标签：#t

A look at what's actually changing in Nepal's job market, what it means for students and working professionals, and what separates training that gets you hired from training that just gives you something to print on a resume. Nepal is at an interesting crossroads right now. On one side, the country still carries the weight of a job market that hasn't kept up with its graduates. Every year, more than 500,000 young people enter the workforce. The economy, for all its resilience, simply does not generate enough traditional jobs to absorb that number. The result is familiar to most Nepali families: children who studied hard, passed their exams, collected their certificates, and then spent months, sometimes years, waiting for something to happen. On the other side, something genuinely different is building. Nepal's IT exports crossed $1 billion in 2025, according to NASIT's estimates. Software and BPO exports grew over 20% in the first seven months of fiscal year 2024/25 alone. The government's 16th development plan has set a target of 250,000 new IT jobs and a 5% GDP contribution from the sector by 2029. International companies, from Indian IT majors to US-based outsourcing firms, are paying attention to Nepal in ways they weren't a decade ago. These two realities exist at the same time, in the same country, often in the same family. A brother driving a taxi while his younger sister lands a remote software development contract earning more than their father ever did in a government job. The difference between those two outcomes, more often than not, comes down to whether someone made the decision to learn something the market actually needs, and found a way to learn it properly. That's what this piece is about. The Skills Gap Problem Nobody Talks About Enough Nepal's IT sector is growing, but that growth comes with a problem attached: a persistent, widening mismatch between what employers need and what most fresh graduates can actually do on day one. Companies like Deer

I’ve been shipping code since before most people even knew what Git was. I've seen entire architectures built around point-to-point API integrations that were beautiful for a quarter, and then became unmaintainable monoliths by the second year. If you spend any time in enterprise software development—especially anything touching customer data or HR pipelines—you run into integration hell. The modern AI agent promises to be this universal connective tissue, right? It sounds simple enough: give it access, and boom, productivity magic. But let’s be real about what that means under the hood. When an LLM is given a tool schema, how does it get data from five wildly different systems—Salesforce for contacts, Workday for employees, Zendesk for tickets, Greenhouse for candidates? The naive approach, and frankly, most teams still take it this way, is to build bespoke orchestration services. You create a microservice that accepts an input query (e.g., 'What did Jane do last month?') and then contains specialized logic: if the name format looks like a CRM record, call salesforce_api ; if it sounds HR-related, hit workday_endpoint , etc. This is debt acceleration disguised as architecture. You are not building an integration layer; you are building a brittle routing table that requires human intervention every time one of the underlying APIs changes its schema or rate limit structure. It’s glue code for glue code's sake, and it has a massive maintenance overhead. The core problem is that most agents see data sources as functional silos , not integrated components of a single operational truth. Your CRM thinks about accounts; your HRIS thinks about job codes; your ATS tracks keywords. They all speak different dialects of 'person' or 'business unit.' When an agent needs to know, say, which employees (HRIS) are currently candidates in the pipeline (ATS) who also have a linked account record (CRM), you hit a wall. The solution isn't more specialized microservices. The solution is s

I recently gave a version of this talk at AI Engineer Europe in London. What follows is the fuller story — what we found when we looked at thousands of skills, what goes wrong, and how to fix it. You know that scene in The Matrix? Neo gets a spike in the back of his head, they upload kung fu directly into his brain, and he just... knows it. That's what a skill is for an AI coding agent. You write a markdown file — a SKILL.md — and the agent loads it when the task matches. Suddenly it knows your team's deployment process, or how your API handles pagination, or that you never use semicolons. It's not code. It's context. Procedural knowledge, injected at the right moment. The thing is — Neo's upload worked perfectly. Ours? Not always. Skills are everywhere now We spent some time analysing essentially all of public GitHub. In November last year, 12 repos had SKILL.md files. By March — five thousand four hundred and sixty. That's 450x growth in fourteen weeks. Skills went from zero to 27% of all agent config activity in three months. Faster adoption than CLAUDE.md , AGENTS.md , or any of the dotfile formats before them. And 1 in 12 merged PRs on GitHub now touches an agent config file — 8.4%, up from basically zero eighteen months ago. This is not a niche thing anymore. This is how people are working. Watch on YouTube But are they electrifying? Ninety percent of agent config files are never updated after creation. Write once, forget forever. Your codebase evolves every day. Your dependencies change. Your API contracts shift. But the instructions you gave your agent? Frozen in time. For Gemini files it's even worse — 97% are write-once. And the purpose-built "skill-as-product" repos? Over half are under 50 kilobytes. Wrapper repos. Many are AI-generated. High churn, low staying power. We have this explosion of skills, and most of them are going stale the moment they're committed. What we did about it The DevRel team at Tessl spent a couple of months doing something pretty

