标签：#t

Browser automation used to be easier to describe. A test opened a page, filled in a form, clicked a button, and checked the result. The hardest parts were usually selectors, waits, and browser compatibility. Those problems still exist, but the surface area has expanded. Today, browser tests may need to handle streaming interfaces, MFA, AI-generated content, multiple operating systems, preview deployments, canary releases, and code changes proposed by AI assistants. The challenge is no longer just writing a script that passes. The challenge is building a testing system that remains understandable and affordable after hundreds of tests and thousands of CI runs. Start by measuring instability instead of normalizing it Flaky tests often become accepted background noise. A test fails, CI retries it, and the second run passes. The pipeline turns green, so the team moves on. Over time, the retry count grows and nobody is sure which failures matter. The problem is that a passing retry does not erase the cost of the first failure. The article on calculating the real cost of flaky test retries in CI provides a useful framework for evaluating compute costs, developer interruptions, delayed feedback, and investigation time. A simple reliability metric can help: first-attempt pass rate = tests passing without retry / total test executions This is often more revealing than the final pipeline pass rate. A suite with a 99% final pass rate may still be deeply unstable if many tests require multiple attempts. Reproduce the environment before changing the test When a browser test fails only in CI, teams often edit the test before reproducing the environment. That can lead to unnecessary waits and conditionals. One of the most common variations is a test that passes in visible Chrome but fails in headless mode. The explanation is not always “headless Chrome is flaky.” Differences in viewport, rendering, animation, fonts, and resource timing can all change application behavior. This det

For a long time, teams treated browser test reliability as a framework problem. When tests failed, the usual response was to change selectors, add waits, increase retries, or replace one automation library with another. That approach made sense when the main challenge was simply controlling a browser. Modern applications are different. A single user journey may now include an identity provider, multi-factor authentication, a streaming AI response, a background API request, a feature flag, a canary deployment, and a frontend rendered differently across several operating systems. The test framework is still important, but it is only one part of the reliability problem. The bigger question is whether the entire testing system gives the team enough evidence to make a release decision. Headless failures are usually a symptom, not the real problem A common example is a test that passes locally but fails only in headless Chrome. It is tempting to assume that headless mode is simply unreliable. In practice, the difference is often caused by viewport size, rendering behavior, animation timing, fonts, resource loading, or elements being positioned differently when no visible browser window exists. This breakdown of why browser tests fail only in Chrome headless is useful because it separates several failure categories that are often grouped together as “timing issues.” That distinction matters. A test that fails because an element is outside the viewport needs a different fix from a test that fails because a network request completes later in CI. Adding a longer timeout may hide both problems temporarily, but it does not make the test more trustworthy. Retries can make a weak test suite look healthy Retries are one of the easiest ways to reduce visible failures in CI. They are also one of the easiest ways to hide instability. A flaky test that passes on its third attempt still consumed runner time, delayed feedback, created extra logs, and made it harder to determine whether

While building with OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI providers, I realized something surprising. I monitored my servers, databases, and application performance—but I had almost no visibility into my AI API spending until I checked the provider dashboard or received the monthly invoice. That led me to build AICostPass . It helps developers, indie hackers, startups, and agencies: ⚡ Track AI API costs in near real time 📊 Monitor spending by project or client 🚨 Get budget threshold email alerts 📧 Receive weekly spending summaries 💰 Export billable CSVs for client invoicing The goal is simple: help developers understand and control AI costs before the invoice arrives. 👉 https://aicostpass.com I'd love to hear how you're currently tracking AI API costs. Are you using provider dashboards, spreadsheets, or another tool?

OpenAI's first device is set to be a smart speaker that lets you talk with ChatGPT, according to a report from Bloomberg. The device apparently won't have a screen, but will use a camera and additional sensors to "understand" your environment. The report comes just days after Apple filed a lawsuit against OpenAI that accused […]

Meta cut its workforce by 10 percent in May.

