标签：#r

True the Vote is working with a Detroit pastor to produce a new documentary called Trap, based on claims that have already been thrown out in court.

Users are creating accounts on your new Saas. Yay (and not just family and friends or bots). Yay! Now comes the next step from every marketing handbook: capturing newsletter subscriptions. This article builds on Add Sign Up to Rails 8’ Authentication . Add a simple checkbox to let users opt in to product updates during signup. Store their preference using Rails Vault and manage the subscription with Rails Courrier . First, add Rails Vault and Rails Courrier to your Gemfile: gem "rails_vault" gem "rails_courrier" Rails Vault adds simple and easy settings, preferences and so on to any ActiveRecord model (I recently pushed 1.0.0). Courrier is API-powered email delivery for Ruby apps with support for Mailgun, Postmark, Resend and more. Rails Courrier is the Rails “wrapper” for Courrier. These two gems work really nicely together for this feature. Run bundle install and generate the Rails Vault migration: rails generate rails_vault:install rails db:migrate It creates a new file app/models/user/subscriptions.rb : class User::Subscriptions < Vault vault_attribute :product_emails_subscribed_at , :datetime # Add more subscription types as needed: # vault_attribute :marketing_emails_subscribed_at, :datetime # vault_attribute :weekly_digest_subscribed_at, :datetime end And updates your User model to use this vault: # app/models/user.rb class User < ApplicationRecord + vault :subscriptions has_secure_password has_many :sessions , dependent: :destroy end This keeps subscription data organized without cluttering your User table. More subscription types can be added later without database migrations. Now the plumbing is done, add a checkbox to your signup form in app/views/signups/new.html.erb : <%= form . check_box :product_emails %> <%= form . label :product_emails , "Subscribe to product updates" %> Update the Signup model to accept this parameter: # app/models/signup.rb class Signup include ActiveModel :: Model include ActiveModel :: Attributes attribute :email_address , :stri

In this article, we're going to explore Event Schema evolution with Event versioning 10. Event Schemas Will Eventually Change No event schema stays the same forever. As businesses grow, regulations shift, products gain new features, and processes become more complex, the data shared between services must evolve as well. This evolution is not optional—it is a natural consequence of a system adapting to changing requirements. Many teams initially assume they can simply update an event whenever needed. This assumption may hold when there is only one producer and one consumer, but real-world systems rarely remain that simple. Over time, multiple consumers emerge, each with its own responsibilities and release cycles. A typical system often looks like this: OrderConfirmed | +------------------+-------------------+ | | | v v v Inventory Billing Notification | v Analytics | v Customer Insights Each consumer evolves independently. Some services may deploy updates weekly, while others might release changes quarterly. In some cases, consumers may even belong to external teams with entirely different priorities and timelines. Because of this, producers cannot assume that all consumers will upgrade simultaneously. Schema evolution, therefore, is not just about modifying data structures. It is fundamentally about maintaining compatibility across independently evolving systems. Compatibility Is More Important Than Version Numbers When discussing schema evolution, teams often focus immediately on versioning. While versioning is useful, compatibility is far more critical. Without compatibility, versioning alone cannot prevent system breakage. Consider the following event: { "orderId" : "ORD-1001" , "customerId" : "CUS-501" , "totalAmount" : 249.99 } Now imagine a new requirement introduces currency. One approach might replace the existing field entirely: { "orderId" : "ORD-1001" , "customerId" : "CUS-501" , "amount" : { "value" : 249.99 , "currency" : "USD" } } Although the data mo

This is an orthogonal question to whether LLMs have qualia (almost certainly no) and to the question of whether any hypothetical qualia would be in any way correlated with word choice (also almost certainly no), as opposed to mechanistic factors such as runtime and memory access patterns.

