标签：#product

AI presentation agent for editable decks Discussion | Link

understand software Discussion | Link

It is a one-line habit that has saved me more debugging time than any clever abstraction: I log which model actually answered every Claude request. Not which model I asked for. Which one responded. In 2026, with model fallbacks, fast-changing model strings, and routing logic, those are not always the same thing. Here is why the gap exists and what it has caught. The request model and the response model can differ You send model: "claude-fable-5" . You assume Fable 5 answered. But the response object tells you what actually served the request: const response = await client . messages . create ({ model : " claude-fable-5 " , max_tokens : 16000 , thinking : { type : " adaptive " }, messages : [{ role : " user " , content : prompt }], }); console . log ( " requested fable-5, served: " , response . model ); Most of the time they match. The interesting cases are when they do not. The Fable 5 safeguard fallback The reason this matters most in 2026 is Fable 5's safeguards. Fable 5 has hard guardrails in cybersecurity, biology, chemistry, and health. If your prompt trips one, the request does not just refuse. It silently falls back to Opus 4.8 to produce a safe answer. For my security work, this is a sharp edge. I run contract-analysis prompts that can look adversarial to a safeguard. If one trips, I am quietly getting Opus 4.8 output while believing I am getting Fable-tier reasoning. The quality difference on a hard audit is exactly the thing I paid double for, and it vanished without an error. The only way to know is to read response.model : if ( ! response . model . startsWith ( " claude-fable-5 " )) { logger . warn ( { requested : " claude-fable-5 " , served : response . model }, " Fable 5 request fell back, likely a safeguard trip " , ); } Without that log, a fallback is invisible until I notice the analysis got worse and have no idea why. Routing logic and config drift The other source of the gap is my own code. I have routing that picks a model based on task type and

I'm 19. In four months I built 128 projects with AI — 61 GitHub repos, 15 MCP servers, a 7-department agent OS, the works. I shipped 5 . Total stars: 6 . Revenue: $0 . That gap bothered me enough that I did the obvious-but-uncomfortable thing: I had an AI audit everything — every repo, every project folder, 4,239 build sessions, 244 memory notes — and pin it all like specimens in a cabinet. No flattery. Here's what the autopsy found. → The full interactive atlas: https://builder-archive.vercel.app/en The number that explains everything 128 built. 5 shipped. It's tempting to read that as a discipline problem. It isn't. The build velocity is real — I once shipped ~20 vertical SaaS in a single weekend on a shared Next.js + Drizzle + Stripe stack. The code works. The UIs are clean. The problem is the last mile . README writing, deployment, the final 10% that turns a repo into a thing a stranger can use — that's where almost everything died. Not ability. Execution. The AI put it in one line: "Can build anything. Finishes nothing." Strength and weakness are the same coin Here's the part I didn't want to see: the thing that makes me fast is the thing that kills me. Because I can build deep, I lose the stopping point. Because building is cheap, I start the next thing before finishing the last. The audit scored two skill axes: Build (design → implementation → automation): advanced Distribution (publish → ship → monetize): beginner Every problem I have lives in that asymmetry. It's not a motivation gap — total commits across repos: ~4,800. The effort is enormous. It just never crosses the finish line into something public. The hardest thing I made is the one I hid The audit flagged a buried asset: a GCC/ZATCA e-invoicing toolkit — Saudi Fatoora Phase 2, EN16931 + Peppol validation, secp256k1 signing, Go compiled to WASM. The single hardest, most verifiable piece of work I've done. It's been sitting in a private repo. That's the disease in one example: the more valuable the th

Use every business AI tool without every subscription Discussion | Link

Dominate SEO with an AI content operating system Discussion | Link

Has anyone else ended up maintaining the same AI skill in multiple places? I use Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kimi, and several other AI tools. Over time, I accumulated a huge collection of skills and workflows. The annoying part wasn't creating them. It was keeping them synchronized. A skill would exist in one format for Claude Code, another for Cursor, another for Gemini, and so on. Eventually, I got tired of duplicating everything and built an open-source project called AI Omni Skills. The idea is to keep a single source of truth and generate the formats required by different AI tools. Now I update a skill once and regenerate whatever structure a specific tool expects. I'm curious: How are you managing skills today? Are you duplicating them across tools? What integrations would you want to see? Repo: https://github.com/moatazhamada/ai-omni-skills