If Claude can already search the web, read a 10-K, and explain what a rate cut does to long-duration equities, the fair question is why you would connect anything to it at all. It is the right question, and the honest answer is that for a large class of questions you should not. Raw Claude is enough. The gap is narrower and sharper than "Claude does not know finance." Claude knows finance. What it does not know is you. What raw Claude already does well Be clear about this before the sales pitch, because pretending otherwise would insult anyone who has actually used it. Claude with web search will look up a current quote, summarize an earnings call, explain a valuation multiple, walk you through how a Monte Carlo simulation works, and reason about a macro scenario better than most of the commentary you would read instead. If your question is about the world, and not about your own balance sheet, a connector adds nothing. Ask Claude directly. The trouble starts the moment the answer depends on what you actually own. Four things that break when the question is about your money 1. It starts from zero every time A chat has no memory of your holdings. You can paste them in, and many people do, and it works for exactly one conversation. There is no cost basis, no purchase date, no daily snapshot series behind it. So "how concentrated am I really", "what is my realized gain this year", and "how correlated are my top five positions over the last 90 days" are not questions it can answer. It can only answer them about the numbers you re-typed, this once, from memory. 2. The same question gives a different answer twice LLM inference is not deterministic, and it is not deterministic even at temperature zero. Thinking Machines Lab traced the cause to batch-invariance in inference kernels: the batch your request lands in varies with server load, so the arithmetic varies with it. They fixed it in a research setting and got 1,000 bitwise-identical runs, which tells you how much engi

Look inside almost any modern connected device -- a smartphone, a smartwatch, a Wi-Fi thermostat, a battery-powered sensor node -- and you will find a processor core designed by ARM. It is one of the most successful engineering ideas in computing history. And here is the strange part: ARM has never manufactured a single one of those chips. It does not own a factory. It sells blueprints. A three-person project in Cambridge The story starts at Acorn Computers in Cambridge, England, in the early 1980s. Acorn had built the BBC Micro, a hugely popular educational computer in the UK, and it needed a faster processor for its next machine. The commercial chips available at the time were disappointing, so a tiny team decided to design their own. The acronym everyone knows today originally stood for Acorn RISC Machine . Sophie Wilson designed the instruction set and wrote the simulator; Steve Furber led the physical chip design. RISC -- Reduced Instruction Set Computing -- was the key bet. Instead of piling on complex instructions, they kept the instruction set small and simple, which made the chip easier to build, cheaper, and remarkably power-efficient. The first silicon, the ARM1, was fabricated by VLSI Technology and delivered to Acorn on 26 April 1985. When the team powered it on, it simply worked -- first try. For anyone who has designed hardware, that is almost unheard of; new processors normally need several rounds of revisions to shake out design errors. A famous piece of Acorn lore is that the early ARM chips drew so little current they could keep running on leakage alone after the power was disconnected. From a British computer to the whole world Acorn the computer company faded, but the processor design did not. In 1990 the ARM team was spun out into a separate joint venture, and the acronym was quietly re-expanded to Advanced RISC Machines . The new company made a decision that defined its future: it would not build chips. It would license the designs and let oth

Scope creep usually does not start with a dramatic disagreement. It starts with a reasonable-sounding request: "Can we also add this small thing?" For freelancers, consultants and small agencies, the hard part is often not the work itself. The hard part is that nobody has a clean shared record of what changed, what was included originally, what is now extra, and whether the timeline or price should move. The workflow I find most useful is deliberately simple. 1. Write the baseline before work starts Before the project begins, write down: the goal of the work what is included what is excluded assumptions dependencies what the client needs to provide This does not need to be legal language. Plain language is often better because both sides can understand it quickly. 2. Separate included and excluded work Many scope problems happen because "not included" was never written down. For example: Included: one landing page with copy and layout Excluded: email automation, paid ad setup, analytics dashboard, extra page variants That makes later conversations less emotional. You are not saying "no" from nowhere. You are comparing the new request to the original scope. 3. Pause before doing the extra work When a new request appears, write it down before starting. A useful change note can be short: requested change why it is needed impact on price impact on timeline what will be delivered approval status The point is not bureaucracy. The point is to stop invisible work from becoming normal. 4. Make timeline impact explicit Freelancers often talk about price but forget schedule. Even if the client accepts the extra cost, the original delivery date may no longer be realistic. A small change can still interrupt review cycles, dependencies or other client work. 5. Get written approval before starting This can be as simple as: "Confirmed. Please go ahead with this change at the updated price and timeline." The approval does not need to be fancy. It just needs to exist before the addit

It's the latest in a barrage of efforts to win compensation from AI companies over training materials.