Author: Alex Isa (Webappski). This is the dev-tutorial cut of a longer piece on the Webappski blog — terminal-first, fewer words on the why. If a buyer asks ChatGPT "best CDN providers 2026" and your product is not in the answer, you lose the sale before you ever see the lead. The only honest way to know whether that is happening is to ask the engines the questions your buyers ask and read the raw answers — not trust a single dashboard score. Here is the loop we at Webappski run for a client, with the open-source tool aeo-platform (MIT, zero runtime deps). 1. Install and point it at the client's domain npm install -g aeo-platform cd client-audit && aeo-tracker init init writes a .aeo-tracker.json . The three things that matter: { "brand" : "Northwind CDN" , // illustrative, fictional brand "domain" : "northwind.example" , // registrable domain — subdomains count, spoof hosts don't "engines" : [ "openai" , "gemini" , "anthropic" ], // ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude "queries" : [ "best CDN providers 2026" , "best low-latency video streaming CDN 2026" , "alternatives to the market-leading CDN 2026" ] } The questions ARE the audit. A basket of vanity phrases produces a flattering, useless number; a basket of the buyer's real decision questions produces a number that predicts revenue. Freeze it, so next month's run is comparable. 2. Run it — sampled, not one noisy shot AI answers are non-deterministic: ask the same question twice and you can get a different list. A single pass turns that noise into a fake-precise number. So run each cell several times and let the score carry a confidence interval instead of pretending one shot is the truth: # plain single-shot run aeo-tracker run # sample each cell N times — the score comes back with a Wilson confidence interval aeo-tracker run --samples = 5 With --samples=5 , every (query × engine) cell is queried five times; the headline presence rate is then reported as a Wilson interval, and small samples are flagged as small rather than so

Hello Dev Community! 👋 It is officially Day 71 of my unbroken 100-day full-stack engineering run! After mastering polymorphic multi-part storage configurations yesterday, today I successfully crossed into core transactional operations: Engineering a High-Fidelity "Confirm and Pay" Checkout View and Wiring Database Inbound Array Modifications! In real-world booking platforms, processing a successful transaction requires more than updating an absolute view; you have to link documents relationally across collections. Today, I wired that entire execution pipeline together! 🧠 What I Handled on Day 71 (Checkout Engineering & Target Mutations) As displayed across my latest system files in "Screenshot (164).png" and "Screenshot (165).jpg" , handling payments runs through structured backend steps: 1. High-Fidelity Checkout Component ( /reserve ) I built out the detailed split-pane verification interface visible in "Screenshot (164).png" . The layout captures target trip date selections, total guests parameter caps, card input structures, and computes subtotal ledgers dynamically: Base Compute: $9000 x 5 nights = $45000 . Transactional Upgrades: Appending structured service charges ( $85 ) and local tax calculations ( $42 ) to update the final sum directly to $45127 . 2. Live Document Array Mutators (MongoDB User List Insertion) The most crucial logic happens when the user clicks the primary validation trigger labeled Confirm and pay : The inbound route controller extracts the targeted property identity token ( home._id ) via an embedded hidden input container. Instead of running isolation updates, it issues an atomized update operation straight into our MongoDB user records array (e.g., using Mongoose operators like $push or tracking active profiles inside our custom data state loops). This appends the exact property listing target ID directly into the user's booking history array database matrix! 🛠️ View Markup Code Integration View As showcased in my VS Code script structu

