标签：#python

DeepSeek vs Qwen vs Kimi vs GLM: Which One Wins My Freelance Budget? Last Tuesday I spent two hours building a client dashboard that needed AI-powered text summarization. The client is a small e-commerce shop, they get maybe 500 product descriptions a week that need condensing into bullet points. Sounds simple, right? Except when I ran the numbers on my usual OpenAI setup, the bill was going to eat into my margin harder than I'd like. That's when I went down the rabbit hole of Chinese AI models. DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, GLM — I've been hearing about these for months from other devs in Discord, but I never actually committed to testing them because, honestly, who has the time? Well, apparently I do, because that Tuesday I decided to run all four head-to-head against my actual workload. Here's what happened. Why I Even Bothered (The Real Math) Before we get into the benchmarks and pricing tables, let me put this in perspective. My hourly rate as a freelance dev sits at $85. Every hour I spend wrestling with a subpar API that hallucinates or charges too much is an hour I'm not billing a client. The "free" model is never free — either it costs me time or it costs me money, and usually both. I was paying roughly $0.60 per 1M output tokens on GPT-4o for the summarization work. For 500 product descriptions, each averaging maybe 150 tokens output, that's about $0.045 per batch. Sounds tiny, right? But multiply that across multiple clients, and suddenly I'm watching $40-60 a month vanish into API costs that I can't really pass along without awkward pricing conversations. So I started shopping. And what I found genuinely surprised me. The Contenders at a Glance All four model families run through Global API's unified endpoint, which means I didn't have to maintain four different SDKs, four different auth setups, four different billing dashboards. Just swap the model name in the request and ship. For a one-person operation, that's huge. Here's the landscape I was working with: Di

i've been the incident commander who forgot to write down the first 20 minutes of the timeline because i was too busy reading logs. more than once. the war room is chaos — five engineers pasting logs, someone asking if the deploy from 30 minutes ago is related, nobody documenting anything. you start logging events in a doc while reading error logs while drafting a stakeholder update while deciding whether to rollback. you're the bottleneck. not because you're bad at your job — because you're doing four jobs at once. i got tired of watching smart people spend their incident energy on documentation instead of decisions. so i built ai-incident-commander — a CLI tool that handles the mechanical parts. timeline, updates, remediation research, postmortem draft. you make the calls. it does the paperwork. runs on your laptop with a local LLM. no API keys, no cloud, no docker. github.com/deghosal-2026/ai-incident-commander — MIT licensed. what it does one command: pip install git+https://github.com/deghosal-2026/ai-incident-commander.git incident-commander simulate --scenario db-connection-pool --auto-approve 8 pre-built scenarios ship with it. database connection pool, bad deploy, memory leak, cert expiry — the usual suspects. no real data needed to try it. for actual incidents, you point it at a directory with your alert, logs, messages, and github PRs. it outputs 10 markdown files: timeline, stakeholder updates, comms blocks you can paste straight into slack, remediation suggestions, a blameless postmortem, and a cost report. the safety part was the real engineering. three points in the pipeline where the graph pauses and waits for you to say yes — stakeholder update, remediation, postmortem. the AI never ships anything without approval. every remediation comes with a citation. suggestions below 0.7 confidence get suppressed. the postmortem prompt enforces blameless language. all AI content gets labeled [AI-GENERATED — review carefully] . and it never executes anything. i

Somebody on Reddit posted about 997s that just say AK5*R*5 — one or more segments in error — no AK3 , no AK4 . Preach. That's the problem this free doohickey* is for: rejectdecoder.com *If you'd prefer a "gizmo", I can make that happen. What it does Paste the rejection (997, 999, 824, TA1) plus the original bounced document. It parses both locally in your browser and cross-audits them: control number agreement segment counts envelope consistency code validity required segments It then quotes the exact segment byte-for-byte and ranks the likely causes for anything it finds. If it finds nothing, it says the answer isn't in the docs and tells you to escalate to your partner with your control numbers — which beats pulling a diagnosis out of my... AIs. Where the AI does (and doesn't) fit I know how and appreciate WHY "AI-powered EDI" is sneered at. So the audits here are deterministic parser code, not a model. The AI only writes the plain-English narration of facts the parser already verified, every card says so, and if the narration fails you still get the full audit results. No hallucinations or guesswork. Privacy Parsing runs entirely in-browser (the real Python parser, compiled to WebAssembly via Pyodide) and even works with the WiFi off. If you use narration, only a masked summary you preview first ever leaves the page. Don't take my word for it — check your network tab. Free. No signup for the examples or the deterministic audits; narration is a handful of decodes a month with just an email. Built it solo from an in-house tool of mine, so it's young AND kinda old. Please tell me where it's wrong. Walmart's rejection quirks are encoded so far. Whose partner nonsense should be next...? -jjg