Predict anything with AI Discussion | Link

Treating docs as a product When documentation lives as an afterthought, it shows. Pages drift out of date, examples break quietly, and release notes scatter across a dozen places no one can find. The fix is not a weekend cleanup. It is a decision to treat docs the way you treat any product people depend on: someone owns it, it has standards, and it gets maintained on purpose. That is the decision I made when the docs came to the Developer Relations team at the end of 2025. Not "let's tidy this up," but "this is ours now, and we are accountable for whether a developer can actually build from it." The work, in the repository The honest record of what a team does to a codebase lives in its git history, so that is where the story starts. Comparing the six months before the handoff to the six months since: Before vs. Under DevRel: Commits: 476 → 1,900+ Merged pull requests: 145 → 447 Unique contributors: 21 → 64 A repository that averaged fewer than 500 commits over half a year is now past 1,900 in the same span. The contributor count tripled, because we treated the docs as something the whole community could improve, not a walled garden. This is what a team that decided to do the work looks like when you measure it. Our proudest metric is what was cut In six months, we added roughly 339,000 lines and removed roughly 281,000. That near balance is the point. A neglected docs site accumulates: dead pages, stale tutorials, examples that no longer compile, three slightly different explanations of the same concept. Adding more on top of that does not help anyone. So we cut nearly as much as we wrote. We rebuilt the Hello World walkthrough from 1,300 lines down to about 300 without losing a thing. We consolidated scattered release notes into a single clean reference. A docs site is judged by what a developer can find and trust, not by how much sits on the shelf. A library you can learn from At the start of the year, the examples library had effectively one usable entry. Today,

Birdwatchers app to share and discover birds socially Discussion | Link

The rails AI agents use to find and pay you Discussion | Link

The Problem: How Website Slow Performance Costs Businesses Revenue A slow website doesn't just frustrate users it actively costs businesses money. Every additional second of load time causes visitors to leave, damages your search engine rankings and directly reduces conversions. Research shows that pages taking 5 seconds to load have a bounce rate 75% higher than pages loading in 1 second. For e-commerce sites, this translates to thousands of dollars in lost sales monthly. Recently, we worked with a client experiencing exactly this problem. Their website averaged 5-second load times, resulting in high bounce rates, poor mobile performance and declining search visibility. They needed immediate action. The Initial Audit: Identifying Website Speed Bottlenecks Before implementing solutions, we performed a comprehensive website audit using industry-standard tools like Google PageSpeed Insights, GTmetrix and WebPageTest. Step 1: Image Optimization – The Biggest Win Images typically account for 50-80% of page weight. Optimizing images delivered the most dramatic performance improvements. What to do: Converted to Modern Formats – We converted all PNG and JPEG files to WebP format, which provides 25-35% better compression than traditional formats while maintaining visual quality. Aggressive Compression – Images were compressed using lossless and lossy techniques without perceptible quality loss to users. Implemented Lazy Loading – Below-the-fold images were set to load only when users scrolled near them, not on initial page load. Responsive Images – Different image sizes were served based on device screen size, so mobile users didn't download desktop-sized images. Step 2: Minifying and Deferring Code – Eliminating Render-Blocking Resources JavaScript and CSS files were creating significant render-blocking bottlenecks. What to do: Minified CSS and JavaScript – Removed unnecessary characters (spaces, comments, line breaks) from all CSS and JavaScript files. Removed Unused Code