Meta denies using AI to terminate workers with disabilities and medical problems.

Anthropic has consistently attempted to depict itself as the ethical foil to other AI companies. This latest marketing stunt — which leans into criticism of AI as a way to make Anthropic seem aware of the responsibility it carries — would appear to be more of the same.

Overtone describes itself as "a voice- and audio-forward service, enabled by AI, that provides highly curated introductions."

SpaceXAI's Grok Build AI coding tool was spotted uploading users' entire codebases to Google Cloud before it was reported, and the company turned it off. The Register reports that Cereblab published findings on Monday showing how the Grok Build CLI was packaging and uploading entire code repositories, "including files it was told not to open […]

Microsoft Corp. today released software updates to plug at least 570 security holes in its Windows operating systems and other software, almost triple the number of vulnerabilities the software giant fixed in its record-smashing Patch Tuesday release last month. Microsoft attributed the burgeoning patch counts to vulnerability discoveries aided by artificial intelligence.

Sorry Marvel Tokon fans, PlayStation's FlexStrike fight stick has been delayed.

Your AI Agent Needs Tracing, Not Just Logs You've probably already called an LLM from a Node.js backend. That part's easy — every provider ships a solid SDK. The part that actually trips people up is what happens after : turning that one API call into an agent that reasons, uses tools, loops a few times, and still behaves once real users are hitting it. Here's a small, honest pattern for that — plus the one thing most tutorials skip: making the loop debuggable. Why Node.js is doing this job Node has quietly become the default home for the application layer around AI. It's become the preferred middle layer for deploying modern AI agents, wrapping heavier model inference behind fast Node APIs. Python still owns training and the heavy orchestration frameworks — Node owns the gateway, the auth, the streaming UI, and the business logic wrapped around all of it. On the SDK side, things consolidated fast: OpenAI's Node SDK holds roughly a third of weekly npm downloads across the major JS AI SDKs, and Anthropic's TypeScript SDK has grown nearly tenfold in a year. And despite all the framework noise, most production teams just use the Claude or OpenAI SDK directly — reaching for LangChain.js or Mastra only once multi-agent coordination actually earns its keep. The loop: reason, act, repeat Almost every "agent" in 2026 runs on the same loop: reason about the task, act through a tool call, look at what came back, reason again — repeat until done. That's it. The engineering is in the guardrails around it, not the loop itself. // agent.js import Anthropic from " @anthropic-ai/sdk " ; const anthropic = new Anthropic (); // reads ANTHROPIC_API_KEY from env const tools = [ { name : " get_order_status " , description : " Look up the status of a customer order by order ID. " , input_schema : { type : " object " , properties : { orderId : { type : " string " } }, required : [ " orderId " ], }, }, ]; async function getOrderStatus ({ orderId }) { // stand-in for a real DB/service call r

How to version REST endpoints, evolve GraphQL schemas, and ship mobile updates — without leaving existing users behind. Why It Matters Every deployed API is a contract. Every mobile binary installed on a user's phone is a snapshot of that contract. The moment you change a response shape, rename a field, or remove an endpoint, you risk breaking clients you cannot force-update. Backward compatibility is not about avoiding change. It is about managing change so that existing consumers continue to work while the system evolves underneath them. This article covers three layers: REST API versioning , GraphQL schema evolution , and mobile app compatibility (React Native & Flutter). Each section delivers concrete patterns and production-ready code. Part I — REST APIs The Versioning Decision REST APIs have four common versioning strategies. Each comes with tradeoffs: Strategy Example Pros Cons URI path /api/v1/users Simple, cacheable, widely understood Implies the resource itself changed; cache duplication Query parameter /api/users?version=1 Easy to implement, can default to latest Complicates routing and cache keys Custom header X-API-Version: 1 Keeps URIs clean Hard to test in browsers, invisible in logs Content negotiation Accept: application/vnd.app.v2+json Fine-grained, per-resource versioning Complex to test, requires custom media types Rule of thumb: Use URI versioning for public APIs. Use header-based versioning for internal services where you control all clients. Non-Breaking vs. Breaking Changes Not every change requires a new version: ✅ Non-breaking (no version bump needed): - Adding a new field to a response - Adding a new optional query parameter - Adding a new endpoint - Returning a new enum value (if clients handle unknowns) ❌ Breaking (requires a new version): - Removing or renaming a field - Changing a field's type (string → number) - Making an optional parameter required - Changing the response structure Pattern: Side-by-Side Versioning When a breaking cha

