标签：#product

fd vs find vs ripgrep: I Created 10,000 Files to Settle This Debate TL;DR: fd is ~2.5x faster than find for filename searches, rg demolishes grep by ~3x for content searches, and find + grep combined lose on every single benchmark I ran. But there's a catch: both fd and rg skip hidden files by default, which can bite you if you're not paying attention. Here are the receipts. Why I Did This Every time someone posts a shell one-liner using find on Reddit, there's always that guy in the comments: "jUsT uSe fD, iT's fAsTeR." Then someone else chimes in with "actually ripgrep can do that too." I got tired of the anecdotes. I wanted numbers. Real ones. On real files. So I fired up WSL, generated 10,900 files across 1,506 directories (~143 MB of mixed content), and ran actual benchmarks with hyperfine . No synthetic microbenchmarks, no "I feel like X is faster" — just cold, hard terminal output. Methodology The Test Bed I created a directory at /tmp/fd-benchmark containing: Category Count Details Plain text files 2,000 file_*.txt — 20 bytes each, contains "test content line N" Binary files 2,000 data_*.bin — 15 bytes each Log files 1,500 match_*.log — contains unique "match_this_test_N" strings Config files 1,000 nested_file_*.cfg Nested dir files 1,000 level1_*/level2/level3/deep_*.txt + level1_*/shallow_*.txt Hidden root files 1,500 .hidden_* + .config_*.yml Hidden dir files 500 .hidden_dir/subdir/deep_hidden_*.txt Git objects 500 .git/objects/obj_* Multi-ext source files 800 src_*.{py,js,ts,rs,go,java,rb,php,cpp,h,css,html,json,xml,yaml,md} (50 each) Large binary files 100 large_*.dat — 1 MB each (random data) Total 10,900 $ du -sh . 143M . $ find . -type f | wc -l 10900 $ find . -type d | wc -l 1506 Tools Tested Tool Version What It Does find (GNU) 4.9.0 The OG. Ships with every Linux distro. fd 10.2.0 Rust-based find alternative. Smarter defaults, colored output. grep (GNU) 3.11 Content search. Also the OG. rg (ripgrep) 15.1.0 Rust-based grep alternative. Respects .gi

Hello, I'm Shrijith Venkatramana. I'm building git-lrc, an AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. Star Us to help devs discover the project. Do give it a try and share your feedback for improving the product. A straightforward engineering question: what happens when you feed a long book to an on-device language model in Chrome and start adjusting the parameters? To explore this, I built a small experiment called Gemini Nano Book Lab : a Chrome extension sidepanel that uses Chrome’s built-in Prompt API to answer questions about Richard Wagner’s My Life , while also exposing some of the underlying mechanics. The response is only part of it. The experiment also captures: Model download behavior Retrieval cost Time to first token Context window pressure Effects of different chunking strategies Places where the API works well, and where its limits become obvious If you’re an engineer interested in systems that have rough edges—and therefore teach you something—this is a useful area to explore. What the Prompt API Is Chrome’s Prompt API is part of the browser’s built-in AI features. Instead of sending prompts to a cloud endpoint, a web app or extension can request an on-device language model session and prompt it locally. Resources: The Prompt API Session management best practices Structured output for the Prompt API Built-in model management in Chrome Debug Gemini Nano Core capabilities: Local inference Streaming results Availability check before session creation Context usage measurement Events like contextoverflow (In some environments) sampling parameters like temperature and top-k This makes it more than a simple text box—it becomes an environment for experimentation. Why a Long Book? Long inputs expose the interesting problems. Short prompts hide a lot; a paragraph‑long demo can make any model look magical. A long corpus forces concrete decisions: What chunk size works well? Should chunks overlap? How many chunks should you retrieve? What latency comes from ret

Send the pool guy packing. Let one of these robotic buddies maintain your water quality instead.

Made for those who hate having a TV in the home, Samsung’s Movingstyle monitor-on-wheels brings the entertainment when you need it and hides away in a closet when you don’t.

Let Your AI Agent Manage skill itself Most developer tools still assume the human is the operator. You read the documentation. You install the CLI. You decide where files should go. You copy commands from a README, paste them into a terminal, check the output, fix the path, and then explain the final state back to your AI coding agent. That made sense when tools were only built for humans. But AI coding agents now run commands, inspect files, follow project conventions, and repair broken local state. If a tool is meant to help agents, the better question is not: How does a human use this CLI? It is: Can the agent operate the CLI by itself? That is one of the quiet but important ideas behind aweskill : it is a CLI-first Skill package manager that AI agents can operate themselves. Website: aweskill.webioinfo.top It is already used as supporting infrastructure for several Webioinfo projects: awescholar — AI-agent-operable scientific literature discovery and curation. Search, annotate, filter, and report on academic papers. aweshelf — Session bookmark manager for Claude Code and Codex. Bookmark, categorize, and restore sessions with aweswitch profiles. Awesome AI Meets Biology — A curated survey of AI applications in biology, bioinformatics, and biomedical research, powered by awescholar. The Old Workflow: You Manage the Agent's Tools When a new AI Agent needs a Skill, the usual workflow looks like this: You find the Skill. You download or copy it. You locate the agent's Skill directory. You place SKILL.md in the right folder. You restart the agent. You hope the next agent uses the same layout. This is manageable once. It becomes messy when you use Codex, Claude Code, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Qwen Code, OpenCode, or any other coding agent side by side. Each one has its own directory layout and conventions. The human becomes the package manager. That is backward. If the agent is already capable of editing your repo, running tests, and diagnosing failures, it should

