标签：#review

This week should have been a celebration for Doom developer id Software. The studio just launched Revelations, a meaty expansion for Doom: The Dark Ages that adds a powerful new weapon and more demonic levels to blast through. Even though I hadn't picked up The Dark Ages for more than a year, it only took […]

The Schlage Sense Pro is a beautiful smart lock. Sleek, discreet, and simple to use, it's Schlage's smartest lock to date. Thanks to ultra-wideband (UWB), it unlocks as I walk up to my front door; I don't need to enter a code or tap my phone or press my finger against it. I've tested several […]

PR volume went up, ticket quality didn't, and the gap got filled with LLMs on both sides of the review: bots reviewing, bots replying, bots occasionally arguing with bots about priorities that only existed in a teammate's head. Our CEO named the actual problem, and it's bigger than code review.

Sony is bringing back the RX10 superzoom camera after a nearly nine-year gap between models. The newly announced RX10 V retains the same 24-600mm equivalent f/2.4-4 Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 25x zoom lens of its last two predecessors, but it has lots of upgrades elsewhere. The new 20.1-megapixel 1-inch-type sensor is a stacked design, allowing up to […]

Provided you have a library of SNES cartridges, the SN Operator is a seamless plug-and-play system for easy ’90s nostalgia.

The Dell 14S represents the new normal of laptop pricing, but it has the quality to back up its cost.

The Amseatec Criss Cross Office Chair gives you room to sit cross-legged, sideways, or however your body actually wants to sit.

The call-order change came back pass-with-risk. I read the recommendation, saw it had a name and a reason, and felt the task close. Then I looked at the row under it. How was this verified: not run. Nobody had run the queue. I had a label. I did not have proof. This is Part 6 of The Contract Think produced a brief. Plan produced a gate. Build executed inside it. Review scored every requirement against a verdict instead of an impression. Review reads the diff and the plan and decides whether one satisfies the other. It does not run the queue. It cannot. Its whole job is judgment about what the code should do. Test is where someone finally checks what the code actually does. I had been treating those two as the same step. They are not. Test asks one question, and a verdict is not the answer For every active requirement, Test asks how it was verified. Command run, manual QA, or a comparison against known-good output. One of those three, or a written reason none of them ran. Not a recommendation. Not a risk level. Evidence. I built the matrix against the plan's requirements and filled in each row. Most had a command behind them. The call-order requirement had nothing. The cell read not run, and it sat directly below a pass-with-risk that already carried a name and a reason. That name had almost been enough for me. A named risk feels handled. It is not. It is a risk with a label on it, waiting for someone to actually look. So I ran the queue Three notifications, all with a real reason to fire within the same tick. The scheduler picked them up and ordered them by priority instead of arrival. Two landed in the sequence the requirement wanted. The third jumped ahead of a lower-priority notification that was still mid-processing. The change worked almost every time. Under one timing condition, it did not. That is the gap a verdict cannot see. Review had marked the requirement partial because the wording left the mechanism open. Running it found a real failure inside the mech

A little robotic switch-flipper has become my sidekick in combating cockroaches. Before I got the SwitchBot Bot Rechargeable, I'd tiptoe through the dark every morning, hoping I wouldn't step on one of those terrible bugs scurrying around as I made my way to the light switch across the room. Now I'm ready for battle before […]

Fi Ultra is the first Starlink-enabled pet tracker you can buy. It expands on GPS and LTE trackers, adding automatic failover to T-Mobile's T-Satellite-branded direct-to-cell service when venturing into cellular dead zones. That lets owners tap into SpaceX's constellation of low Earth orbit Starlink satellites to track their pets anywhere in the US. But it […]

For the last couple weeks, I've been in an extremely lucky position: I've been spending a lot of time playing games on Valve's Steam Machine. We gave the Steam Machine a 6, and I don't disagree with my colleague Sean Hollister's review. But even though I already own a PS5 and an Xbox Series X, […]

It’s hard to say if the pricey LG Micro RGB Evo television is worth shelling out for compared to its cheaper competitors, but you’ll probably enjoy its color-popping display.