GitHub热门项目 | 👩🏿‍💻👨🏾‍💻👩🏼‍💻👨🏽‍💻👩🏻‍💻中国独立开发者项目列表 -- 分享大家都在做什么 | Stars: 52,940 | 1,194 stars today | 语言: Python

I Ran 10 AI Coding Models Through 5 Tasks: A Data Scientist's Take I'll be honest — I went into this expecting a clear winner. I came out with a scatter plot, three regressions, and a deeper appreciation for why "best" is the most dangerous word in machine learning. Over the past three weeks I've been grinding through prompts with ten different LLMs, all routed through the same endpoint, scoring every output on a 1–10 rubric that I tried very hard not to bias. The pricing data is pulled directly from the provider pages. The scores are mine. If you disagree with a score, you're probably right — n=1 per task per model is a laughably small sample size, and I say that as someone who publishes papers with bigger samples. But trends still emerged. Let me walk you through what I found. The Lineup Before I touch a single benchmark, here's the cast. I've grouped them by family so you can see the obvious concentration in the open-source Chinese ecosystem, which personally I find fascinating — three of the top five are DeepSeek or Qwen variants. # Model Provider Output $/M Category 1 DeepSeek V4 Flash DeepSeek $0.25 General (strong code) 2 DeepSeek Coder DeepSeek $0.25 Code-specialized 3 Qwen3-Coder-30B Qwen $0.35 Code-specialized 4 DeepSeek V4 Pro DeepSeek $0.78 Premium general 5 DeepSeek-R1 DeepSeek $2.50 Reasoning (code thinking) 6 Kimi K2.5 Moonshot $3.00 Premium general 7 GLM-5 Zhipu $1.92 Premium general 8 Qwen3-32B Qwen $0.28 General purpose 9 Hunyuan-Turbo Tencent $0.57 General purpose 10 Ga-Standard GA Routing $0.20 Smart routing One quick note on Ga-Standard — it's a routing layer that picks a backend model per request. So the score fluctuates. I averaged across runs. How I Tested Five prompts. Each one designed to probe a different cognitive layer: Function implementation — flatten a nested list recursively in Python Bug fix — chase down an async/await race condition in JavaScript Algorithm — Dijkstra's shortest path in TypeScript with proper types Code review — sec

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

GitHub热门项目 | The Python programming language | Stars: 73,794 | 438 stars this week | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | Open-source meeting transcription API for Google Meet, Microsoft Teams & Zoom. Auto-join bots, real-time WebSocket transcripts, MCP server for AI agents. Self-host or use hosted SaaS. | Stars: 2,520 | 74 stars today | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | Animation engine for explanatory math videos | Stars: 88,514 | 133 stars today | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | A collection of projects showcasing RAG, agents, workflows, and other AI use cases | Stars: 13,132 | 18 stars today | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | Our library for RL environments + evals | Stars: 4,344 | 15 stars today | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | 26m function call model that runs on incredibly small devices | Stars: 3,071 | 113 stars today | 语言: Python