Claude-ITect-Skill Update: Regenerating Your Claude Code Setup (Club Optional) "People assume that configuration is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly... skilly-willy... stuff." — a Time Lord, probably, if Time Lords shipped install scripts There is a particular flavor of pain known only to people who run Claude Code seriously: the slow, soul-eroding ritual of configuring fifty-one little things by hand. You wire one hook. You forget the second. You discover the third only exists in a Discord message from four months ago. Somewhere, a yak grows another inch of fur specifically so you can shave it. Claude-ITect-Skill exists to make that ritual unnecessary. It is a one-command starter pack that drops a curated arsenal of skills, agents, and session hooks into any project's .claude/ directory, and then, with the smug confidence of someone who has clearly been burned before, tells you to run /audit to make sure it actually worked. The author calls people like himself "Claude-ITects™," which the industry refuses to call us, and honestly, after using this, the industry should reconsider. This is the update, the regeneration , if you will. Same face-of-the-project, new internals. Let's open the TARDIS doors and see how much bigger it is on the inside. The pitch, in one breath Install it. It deposits a .claude/ folder containing 54 skills, 4 agent definitions, and 6 hook files into your project, patches your settings.json to wire up the session hooks, and gets out of your way. The README's entire onboarding flow is two words long: run audit . That restraint is the first sign you're dealing with someone who has actually used the thing he built rather than someone who just wanted a README with a lot of headers. The install story is genuinely good. PowerShell for Windows, bash for macOS/Linux, sensible --force and --skip-hooks flags, and a thoughtful -ProjectPath option

The open-source AI streamer that actually feels alive Discussion | Link

Stop fumbling for cables in the dark. These WIRED-tested stands and pads will take the hassle out of refueling your phone, wireless earbuds, and watch.

I'm one of those people who enjoy on planes and in public spaces in general. But the issue of privacy was always a hurdle.

To get to $600, Apple and HP made different compromises. If you demand more power and performance, the HP Omnibook 3 delivers.

Built like a tank, the endlessly capable GoRuck GR1 is as close to a do-it-all bag as you can get.

A longtime pro barista’s favorite tools for dialing in the perfect shot at home.

Trace AI requests, workflows, and costs in one timeline Discussion | Link

Over 51% of all GitHub commits in early 2026 are AI-generated or AI-assisted. That statistic creates a problem no one anticipated when AI coding tools first launched: who reviews the AI's code? The answer, increasingly, is another AI. The AI code review market has grown rapidly alongside vibe coding and AI-first development workflows. But the category is fragmented there are PR-level reviewers, IDE inline analyzers, security scanners, and general-purpose AI assistants all claiming to do "code review." They work very differently, and picking the wrong one for your workflow is a real productivity cost. This guide cuts through the noise. We explain what each category does, highlight the best tools in each, and give you a decision framework to help you choose what fits your actual situation. Why AI Code Review Is Now Essential Three converging trends make AI code review the category to watch in 2026: AI-generated code has real quality problems. Research shows 45% of AI-generated code fails at least one OWASP Top 10 security check, and 53% of developers have found security vulnerabilities in AI-written code. When you use tools like Cursor, Claude Code, or GitHub Copilot to write 80% of a feature, you're shipping code you may not have read line by line. Code review is a bottleneck. Stack Overflow's 2026 developer survey found code review wait time is the top-ranked productivity killer. For solo developers and small teams, reviews pile up and slow shipping. AI reviewers don't have calendars. The security stakes are rising. As more non-developers ship production code via vibe coding, the need for automated security checks compounds. AI review tools catch issues like SQL injection, CORS misconfigurations, and hardcoded secrets before they ship. Two Categories of AI Code Review Before picking a tool, understand that "AI code review" means two distinct things. 1. PR-Level AI Reviewers These run at the pull request level. When you open a PR on GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket, they

Design a home instantly with AI Discussion | Link

As developers, indie hackers, and solo founders, we launch numerous static sites, minimal landing pages, and open-source project documentation blocks. Every single one of these deployments shares a universal prerequisite: a reliable path to gather raw incoming user feedback, inbound sales leads, or bug reports. The traditional path of least resistance has long been to embed a hardcoded HTML <form> inside our page, or worse, expose a standard mailto: link. However, we all know what happens next. Within hours of your app hitting public hosting servers or GitHub, automated asynchronous spam bots find your raw source code, harvest your personal email address, and turn your inbox into a living nightmare. I used to spend hours configuring captchas, writing honey-pot filters, or spinning up custom Serverless Lambda routines just to secure a simple contact form. Eventually, I realized I was fighting the wrong battle. The best way to protect your inbox isn't to build a better shield around your frontend form; it's to remove the form from your code entirely. That is why I built FormCrab.com . 🦀 The Problem: Why Client-Side Forms are a Risk When you embed a custom form or mailto link into your landing page, you are effectively publishing your communication architecture to the world. Spam bots don't even need to render your page anymore; they use basic regex scrapers to crawl through millions of raw static HTML repositories looking for keywords like type="email" or action="..." . Once your endpoint or raw email identity is captured, it is added to bulk programmatic marketing lists. The Trade-Off We All Hate: Option A: Spin Up a Custom Backend. Configuring an Express or Spring Boot API routing layer solely to act as an authenticated SMTP relay. This adds infrastructural complexity and database burdens to what should be a 15-minute frontend project. Option B: Use Form Backends. Even if you use a standard form endpoint handler, you still have to code the frontend UI, handle valida

OpenAI launches Rosalind Biodefense, expanding trusted access to GPT-Rosalind for vetted developers and U.S. government partners advancing biodefense, public health, and pandemic preparedness through frontier AI.

The best AI tools for conversion rate optimization (CRO) in 2026 are the platforms that continuously...

Notify your AI agent when the web changes Discussion | Link

Safety-first walking navigation to walk the safest routes Discussion | Link