标签：#product

Build AI slide decks without leaving your terminal Discussion | Link

Turn your outdoor activities into a territory game. Discussion | Link

See what AI agents do inside your MCP server Discussion | Link

Why I Chose GoFr for My Backend Project When starting a new backend project, one of the first decisions I need to make is choosing the right framework. Over the years, I’ve experimented with different backend technologies, each offering its own strengths and trade-offs. For my latest project, however, I decided to try something different: GoFr. At first, I was simply exploring the Go ecosystem and looking for tools that could help me build production-ready services faster. What caught my attention wasn’t just that GoFr was built in Go—it was the philosophy behind it. Instead of forcing developers to spend days configuring infrastructure, wiring dependencies, and setting up observability, GoFr focuses on helping developers get from idea to deployment quickly. In this article, I’ll share the reasons why I chose GoFr for my backend project and what stood out during my experience. The Problem with Starting Backend Projects Every backend project begins with excitement. You have an idea, a feature roadmap, and a vision of what you’re trying to build. Yet before writing meaningful business logic, developers often spend hours or even days configuring: Logging Database connections Metrics Tracing Health checks API routing Environment management Deployment configurations While these tasks are necessary, they rarely contribute directly to solving the actual problem your application is meant to address. As a developer who frequently builds side projects and prototypes, I wanted a framework that reduced this setup overhead while still following good engineering practices. That’s where GoFr entered the picture. What Initially Attracted Me to GoFr The first thing I noticed was how quickly I could get a service running. Instead of navigating through multiple configuration files and third-party packages, GoFr provides many essential backend capabilities out of the box. This means less time deciding which libraries to install and more time focusing on application logic. The framework

Notes from building a memory layer that forgets on purpose. Most "memory-enabled" agents don't remember anything. They re-read. Every turn, the whole conversation gets pasted back into the prompt, and we call that memory because the model can answer questions about earlier turns. It's a good trick. I used it for months. It also falls apart the moment real people start using the thing, and it falls apart in three separate ways. The first is the one everyone notices: it's expensive and noisy. You re-send every prior turn on every request. The single line you actually care about - "I'm allergic to peanuts" - is buried under a thousand lines of small talk, and you pay for all of it, every time. The second is quieter and worse. Transcript-stuffing has no idea what stale means. If someone told your agent "I'm vegetarian" in March and "I eat fish now" in May, you've just handed the model both facts with equal weight. Now it has to guess which one is current. Sometimes it guesses wrong, and there's nothing in the system that even thinks that's a problem. The third one is the reason I stopped treating this as a side quest. When you finally add summarization to control the cost from problem one, the summarizer is free to drop whatever it wants to save tokens. Including the allergy. I spent years around fintech, where the wrong record surviving (or the right one quietly vanishing) is how people get hurt, so this landed hard: forgetting an allergy to save 40 tokens isn't a cost bug. It's a safety bug wearing a cost bug's clothes. So the question I actually wanted to answer wasn't "how do I make my agent remember more." It was: how do I build something where acting on a fact the user already retracted and silently dropping a fact that must survive are impossible by construction, not just unlikely if the prompt is good that day. Everyone has already solved one third of this The encouraging part is that you don't have to invent much. The discouraging part is that every existing sy

Local AI Autocomplete in your voice, anywhere on your Mac Discussion | Link

Let AI agents hire and pay each other w/ on-chain settlement Discussion | Link

Household chores without the mental load for ADHD Discussion | Link

AI customer support agent, live on your website in 5 minutes Discussion | Link

Most developers have done this at least once. You get a messy API response. You need to inspect a JWT. You have a webhook payload, a log object, or a config file that is hard to read. So you open a JSON formatter, paste the content, and move on. That habit is convenient. But it also deserves a second look. Not every JSON tool behaves the same way. Some tools process your input entirely in the browser. Some send content to a server. Some store snippets for sharing. Some extensions have permissions that are broader than you expect. The problem is not that every online formatter is unsafe. The problem is that you often do not know what happens after you paste. What you should avoid pasting blindly Before using any random online tool, be careful with: production JWTs API responses containing user data logs from real systems config files webhook payloads database URLs cloud keys internal endpoints tenant IDs error traces from production systems A JSON payload does not need to contain an obvious password to be sensitive. Sometimes the risky part is context: user IDs, internal URLs, tokens, customer data, or system structure. A quick DevTools check You can do a basic check with your browser’s DevTools. Open the JSON tool. Open DevTools. Go to the Network tab. Clear existing requests. Paste a harmless test JSON first. Run format, validate, diff, decode, or whatever action the tool provides. Watch the Network tab. Look for POST, PUT, fetch, XHR, or beacon requests after your input. Inspect request payloads if they exist. Check whether your pasted JSON appears in any request. Do this with harmless test data first. If the tool uploads the test JSON, do not paste production content into it. What to look for A few signs deserve attention: POST requests after you paste or click format request bodies containing your JSON share-link features that save snippets server-side validation APIs analytics events that include pasted content extension background requests that are not clearly

Forward manufacturing RFQs by email, no portals required Discussion | Link

The only AI tool designed specifically for resume writing Discussion | Link

Even the aging iPhone 11 will feel a little more responsive soon, thanks to improvements in an unsung iOS feature.