If you have written more than a couple of scrapers, you already know the pattern. The first few hundred requests fly through. Then responses slow down, you start seeing 429 Too Many Requests , a captcha wall appears, and finally the target just returns empty pages or a hard 403 . Your code did not change. Your IP did. Scraping at any real volume is less about parsing HTML and more about managing where your requests come from. This post is a practical walk-through of how proxies fit into a scraping pipeline: why a single IP fails, what proxy types actually matter, how rotation works, and how to wire it all up in Python with requests , aiohttp , and Scrapy. There is code you can copy, plus the mistakes that cost me the most time. Why one IP is never enough Every site you scrape sees the same thing: a stream of requests from one address, arriving faster and more regularly than a human ever would. Anti-bot systems are built to spot exactly that. The signals they use are boring but effective: Request rate per IP. Too many hits in a short window trips a rate limiter. Volume over time. Even a slow scraper eventually stands out if every request comes from the same address for hours. Behavioral fingerprint. No mouse, no scroll, identical headers, requests in perfect intervals. Reputation. Datacenter ranges that have been abused before are pre-flagged. You can soften some of these with headers, delays, and a real browser, but there is a ceiling. Once a single IP has made enough requests, it gets throttled or blocked regardless of how polite you are. The only way past that ceiling is to spread requests across many addresses, so no single one crosses the threshold. That is the entire job of a proxy pool. The proxy landscape, minus the marketing Providers love to complicate this. For scraping, the distinctions that actually change your results are these: Shared vs private. Shared proxies are handed to many customers at once. You inherit everyone else's behavior, so an address ca

Here's the thing: speed Test: I Found AI APIs 99% Cheaper Than Premium I have a confession: I've been overpaying for AI APIs for years. Like, embarrassingly overpaying. When I finally sat down and actually benchmarked 15 different models on speed and cost, I couldn't believe what I found. Some of the fastest models out there cost literal pennies per million tokens. Here's the thing — if you're still defaulting to whatever the big labs are pushing, you're leaving serious money on the table. So I spent a week running tests through Global API's infrastructure, hitting endpoints from multiple regions, and crunching numbers until my eyes hurt. What I discovered genuinely surprised me. Check this out: there's a model that pushes 80 tokens per second and costs $0.15 per million output tokens. Compare that to premium options charging $3.00/M and you'll understand why I had to write this down. Let me walk you through everything I found. Why I Even Started This Whole Thing My monthly AI bill got out of control. I'm running a few production apps that do text generation, summarization, and chat, and my December bill made me physically flinch. I knew there had to be faster, cheaper models hiding in the ecosystem — I just hadn't taken the time to actually measure them properly. That's the whole reason I ran these benchmarks. Not for clout, not for content marketing. Pure self-interest. I wanted to know where the actual sweet spots are. Where you get the best speed-per-dollar ratio. Where you can save 70%, 80%, even 99% without tanking your user experience. What I found was honestly kind of shocking. My Testing Setup (For the Nerds) I kept the methodology tight and consistent. Here's exactly how I ran everything: Date: May 20, 2026 Test regions: US East (Ohio) and Asia (Singapore) Prompt: "Explain recursion in 200 words" Output target: ~150 tokens per run Iterations: 10 runs each, averaged the results Streaming: Enabled via SSE Base URL: https://global-apis.com/v1 I measured two k

I kept re-running the exact same input through my translation app. Same code. Same model. Same everything. And the word "machines" kept flipping between two different translations. Sometimes it came out as "機械" (machine). Sometimes as "あなたのPC" (your PC). No code changed between runs. No input changed either. My first assumption was a race condition somewhere in my pipeline. It wasn't. Where I actually looked I checked the obvious suspects first: caching, threading, anything stateful that could make the same input behave differently on different runs. All clean. So I went one level deeper, into how the model picks the winning word. Translation models score every candidate word and pick whichever scores highest. When I logged the actual scores for "machine" vs "your PC" on this input, they were almost exactly tied. That's the part that mattered. When two candidates are separated by a tiny margin, the order floating-point operations get summed in can nudge the score just enough to flip which one wins. Same math, same inputs, different accumulation order between runs — and a near-tie flips sides. Nothing was actually random. It was deterministic all the way down. It just wasn't deterministic in a way I could predict, because the thing that decided the winner was rounding noise several layers below anything I was testing. The fix wasn't "make it deterministic" Forcing strict floating-point determinism across an ML pipeline is its own rabbit hole, and not one I wanted to go down for one word. Instead, I looked at why the tie was so close in the first place. "Machine" and "your PC" were close enough in meaning, in this context, that the model wasn't confident either way. So I widened the margin instead of trying to eliminate the noise: I swapped the input word choice from "machines" to "equipment," which the model was much more decisively confident about. Scores stopped being close enough for rounding noise to matter. The flip-flopping stopped. I want to be honest about a