The tech world has spent the last year buzzing about the complete rewrite of the TypeScript compiler. Now that TypeScript 7.0 is officially out, the headline is clear: a native Go port delivering 8x to 12x build speedups and an instant editor experience. But if we look past the raw performance numbers, TypeScript 7.0 represents something much deeper. It is the most aggressive modernization sweep in the language's history. The TypeScript team used this architectural migration to eliminate a decade of technical debt, kill off legacy web standards, and restructure how the compiler interacts with the JavaScript ecosystem. If you are planning to upgrade your frontend or backend repositories, here is what actually matters, why the team chose Go, and the breaking changes you need to prepare for. 1. The Architectural Plot Twist: Why Go and Not Rust? When Microsoft first announced they were moving away from a bootstrapped JavaScript compiler to a native binary, the collective internet assumed they would choose Rust—the darling of the modern frontend tooling space (used by SWC, Turbo, and Oxc). Instead, the team chose Go , sparking heavy debate across the community. The reasoning reveals exactly how the TS team prioritizes stability over absolute micro-benchmarks: Bug-for-Bug Compatibility: The goal wasn't to write a brand-new compiler from scratch; it was a 1:1 faithful translation of the massive, decade-old TypeScript codebase. Go’s straightforward syntax allowed a clean mapping of existing JavaScript logic. The Memory Model Challenge: Compilers are inherently full of deeply nested, circular object graphs (ASTs, symbol tables, type structures). Managing these in Rust without heavily leaning on unsafe blocks or running into a brick wall with the borrow checker would have taken years. Garbage Collection Alignment: Go’s built-in garbage collection mirrors JavaScript’s memory model elegantly. This allowed the team to achieve multi-threaded parallelism safely and ship a stable p

Hi everyone! I’m a developer at the beginning of my journey, and I’ve just finished working on a small project that brought me a lot of joy: Capybara Game. It’s a cute game where you feed your capybara and improve her happiness level. You can choose between 5 different types of food or pick your own snack. If the capybara likes the snack, her happiness level rises; if she doesn't like it, the happiness level falls. Your progress is saved automatically. Keep in mind that your capybara gets hungry over time, so make sure to check back and feed her regularly! I went for a minimalist, cozy design. The interface is clean and intuitive, focusing on a relaxing user experience that lets the player focus entirely on the capybara. I built this project using HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Hope you're interested in playing! You can do it here: Play the game here I’d love to hear your thoughts! If you have any ideas for new features or if you find any bugs, feel free to let me know in the comments.

TL;DR Welcome back to Dev Opportunity Radar. This is a weekly series where I share opportunities,...

The CEO of Foundation Future Industries, which counts the president’s son as its chief strategy adviser, tells WIRED it’s exploring some “kinetic things.”

QCon AI Boston 2026 focused on the operational challenges of deploying AI agents, emphasizing the need for robust production infrastructure. Key themes included improving context management, ensuring security through a "harness" around agents, and adopting a comprehensive engineering model for AI. By Tatiana Fesenko

Perimenopause has entered the chat. Perimenopause—and its better-known relative, menopause—used to be considered taboo. Not anymore, thanks at least in part to TV doctors and social media influencers. Perhaps it’s my age, but these days, both my algorithm and my conversations with friends increasingly swing toward perimenopause. Menopause is defined as the life stage that…

Every morning, airline dispatchers, grid operators, and farmers around the world make decisions based on the same thing: a weather forecast. While these forecasts are something that most people glance at for two seconds, weather predictions influence major strategic decisions in many industries, with real money, livelihoods, and even actual lives at stake. Farmers use…

submitted by /u/_shadowbannedagain [link] [留言]

Coca-Cola halts the US operations of its dairy company fairlife due to a ransomware attack.

A practical, end-to-end walkthrough of taking a read-only slice of an enterprise source system and exposing it to an AI agent as a set of Model Context Protocol (MCP) tools — using Azure Logic Apps, API Management, and Agent Foundry. All identifiers below are placeholders; swap in your own. The goal We wanted a simple outcome: a user asks a business question in plain language and gets a straight answer — no dashboards, no field names, no training on the underlying system. That means an AI agent with safe, read-only access to a backend system of record, exposed as discrete tools the model can call. The constraints shaped every decision: Read-only. The agent can retrieve and analyze, never write. Safe. Records in most business systems contain free text (notes, subjects, descriptions) that could carry prompt-injection payloads. Tool output must be treated as data, never instructions. Composable. The agent should see many small, well-described tools — "list records", "aggregate by category", "record change history" — not one giant "query the system" tool. The architecture Five layers, one direction of flow: Agent (Agent Foundry) │ MCP (JSON-RPC over HTTP) ▼ MCP server (API Management) │ REST operation per tool ▼ API gateway (API Management) │ single POST, routed by body ▼ Tool executor (Logic App) │ OAuth token + REST calls ▼ Source system (REST API) The key design choice: one backend endpoint, many logical tools. The Logic App exposes a single HTTP trigger that accepts { "tool": "records.list", "parameters": { ... } } and routes internally. API Management then fans that single endpoint out into many named operations, and its MCP feature turns those operations into agent tools. This keeps the backend trivial to maintain while the agent still sees a rich, typed tool catalog. Step 1 — Design the tools Start from the questions , not the schema. A useful toolset usually falls into a few families: Records: list / get / search / filter for the core business entities. Activity