I rebuilt aesencryption.net so text AES (128/192/256) runs fully in the browser - the key and plaintext never leave the page. The hard part is staying byte-compatible with common server-side AES libraries (mode, IV, padding, base64 output), so I ship copy-paste equivalents in PHP, Java, Python, Go, Rust, Kotlin and JS. Live tool (mine, free): https://aesencryption.net - feedback on the crypto choices welcome. My own site.

The brand’s UR9 competes with similar offerings from higher-end brands like Samsung and LG.

Cursor is the first AI code editor I have used that feels less like an autocomplete plugin and more like a place to steer work. It does not write perfect software. It changes the rhythm: ask for a scoped change, review the diff, then tighten it by hand. This Cursor AI review is based on day-to-day developer tasks: reading unfamiliar code, editing React components, moving logic between files, writing tests, and asking the editor to explain errors from the terminal. The short version is simple: Cursor is excellent when a task crosses file boundaries. It is less convincing when you only need cheap inline completions. What Cursor Actually Is Cursor is a VS Code-based editor from Anysphere with AI built into the core experience. Extensions, settings, themes, terminal panes, source control, and the familiar layout are still there. The difference is that chat, agent-style edits, tab completion, codebase search, and model selection are treated as editor controls rather than add-ons. That matters in daily use. I found the chat panel most useful when I pointed it at a directory and asked for a narrow change, such as "move this validation into the shared helper and update the tests." Cursor could usually find the right files, make a first pass, and leave me with a readable diff. I still had to check naming, edge cases, and test coverage, but it saved the boring part of hunting through files. The Best Part: Multi-File Editing Cursor's strongest feature is multi-file editing with codebase context. A lot of AI coding assistants can finish a function. Fewer can update the component, the hook, the type definition, and the test in one pass without losing the shape of the project. In my experience, Cursor is at its best with medium-sized tasks. It handles "add a field to this form and wire it through the API call" better than "invent a new architecture." It also works well for cleanup: renaming a concept, extracting repeated logic, or adding a missing test around an existing pattern.

CCA-Audit — open source (MIT) AI code review has a trust problem, and it's not that it misses bugs. It's that it invents them. If you've run an LLM over a diff, you've seen it: a "possible null dereference" on a value that's guarded three lines up. A "SQL injection" your ORM already parameterizes. A "race condition" that can't happen. And then — worse — it confidently rewrites working code to "fix" the thing that was never broken. The real bug, meanwhile, sits quietly in the noise. The problem isn't intelligence. It's that most AI reviewers report their first impression as a verdict. A model reads a diff, pattern-matches "this looks like X," and emits a finding — without ever going back to check whether X is actually reachable in this code. Humans do a second pass ("wait, is price validated upstream?"). Most AI-review pipelines skip it. Here are two gates that add that second pass — and a stress test showing what they catch. Gate 1: verify findings before you fix (anti-hallucination) The idea is simple: no finding is allowed into the fix plan until a separate step re-checks it against the real code. After the auditors produce findings, a verification pass takes each one and asks three questions: Does the issue actually exist at the cited line? Is it in the code that changed, or a pre-existing thing outside the diff? Is the stated impact real, or already mitigated elsewhere — a guard upstream, a value validated before this point, a config defined in another module? The key design choice: bias the verifier toward refuting. A wrongly-confirmed finding causes a needless (sometimes harmful) fix; a wrongly-dropped one is cheap to recover. So when the evidence isn't clear, drop it or escalate to a human — don't fix on a hunch. This one step kills the majority of hallucinated findings, because hallucinations rarely survive contact with "show me the exact line, and prove the impact can occur." Gate 2: prove the fix maps to the finding (anti-regression + provenance) Catching

This hybrid V8 has organic-looking 3D-printed components and shatters lap records.

This midrange mini RGB LED television has a high-end price but doesn’t match the brightness and contrast of more advanced models.

There was a period in the early aughts when Definitive Jux (nee: Def Jux) seemed like it was going to be the future of hip hop. While the label featured plenty of experimental, boundary-pushing, and politically minded acts, Lif stood out as the most "conscious rapper" in the traditional sense. It was clear though, that […]

Baking sourdough bread is inherently old-fashioned, relying on natural fermentation and wild yeast instead of the simple, predictable commercial stuff. So it might sound anathema to bring a gadget into the mix. The trick to the Sourdough Sidekick - backed and branded by King Arthur flour - is that it promises to automate the boring […]