Agentic keyboard for mobile commands and search Discussion | Link

Code reviews, configuration changes, and debugging sessions demand precise understanding of what changed between two versions of text. Manual comparison of large blocks of code or configuration files is error-prone, and version control diffs don’t always provide a quick, focused view for sharing or verifying changes outside a repository. What it is Diff Checker is a browser-based text comparison tool that performs line-by-line analysis of two text blocks and highlights differences with color-coded visual indicators. It processes text entirely in the browser—part of the 200+ free tools on DevTools—meaning no data is uploaded or stored, a privacy‑first design. The interface uses a split‑pane layout: original text on the left, modified text on the right. As you paste or type, the comparison engine recalculates the diff in real time, marking added, removed, and changed segments so differences are immediately clear. Several configuration options tailor the analysis. Toggling whitespace sensitivity ignores differences in indentation or blank lines, useful when comparing code from teams with different formatting conventions. Case sensitivity can be turned off for text where capitalization inconsistencies are irrelevant. A swap button reverses the comparison direction with a single click, handy when the assignment of “original” and “modified” is accidentally reversed. How to use it Paste the original text into the left panel and the modified version into the right panel. The diff view updates instantly, so you don’t need to press a button to see changes. For code, the process is straightforward. Drop a baseline function on the left: function calculateTotal ( items ) { let total = 0 ; for ( let item of items ) { total += item . price ; } return total ; } And the updated version on the right: function calculateTotal ( items , taxRate = 0 ) { let total = 0 ; for ( let item of items ) { total += item . price * ( 1 + taxRate ); } return Math . round ( total * 100 ) / 100 ; } The

Placeholder text is necessary scaffolding in web development, but ubiquitous Lorem ipsum can lead to design monotony and disconnect from project context. Developers building mockups, prototypes, or content-heavy interfaces often need filler text that matches the tone of the target application without introducing distracting Latin. What it is The Lorem Ipsum Generator is a browser-based tool that produces placeholder text in multiple styles, moving beyond classical Latin pseudo-text. It offers distinct variants: traditional Lorem ipsum, Hipster Ipsum with artisanal terminology, Corporate Speak filled with business jargon, and Pirate Ipsum with nautical themes. Each style maintains readability while providing vocabulary that aligns with the spirit of a given project. The generator is part of DevTools, a privacy-first collection of 200+ free browser tools where all processing happens locally—no signup, no tracking. Developers can configure generation parameters to specify the number of paragraphs, total word count, and whether to start with the familiar “Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet” opening. The output is plain text ready for pasting into HTML, design files, or CMS entries. How to use it The interface is a straightforward form: select a text style from the dropdown, then set the number of paragraphs or words you need. The tool generates the text instantly and provides a one-click copy button. <!-- Example output structure when pasting into HTML --> <div class= "content-area" > <p> Leverage agile frameworks to provide a robust synopsis for high level overviews... </p> <p> Iterative approaches to corporate strategy foster collaborative thinking... </p> </div> For typical workflows, 1–3 paragraphs suffice for article previews or body content. Headlines work well with 5–15 words, while navigation elements often need only 2–5 words. The quick copy functionality streamlines populating multiple content areas. Different styles suit different contexts: Corporate Speak makes busi

One Model to Command Them All Discussion | Link

Why AI Alternatives Matter AI is prone to problems affecting its output: hallucinations, incompleteness, inconsistency, and bias. AI usage is costly, and the popular free services might require expensive paid plans or downgrade to sponsored light versions at any time. Don't Hit Submit! Ethical issues aside, lazily using AI to often and too early won't make you a better coder or more creative. And AI companies don't only take your money, they're also after your data – and your time! Techniques like Rubber Duck Debugging (internal dialog development preparing questions and anticipating answers without actually asking anyone) are alternatives to AI for coding and creativity. Don't Ask Suggestive Questions If your question implies a certain answer, asking only makes sense for falsification. AI (and other people) will hopefully tell you when you're completely wrong. Only that AI often doesn't. Current models are trained for flattery and verbosity. Don't Ask Why What a waste of time! Try to ask open questions, and always prefer asking "how", not "why". Stay Skeptical Don't believe anything without a factful proof or a recent, reputable, relevant source. GEO, the AI-agent-targeting variant of search engine optimization, already succeeded to gaslight AI and poison its answers with fake sources biased towards commercial results. AI seems much more gullible than real people. Source: The Shape of Enshittification: Books That No Longer Get Read, An Internet That No Longer Gets Surfed, & The End of Social Media As We Know It.. Principle of Least Power Remember the rule of least power : don't rent a truck when you need a mini van. Don't use AI when you need autocomplete, web search, or a tutorial! I sketched a pyramid of thinking, creativity, and information retrieval again. As you can guess, AI assistants are "on top" as the most costly exception, while the broad basis should be traditional groundwork. Here's a cute AI-slop adaption: Source: Hand-Crafted Creative Counter-Culture