We Built ARK Because Our Customer Support Was Spread Across 4 Apps The Problem A few months ago, our small team was drowning. Not in customers (well, a little) — but in tabs. WhatsApp open in one window. Instagram DMs in another. A live chat widget buried in a third. Email in a fourth. Every time a customer reached out, someone had to figure out: which channel did this come from, has anyone replied already, and what was the context of the last conversation? The result was predictable: slower replies, repeated questions to customers, and a support workflow that didn't scale past a handful of conversations a day. Why Existing Tools Didn't Fit We looked at the usual suspects — Intercom, Zendesk, Front. They're solid products, but they're built for large support teams with big budgets and dedicated admins. We needed something simpler: a single inbox, AI doing the repetitive work, and a setup that doesn't take weeks to configure. What We Built ARK pulls every customer conversation — WhatsApp, Instagram, Messenger, email, live chat — into one inbox. On top of that, AI handles three things: Drafting replies based on conversation history and context Summarizing long threads so anyone on the team can jump in without reading 40 messages Routing conversations to the right person automatically based on topic or channel The goal wasn't to replace human support — it was to remove the busywork so the team can focus on actually helping people. Where We Are Now ARK is live with a 7-day free trial (auto-renews after that). We're still early, and we're shaping the roadmap based on real feedback from teams managing support across multiple channels. If you're dealing with the same multichannel chaos we were, I'd love to hear how you're handling it — and what's still missing from the tools you've tried. 🔗 https://byark.ai/

Centralize, scope, and sync skills for every AI agent Discussion | Link

Parallel, sandboxed Claude Code sessions on native macOS Discussion | Link

After posting several articles about the impact of AI on developers and sharing resources to help...

What AI makes, Publia ships. Discussion | Link

Obsidian prompts beat open-ended reflection every time: median review time across 6 weeks was 14 minutes, fastest was 9, slowest was 22 (and that week genuinely deserved 22). I ran the GTD-adjacent version faithfully for six weeks — 90 minutes, full capture sweep, energy audit, the works. Then less faithfully for two months. Then I stopped entirely and didn't notice for three weeks. That last part is the failure mode nobody writes about. The format wasn't wrong; it was sized for a version of my week that rarely existed. The fix wasn't a better framework. It was shorter, closed questions. My Obsidian template has seven prompts, none of them open-ended: what shipped, what didn't, what I avoided and why, one thing to drop, one thing to protect. One-to-three sentence answer ceiling per prompt, hard stop. Open questions like "how was your week?" generate rumination. Closed questions generate decisions. That distinction is doing almost all the work. The Notion version I ran before this taught me something useful about tool selection too. I built rollups — tasks closed this week, open tasks by project, inbox count, stalled for 7+ days — and they worked exactly as designed. What Notion couldn't do was get out of its own way during actual reflection. Every time I tried to think through what went wrong, I'd end up reorganizing a database instead. Forty minutes later, new linked database, zero review completed. The same flexibility that makes Notion a good data layer makes it a bad "close the loop and move on" environment. Obsidian's plain-file simplicity is the right call for the thinking layer — and completely wrong for the data layer. Neither tool alone is the honest answer. There's also a cautionary note from my automation setup: a Zapier zap that pushed completed tasks into Notion for weekly rollup ran cleanly for two months, then silently broke when my task manager updated their API response format. Modified tasks started logging as completed. My rollup became noise befo

That's the reality of what I've been testing - whether you can actually run a micro SaaS from a phone. Not as a gimmick, but as a real workflow. The key is prompting discipline. When I want a changelog section added to my delivery page, I'm not just asking. I'm structuring the task: queue it up, do QA after each step, create the build, update the OTA link, ping me on Telegram, then move to the next one. If something breaks, take notes and continue - I'll deal with it later. The AI handles the repetitive loop. I handle the decisions. Most of my dev ops now fits in a chat thread. Is this the future of solo building? Maybe. Or maybe it's just a useful edge case for when your laptop is in for repair and you have a deadline. Either way, it's worth knowing what's actually possible.