今日已更新 144 条资讯 | 累计 37695 条内容
关于我们

标签:#r

找到 32114 篇相关文章

开源项目

🔥 abhigyanpatwari / GitNexus - GitNexus: The Zero-Server Code Intelligence Engine - GitNexu

GitHub热门项目 | GitNexus: The Zero-Server Code Intelligence Engine - GitNexus is a client-side knowledge graph creator that runs entirely in your browser. Drop in a git repository (Github, Gitlab, Azure, Local) or ZIP file, and get an interactive knowledge graph with a built in Graph RAG Agent. Perfect for code exploration | Stars: 46,029 | 189 stars today | 语言: TypeScript

2026-08-28 原文 →
AI 资讯

"Log this once" is a tense change, not a rate limit

A sensor on my machine returned nothing at all — empty stdout, empty stderr, exit code 2 — on every invocation for 36 days. It was not crashed. It was not misconfigured. It was doing exactly what one line of well-intentioned code told it to do: announce a condition once . The line looked like this, and I suspect you have written it: if [ ! -f " $OFFLINEFILE " ] ; then echo "body context n/a — phone unreachable" > &2 touch " $OFFLINEFILE " fi exit 2 Read it as a rate limiter and it is obviously fine: don't spam the log with the same message every five minutes. Read it as what it actually is and it is a bug, because the guard does not limit a rate. It changes the tense of the sentence. Every number, code listing, and command output below was re-measured on the machine while writing this, not quoted from the commit that fixed it. Two of the things I expected to find turned out to be false; both are in section 6, and one of them is the most interesting part. 1. Present tense, past tense phone unreachable is a claim in the present tense . It is a statement about the world right now, and it is what a reader of this tool wants: is the body sensor readable at this moment? Wrapping it in [ ! -f "$SENTINEL" ] silently rewrites it into the past tense : the phone became unreachable, at some earlier point, at least once. That is a different proposition. It is true exactly once per transition and false forever after, which is why the guard can never fire twice, and why the sentinel's own mtime is the only surviving record of when the sentence was last true. The two propositions coincide on the first run. That is the whole trap. A first-time-only notice is indistinguishable from a live one for the length of one invocation, which is exactly the length of the test you will write for it. 2. What the reader got instead Here is the tool, before the fix, run twice in a row against a phone that is genuinely away. I pulled the pre-fix version straight out of git into a scratch path and ra

2026-08-28 原文 →
AI 资讯

How to talk about trade-offs without sounding like you are hedging

Nuance is the thing that gets you levelled up, and hedging is the thing that gets you levelled down. They sound almost identical from the outside, and the difference is entirely structural. Ask a junior engineer whether to use SQL or NoSQL and you get an answer. Ask a senior engineer and you often get "well, it depends", which is correct, and delivered badly it costs them the round. The problem is not the nuance. It is the order. Hedging leads with the uncertainty and never arrives at a decision. Judgement leads with the decision and then shows the uncertainty around it. Same knowledge, opposite impression. Why hedging reads badly An interviewer is trying to answer one question: would I trust this person to make a call without me in the room. A candidate who lists options without choosing has actively failed to demonstrate the thing being assessed, no matter how well they understand the options. There is a second, less obvious cost. Refusing to commit removes the interviewer's ability to go deeper. They cannot probe a decision you did not make, so the conversation stays shallow, and shallow conversations produce mid-level scores by default. A candidate who says it depends and stops has told the interviewer nothing except that they know it is complicated. Everyone at this level knows it is complicated. The four-part structure This works for almost any technical choice you will be asked about, and it takes about twenty seconds to deliver. Commit. Name what you would actually ship. One sentence, no preamble. Justify. Give the specific reason, tied to the constraints in the question rather than to general virtue. Cost. Say what you are giving up. Every choice loses something and naming it is the seniority signal. Trigger. State the condition that would change your mind, and ideally what you would watch for it. Notice that all the nuance from "it depends" is present. It is simply arranged behind a decision instead of in place of one. Would you use a relational database o

2026-08-28 原文 →
AI 资讯

Ask HN: Alternatives to Fail2ban?

I'm administering a small number of Linux servers that run an ssh server exposed to the Internet. I usually connect using a cryptographic key, but I still allow password authentication in case of trouble (perhaps I'm being overly cautious). I've been using fail2ban with good results, but I'm annoyed at having to install a Python interpreter on every server. Is there an alternative to fail2ban that is just a single binary? It doesn't need to have all of the features of fail2ban, blocking dictiona

2026-08-28 原文 →