AudioTrust: reconciliar C2PA y watermark AudioSeal en audio sintético Un verificador local que lee las dos marcas de confianza de un audio generado por IA (procedencia C2PA + watermark AudioSeal) y emite un veredicto auditable sobre si coinciden, se contradicen o faltan. El problema Un audio sintético puede llevar dos marcas de confianza distintas: Procedencia C2PA : un certificado digital embebido en el archivo (su "DNI" de origen — quién, cuándo, con qué herramienta). Watermark AudioSeal : un código inaudible incrustado en el sonido, detectable aunque el audio se comparta o transcodifique. Cada una por separado es útil, pero ninguna es suficiente. La procedencia puede faltar (mucho audio generado no la incluye) y el watermark puede estar presente en audio totalmente legítimo. El caso interesante es cuando se contradicen : el manifest C2PA dice "grabado por un humano con una grabadora" pero el watermark de una herramienta de IA está presente. Eso es una señal de manipulación — el llamado Integrity Clash . AudioTrust no genera ni firma nada. Es un verificador : lee ambas capas y las reconcilia. Qué hace audio.wav ──► AudioTrust verify ──► veredicto + explicación C2PA watermark Veredicto ausente ausente unverifiable ausente presente partial origen sintético presente trusted origen humano presente contradiction (Integrity Clash) Salida JSON: { "file" : "audio.wav" , "verdict" : "trusted" , "c2pa" : { "present" : true , "source_type" : null , "claims" : [ "action=c2pa.created by TestTTS" , "generatedBy=TestTTS" ]}, "watermark" : { "present" : true , "detect_prob" : 0.92 }, "explanation" : "C2PA declara origen sintético y hay watermark fuerte: coherentes." } Cómo funciona Lectura C2PA con c2pa-python (el Reader de la librería oficial). Si no hay manifest, devuelve present=False sin crashear. Detección de watermark con audioseal . Devuelve solo detect_prob (P(audio watermarked) en [0,1]). Reconciliación determinista en reconcile.py . Dos decisiones de diseño que vale la

One day the browser automation flow started failing right after plugin updates with NameError: name 'plugin_form_selectors' is not defined in the post-update "residual check" step. The refactor that introduced this had landed back in v1.6.1. The error didn't surface until many rounds later. Reading the code, the cause is obvious in seconds — but nobody hit it for ages, because Python's lazy evaluation kept the leftover reference hidden until exactly the right execution path ran. This post walks through what the bug was and how we structurally prevented its kind via an AST static-analysis test. What happened — a reference that crossed a scope boundary browser_utils.py has two functions involved: run_browser_update_flow() , which orchestrates the whole update flow, and browser_update_remaining_plugins() , which handles only the plugin-update logic. The list of plugin-form selector candidates, plugin_form_selectors , used to be a local variable inside run_browser_update_flow() . In the v1.6.1 refactor — "let's split plugin update into its own function" — we created browser_update_remaining_plugins() and moved the plugin_form_selectors definition into it . # After v1.6.1 refactor def browser_update_remaining_plugins ( page , site , update_url ): plugin_form_selectors = [ # ← defined here ' #update-plugins-table-wrap form ' , ' form[name= " upgrade-plugins " ] ' , ' form[action*= " do-plugin-upgrade " ] ' , ' .plugins-php form ' , ] # ... update logic ... def run_browser_update_flow ( site , page ): # ... call to plugin updater ... browser_update_remaining_plugins ( page , site , update_url ) # ★ post-update "residual check" still uses the old local name for selector in plugin_form_selectors : # NameError if page . locator ( selector ). count () > 0 : pending_browser . append (...) The " after updating, make sure no plugin update forms are still visible " residual check stayed in run_browser_update_flow() . During the refactor, the call to extract this loop alongside the