GitHub announced enterprise-managed OpenTelemetry export for Copilot activity from VS Code and Copilot CLI on July 8, 2026. Primary source: GitHub Changelog, July 8, 2026 . Export availability is only the start. The receiving collector becomes an enterprise ingress point. This is an unexecuted operating plan; signal types, attributes, endpoint requirements, and controls must be checked against current GitHub documentation. Isolate the path managed clients -> private telemetry ingress -> dedicated OTel Collector pool -> field policy + bounded queue -> dedicated backend dataset Do not point every developer client directly at the primary observability backend. Give the collector write-only destination credentials, separate its dataset from production application telemetry, and define retention before rollout. Isolation is not anonymity. Stable user, device, organization, or repository identifiers may still be sensitive. Start with a field budget Category Initial policy Product and version Keep bounded values Operation and status Keep documented enums Timing and counts Keep numeric measures Raw prompts or generated code Drop by default File paths and repository URLs Drop or transform after review User identity Prefer scoped pseudonymous identity Free-form errors Drop raw text; keep reviewed classes These categories are recommendations, not a description of GitHub's payload. Inspect a restricted canary before naming actual keys. processors : memory_limiter : check_interval : 1s limit_mib : 512 spike_limit_mib : 128 attributes/field_budget : actions : # Illustrative keys only; replace after payload review. - key : user.email action : delete - key : file.path action : delete - key : command.arguments action : delete batch : send_batch_size : 512 timeout : 5s Verify processors against the chosen Collector distribution. A valid startup does not prove that records satisfy policy. Drill three failures Backend outage: block the exporter. Retries must be bounded, queue growth vi

OpenAI published an audit of SWE-Bench Pro on July 8, 2026 and estimated that roughly 30% of its tasks are broken. The reported issues make a familiar leaderboard assumption unsafe: every task in the denominator is a valid, equally interpretable trial. Primary source: OpenAI, “Separating signal from noise in coding evaluations” . The operational response should not be “ignore all benchmarks.” It should be: version task validity, preserve disputed cases, and publish how conclusions change across plausible denominators. Model task state separately from model result task validity: unreviewed | valid | broken | disputed model result: pass | fail | infrastructure_error | missing Never convert infrastructure_error to model failure without reporting that policy. Never delete broken tasks while retaining an old score label. A row needs provenance: { "task_id" : "repo-issue-17" , "dataset_revision" : "sha256:..." , "harness_revision" : "git:..." , "model_config" : "immutable-config-id" , "validity" : "disputed" , "result" : "pass" , "review_revision" : 3 , "evidence" : [ "fixture.log" , "review.json" ] } Publish three denominators Let: P_v , N_v : passes and total among reviewed-valid tasks; P_a , N_a : passes and total across all attempted tasks; D : disputed tasks. Report: valid-only score = P_v / N_v all-attempted score = P_a / N_a uncertainty interval = score if every disputed task hurts conclusion .. score if every disputed task helps conclusion This interval is not a statistical confidence interval. It is a sensitivity bound for unresolved task validity. A tiny sensitivity calculator #!/usr/bin/env python3 import json , sys rows = [ json . loads ( line ) for line in open ( sys . argv [ 1 ]) if line . strip ()] valid = [ r for r in rows if r [ " validity " ] == " valid " ] disputed = [ r for r in rows if r [ " validity " ] in ( " unreviewed " , " disputed " )] attempted = [ r for r in rows if r [ " result " ] in ( " pass " , " fail " )] rate = lambda passed , total : pa