone in the current models. Here is what replaced it and how I migrated. What broke The old pattern looked like this: // Opus 4.5 and earlier const response = await client . messages . create ({ model : " claude-opus-4-5 " , max_tokens : 16000 , thinking : { type : " enabled " , budget_tokens : 8000 }, messages , }); On Opus 4.7, 4.8, and Fable 5, thinking: { type: "enabled", budget_tokens: N } returns a 400. The fixed token budget is dead. The replacement is adaptive thinking, where the model decides how much to think, plus an effort knob that controls overall token spend. // Opus 4.8 const response = await client . messages . create ({ model : " claude-opus-4-8 " , max_tokens : 16000 , thinking : { type : " adaptive " }, output_config : { effort : " high " }, // low | medium | high | xhigh | max messages , }); Why this is actually better (after I got over it) My old budget code was a guess dressed up as a calculation. I had no real basis for "30% of context." I picked it because it felt reasonable and the outputs looked fine. Adaptive thinking moves that decision to the model, which sees the actual problem. The mental model shift: budget_tokens controlled how much the model could think. effort controls how much it thinks and acts . They are not the same axis, so there is no clean 1:1 mapping. I stopped trying to translate "8000 tokens" into an effort level and instead picked based on the workload. How I chose effort levels After running my own evals, here is where I landed: Workload Effort Notes Classification, routing low Fast, scoped, not intelligence-sensitive Most app traffic medium to high The balance point Coding and agentic loops xhigh Best for these; it is the Claude Code default Correctness
Build a Local LLM Chatbot with Ollama and Python Build a Local LLM Chatbot with Ollama and Python Imagine typing a question into your chatbot and getting a response in milliseconds, completely offline, with zero data leaving your machine. No API keys, no monthly subscription fees, and no privacy concerns about your data being sent to a cloud server. This isn’t a futuristic dream—it’s the reality of running a Local Large Language Model (LLM) on your own computer. With the rise of tools like Ollama , building a private AI chatbot in Python has become as simple as installing a few packages and writing a short script. Let’s dive in and build one together. Why Go Local? Before we write any code, it’s worth understanding why running an LLM locally is a game-changer. Cloud-based AI services like OpenAI or Anthropic are powerful, but they come with trade-offs: you pay per token, your data is processed on their servers, and you’re dependent on their uptime. A local LLM flips this model. You download the model once, run it on your hardware, and you have full control. Ollama is the engine that makes this accessible. It’s a lightweight, open-source tool that simplifies running LLMs like Llama 3, Phi 3, or Mistral on macOS, Linux, and Windows. It handles model downloads, memory management, and inference, exposing a simple API that Python can easily interact with [1][2]. Step 1: Install Ollama and Pull a Model The first step is getting Ollama on your machine. Visit ollama.com , click Download , and install the version for your operating system [2]. Once installed, verify it’s working by opening your terminal or Command Prompt and running: ollama --version If you see a version number, you’re ready to go. Next, you need a model. Ollama supports dozens of open-source models, but for a beginner-friendly chatbot, Llama 3.2 is a great choice. It’s small, fast, and surprisingly capable. To download it, run: ollama pull llama3.2 This command fetches the model and stores it locally. Depen
X's head of product, Nikita Bier, admitted in a post on Monday that X's algorithm was "missing" data about surfacing posts from people who you've followed back. Now, he says a tweak will "boost visibility of your posts to your mutuals," hopefully enhancing the sense of community instead of highlighting and spreading random arguments, but […]
New York’s data center moratorium may become the blueprint for anti-AI movement.
Spotify is rolling out a new AI-powered conversational feature that lets Premium subscribers chat with the app to discover music, podcasts, audiobooks, and more.
If you want to stream local media, this free and open source media server is just as good as Plex. But if you rely on remote access or live TV, prepare to tinker.
In the 1960s an MIT professor named Joseph Weizenbaum created a chatbot called ELIZA. The conversations people had with it set precedents for the chatbots to come.
7 MongoDB Query Mistakes That Return the Wrong Results VisuaLeaf VisuaLeaf VisuaLeaf Follow Jul 14 7 MongoDB Query Mistakes That Return the Wrong Results # mongodb # coding # software # database 3 reactions Add Comment 5 min read
In response to a public records request, HUD has withheld documents about DOGE’s use of AI—in part by citing a privilege that doesn’t exist.
AI makes the first 80% of development feel fast, but hides architectural complexity until it's too late. To prevent system instability, engineering leaders must shift from raw throughput to systemic comprehension. By unifying spec-anchored SDD, TDD, and automated fitness functions into a repo-bound "Context Store," teams can ensure AI agents and human reviewers evolve code safely. By Stella Berhe, Stephan Bragner, Vikram Maran, Anand Jayaraman
The machine that could change the world will be housed in a room that looks like a data center crossed with an ice cream factory. Inside will be some 100 stainless-steel cabinets, each about six feet tall and connected to a supply of liquid helium that keeps them only a few degrees above absolute zero.…