TL;DR: Graph renderings of blockchain transactions carry topology signals that serialize badly into token sequences. A hub node surrounded by 47 short-lived leaf wallets looks like a table of addresses and amounts in text form — recognizable only if you already know the pattern. 📖 Reading time: ~23 min What's in this article The Problem: Blockchain Forensics Needs Vision, Not Just Text Hardware and Environment Setup on MI300X Data Pipeline: Rendering Blockchain Graphs as Training Images Fine-Tuning Loop: LoRA on 7B vs Full-Parameter on 7B ROCm-Specific Failure Modes and How to Diagnose Them Inference Serving: vLLM on ROCm for Classification Throughput Verdict: When This Setup Makes Sense and When It Doesn't The Problem: Blockchain Forensics Needs Vision, Not Just Text Graph renderings of blockchain transactions carry topology signals that serialize badly into token sequences. A hub node surrounded by 47 short-lived leaf wallets looks like a table of addresses and amounts in text form — recognizable only if you already know the pattern. Rendered as an image, that star topology is immediately visible as a structural shape. The same applies to layering patterns in mixing operations, where funds move through sequential depth levels that form visually distinct bands, and to clustering signatures where tightly-coupled address groups show dense internal edges versus sparse external ones. A vision-language model can learn to classify on those shapes directly. A text-based LLM working from a transaction list has to reconstruct the topology from raw numbers, which is possible but brittle — edge count and clustering coefficient can be computed and injected as tokens, but that's you doing the feature engineering that the vision model can learn to do itself. The reason Qwen2-VL entered this experiment rather than a GNN is mostly practical. Graph neural networks are the academically correct tool for graph classification, but they require a fixed-schema graph dataset and a trainin

The Quest Begins (The "Why") I still remember the first time I stared at a LeetCode problem that asked me to count the number of islands in a grid. My initial instinct? Run a BFS/DFS from every unvisited land cell, mark everything reachable, and repeat. It worked, but each query felt like I was re‑exploring the same territory over and over again—like walking the same hallway in a dungeon every time I wanted to open a new door. Then a friend tossed me another problem: “Given a list of friendships, tell me if two people are in the same social circle.” Again, the naive solution was to rebuild the whole graph for every query. I felt like I was stuck in a grind‑fest, repeating the same low‑level work while the real challenge—understanding the structure of the connections—remain. That frustration sparked a question: Is there a way to remember what we’ve already discovered about connectivity, so future queries are instant? The answer, as many of you have guessed, lives in a humble but mighty data structure called Union‑Find (also known as Disjoint Set Union, DSU). The Revelation (The Insight) At its core, Union‑Find is about two simple ideas : Each element starts in its own set – think of every person as a lone adventurer. When we learn that two elements belong together, we merge their sets – we call that a union . The magic isn’t just in merging; it’s in how we find the representative (or “root”) of a set later on. If we naïvely walked up a chain of parents every time, we could end up with O(n) per find—still a grind. Two optimizations turn this into near‑constant time: Union by rank (or size) – always attach the smaller tree under the root of the larger one. This keeps the overall tree shallow, guaranteeing that the height never exceeds log n. Path compression – during a find operation, we make every node we pass point directly to the root. It’s like handing every traveler a map that instantly shows the shortest route to the campfire, so next time they don’t need to trek

The company said the "rumors are completely false" after its stock sank more than 50% on a report that it was weighing the option.