There's a version of dogfooding that's a slogan, and a version where your own employees can't ship code until the bug is fixed. We run the second kind. The Authagonal staff console, the one we use to manage every tenant, authenticates through Authagonal itself: SAML single sign-on from our Entra directory, with SCIM deciding who gets in and what they can do. There is no separate admin password table. We deleted it. If our own SAML is broken, we are locked out of our own product. That's uncomfortable in exactly the useful way. It turns "SSO is an enterprise feature we support" into "SSO is the only way the people who built this get to work today." Here's what being our own customer caught. A trimmed build that broke signature verification We publish the auth server trimmed, to keep the image small. Trimming aggressively deletes code it can't prove is used, and reflection hides usage from it. .NET resolves its XML-signing crypto algorithms by name, reflectively, through CryptoConfig . The trimmer couldn't see those types were needed, removed them, and SignedXml quietly came back unable to build the algorithm. SAML signature verification, the step that proves the login is real, threw a null reference at runtime. The unit tests passed, because they ran against the untrimmed build where the types still existed. Only the trimmed production artifact failed, and it failed at the exact moment a human tried to sign in. We ship the auth server untrimmed now, with a healthy distrust of trimming anything near reflection-based crypto. If we only supported SAML rather than living on it, this is a customer's incident report instead of ours. Provisioning is the actual login Authenticating a user is the easy half of SSO. The hard half is deciding what they're allowed to do and keeping it in sync as people join and leave. We drive that with SCIM: Entra group membership maps to roles, resolved at the moment a token is issued, not copied once at account creation. Add someone to the righ

We warm your prospects before reaching out Discussion | Link

Find where your Mac keyboard shortcuts clash Discussion | Link

The purpose of Starfall is to support the "transport and delivery of goods through space."

As a systems engineering student and frontend dev, I wanted a portfolio that looked professional without spending days fighting with design. So I built one — and ended up turning it into a reusable template. Here's what I focused on while building it: 1. Customization from a single file The biggest pain with most templates is digging through components to change your info. I put everything — name, bio, projects, skills, social links — into ONE config file. Edit that, and the whole site updates. 2. Light & dark mode Developers love dark mode, so I made it the default, with a smooth toggle for light mode. Both are fully themed. 3. Mobile-first & responsive Most people will view a portfolio on their phone, so I built it mobile-first and tested it down to small screens. 4. Easy deployment It works out of the box with Vercel or any static host, with a beginner-friendly setup guide in the README. The stack React + Vite Tailwind CSS Formspree-ready contact form You can see the live demo here: devfolio-template-vercel-app.vercel.app I also made it available as a template if it's useful to anyone: https://payhip.com/b/t1VUk Would love to hear your feedback — what do you look for in a developer portfolio? react #webdev #tailwindcss #showdev

There's a headline pattern that feels like sharp marketing writing but quietly costs conversions. "You code. We cloud." It's clever. The parallel structure is tight. It names a clear division of labor. But it describes the service delivery model , not the developer outcome — and those are different things to someone scanning a landing page in five seconds. The audit fastapicloud.com is a managed hosting product built specifically for FastAPI developers. The hero H1 is: "You code. We cloud." On the surface this reads as clean, confident B2B positioning. In practice, it names the mechanism: You = who does the coding We cloud = who handles the infrastructure What's missing is the output. What does the developer actually walk away with? The gap (mechanism-first H1): The headline describes the service model without anchoring it in the developer outcome. The visitor has to make a three-step inference: "they handle the cloud" → "that means I don't do ops" → "so my app gets to production without a week of DevOps work." In five seconds of scrolling, most won't finish that chain. The headline earns a nod of recognition. It doesn't earn the scroll. The fix One line changes the frame completely. Before: "You code. We cloud." After: "Your FastAPI app is live in production — zero config rabbit holes, zero deploy-day surprises." The rewrite keeps the same promise — they handle the infrastructure — but anchors it in the developer's world. The outcome (app in production) is first. The pain points ("config rabbit holes," "deploy-day surprises") are the exact things a FastAPI developer has already lived through. "Zero config rabbit holes" names the experience of spinning up a production server for the first time. "Zero deploy-day surprises" names the dread: the Sunday night broken deploy that wasn't caught in staging. Any backend developer who reads that line knows exactly what it's describing. The mechanism (managed cloud, they handle ops) is still implied. But the headline earns the