While we can build simple applications without using classes using PySide6, But in big applications and Massive coding systems We should use Classes But why? To understand why do we need classes in PySide6 We should first see the Python code First from PySide6.QtWidgets import QApplication , QWidget , QPushButton , QLineEdit import sys class MainWindow ( QWidget ): def __init__ ( self ): super (). __init__ () button1 = QPushButton ( " Button 1 " ) input = QLineEdit () if __name__ == " __main__ " : app = QApplication ( sys . argv ) window = MainWindow () window . show () app . exec () Before talking about why do we need Classes for PySide6 Let's Explain the code first line by line The imports first thing we make the imports we do need: from PySide6.QtWidgets import QApplication, QWidget, QPushButton, QLineEdit The QApplication Is the simply the application we will make, Like empty app on the RAM it do nothing but it's on the RAM if it's alone And the QWidget Is the Blank screen That will be placed on the Empty Application in the RAM The QPushButton Is like any button we are saying in any app Like the Subscribe button on YouTube or like Post button on Twitter QLineEdit is the input bar, Like the input bar of ChatGPT where you put on it your prompt or like The input bar in WhatsApp Where you type any thing on it to send it to your friends The class And finally The thing You clicked on the post for First thing we define the class How can we define it? Why do we need to define it? Why do even we want it? Who created it? (NOOO IAM JUST KIDDING) We can simply define the class in python by just typing class That's it just class then the name of it For Example MainWindow and then a little semi-colon : OR EVEN WE GIVE IT A Parents And Why do we need to define it, For simply use it BRILLIANT RIGHT? And we want the classes in PySide6 for give it a parents QWidget or even QMainWindow , And we will explain both of them right now but before it Let's explain first what does parents

Your customers have stopped Googling "best note-taking app." They're asking ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini instead — and getting back a short list of three or four products. If your brand isn't on that list, you're invisible, and unlike a Google ranking you can't even see where you stand. That's the problem I set out to measure. This post is the build breakdown: five AI answer engines, one uniform result shape, a mention-detection core that doesn't lie to you, and the honest gotchas I hit around cost and billing. The whole thing runs as a paid Apify Actor written in async Python. The niche has a name now — GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) or AEO (Answer Engine Optimization). Think SEO, but the search engine is a language model and the "ranking" is whether you get named in the answer. The core question Give the tool a brand, its competitors, and the buyer-intent questions your customers actually type: { "brand" : "Notion" , "competitors" : [ "Obsidian" , "Coda" , "Evernote" ], "prompts" : [ "best note taking app for students" , "Notion vs Obsidian which should I use" ], "engines" : [ "perplexity" , "chatgpt" , "gemini" , "claude" , "aiOverview" ], "samplesPerPrompt" : 3 } It asks each engine each prompt (several times, because LLM answers vary run-to-run), then analyzes every answer for: were you mentioned, how early, were you recommended or just listed, what's the sentiment, who else got named, and — the part incumbents skip — which domains each engine cited. That last one is the actionable output: it tells you which websites the AI trusts for your category, i.e. where you need coverage. Architecture: one shape to rule them all The trick that keeps the whole thing sane is that every engine adapter — whether it's a clean REST API or a messy HTML scrape — returns the exact same record shape : { " engine " : " perplexity " , " prompt " : " best note taking app for students " , " sampleIndex " : 1 , " responseText " : " ... " , " citations " : [{ " url " : " ... "

How I shipped structured JSON logging + Prometheus metrics with zero new dependencies I almost added structlog and prometheus_client to my pyproject.toml . Then I read what they actually do. Both libraries are excellent. structlog is the right call when you have a 30-engineer team shipping 50 services. prometheus_client is the right call when you have five teams of consumers scraping different metrics. For a single-author Python project with one process and one user, both are over-engineered. The 80 lines of code I would have pulled in, I can write in 200. The result: zero new runtime dependencies, full control over the output, and a smaller pip install footprint for every user. Here is what I did instead. The minimum useful observability surface A small Python service needs four things, in order of importance: Every log line is one JSON object. (No parsing for downstream tools.) Every request has a trace id. Every log line in that request carries the same trace id. (So you can grep by id and see the whole story.) Every log line goes to stderr. (So journald , Docker, and kubectl logs all see it without any extra configuration.) Every metric is exposed in Prometheus text format at a stable URL. structlog gives you #1, #2, #3 with a lot of flexibility. prometheus_client gives you #4 with a lot of flexibility. Both are about 16 MB of transitive dependencies combined. For a service that runs in a single process and exports maybe 20 metric names, the libraries are doing more work than the project. The 80-line JsonFormatter The custom logging formatter is the simplest part. The whole thing is here: import json import logging from contextvars import ContextVar from datetime import datetime , timezone _trace_id_var : ContextVar [ str | None ] = ContextVar ( " trace_id " , default = None ) class JsonFormatter ( logging . Formatter ): def format ( self , record : logging . LogRecord ) -> str : payload = { " ts " : datetime . now ( tz = timezone . utc ). isoformat (), " level