Chrome has had scroll restoration support since 2015. You can even control it: history.scrollRestoration = 'manual' . But if you've ever tried to reliably restore a user's position on a React or Next.js app, you know it doesn't work the way you'd expect. Here's what breaks, why it breaks, and how a browser extension can sidestep the entire problem. What the Browser Actually Does The default behavior is history.scrollRestoration = 'auto' . When you navigate back to a page, the browser tries to scroll to where you were. This works fine for static pages. It falls apart for: SPAs where content is injected into the DOM after navigation Infinite scroll pages where the content at a given Y position changes depending on what was previously loaded Lazy-loaded images that push content down after the scroll restore fires The fundamental problem: the browser fires scroll restoration when the page HTML is parsed, not when the page content is fully rendered. A React app that loads a skeleton → fetches data → renders actual content will restore scroll into a partially-rendered DOM. The history.scrollRestoration = 'manual' Trap If you set manual , you own scroll restoration completely. Most Next.js apps do this. The typical approach: // Save position before navigation router . beforeEach (( to , from ) => { savedPositions [ from . path ] = window . scrollY ; }); // Restore after navigation router . afterEach (( to ) => { const position = savedPositions [ to . path ]; if ( position !== undefined ) { nextTick (() => window . scrollTo ( 0 , position )); } }); The nextTick is the problem. It fires after the Vue/React render cycle, but before async data fetching completes. The page renders empty containers, scroll restores to Y=800, then data loads and pushes everything down. User ends up at Y=800 in a now-different page position. The correct fix is to wait until the content that was at Y=800 actually exists. There's no clean hook for this — you'd need to observe the DOM until the expec

I did not choose DeepSeek because I think GPT-4 is bad. I chose it because I was building a free app, and free apps teach you what actually matters pretty fast. The question was simple: how do I keep sessions cheap enough that people can practice a lot without me lighting money on fire? The answer pushed me toward DeepSeek-V3 (and later R1 for specific tasks). The real constraint was volume The app is a conversation practice tool. People come in to rehearse hard talks, not to admire the model. A single practice session runs 8-15 turns. Each turn is roughly 300-600 tokens in, 100-300 out. Multiply that by five sessions a week per active user and the costs start compounding. Here is what the math looked like when I was choosing (mid-2026 pricing): Model Input cost (per 1M tokens) Output cost (per 1M tokens) Cost per 10-turn session (est.) GPT-4o $2.50 $10.00 ~$0.04-0.06 GPT-4 Turbo $10.00 $30.00 ~$0.12-0.18 DeepSeek-V3 $0.27 $1.10 ~$0.004-0.007 DeepSeek-R1 $0.55 $2.19 ~$0.008-0.012 At scale, the difference between $0.005 and $0.05 per session is the difference between running a free product and needing a paywall after three conversations. I wanted people to come back daily without hitting a wall. What DeepSeek handled well It stayed in character for 10-15 turns. It pushed back when the user got vague. It followed persona heuristics (numbered if/then rules in the system prompt) about as reliably as GPT-4o did for our use case. For salary negotiation rehearsal, the model needs to say "that's not in the budget" and hold that position for three more turns while the user tries different approaches. DeepSeek-V3 did this. Not perfectly, but reliably enough that sessions felt real. It also made the app easier to run as a free product. People can try, fail, reset, and try again without me worrying about per-session cost. Where GPT-4 was still better GPT-4 (and 4o) is smoother with nuanced emotional wording. When a conversation gets subtle, loaded with subtext, or requires pick

Fix what's breaking in your AI agent Discussion | Link