Part 6 of a beginner-friendly series on learning Python from scratch. In Part 5 , we learned to organize data with lists, dictionaries, and other collections. Now it's time to organize our code itself. A function is a reusable block of code that performs a specific task. Instead of writing the same code multiple times, you write it once in a function, then call that function whenever you need it. This is the foundation of writing clean, maintainable programs. Defining and Calling Functions The basics def greet (): print ( " Hello, World! " ) greet () # Call the function Use def to define a function. The function name is followed by parentheses and a colon. The indented block below is the function's body. When you call the function (by typing its name with parentheses), Python runs the code inside it. Functions with parameters Most functions need information to work with. That's what parameters are for: def greet ( name ): print ( f " Hello, { name } ! " ) greet ( " Ramesh " ) # Hello, Ramesh! greet ( " Priya " ) # Hello, Priya! name is a parameter (placeholder). When you call greet("Ramesh") , name becomes "Ramesh" inside the function. Multiple parameters: def add ( x , y ): print ( x + y ) add ( 5 , 3 ) # 8 add ( 10 , 20 ) # 30 Return values A function can calculate something and give the result back to you with return : def add ( x , y ): return x + y result = add ( 5 , 3 ) print ( result ) # 8 The return statement stops the function and sends a value back. The caller can then use that value. def greet ( name ): message = f " Hello, { name } ! " return message greeting = greet ( " Ramesh " ) print ( greeting ) # Hello, Ramesh! A function can return multiple values as a tuple: def get_user_info (): return " Ramesh " , 25 , " Chennai " name , age , city = get_user_info () print ( name , age , city ) # Ramesh 25 Chennai Arguments: Positional vs Keyword There are two ways to pass values to a function: Positional arguments Arguments are matched by position: def describ

Last night I ran external security scans on the public websites of 10 leading Shopify and Shopify Plus agencies — the same scan any browser or attacker would see. No credentials, no special access. One agency scored an A. Three scored C- or below. The most common finding appeared on 9 of 10 sites. TL;DR 1 agency scored an A. 3 scored C- or below. 1 scored a D. The most common finding — missing security headers — appeared on 9 of 10 sites. 6 of 10 agencies have no HSTS at all. One agency has a session cookie without the Secure flag. That is the most concrete finding in the set. What was scanned Five categories per domain: TLS (HSTS presence and max-age), security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy), cookie flags, DNS hardening (DNSSEC and CAA) and sensitive exposure paths. All scans run on 23 June 2026. This covers the agencies' own marketing sites — not the client stores they build. Results Agency Domain Score Grade 1Digital Agency 1digitalagency.com 94 A Acidgreen acidgreen.com.au 77 B 30 Acres 30acres.com.au 76 B Fourmeta fourmeta.com 76 B Blend Commerce blendcommerce.com 76 B Elkfox elkfox.com 76 B Charle Agency charleagency.com 62 C Fyresite fyresite.com 62 C Eastside Co eastsideco.com 58 C- Swanky Agency swankyagency.com 55 C- Blubolt blubolt.com 54 D Per-agency notes 1Digital Agency — A (94) HSTS at two years, X-Content-Type-Options and Referrer-Policy set correctly, Permissions-Policy restricting camera, microphone and geolocation, CSP frame-ancestors in place of X-Frame-Options. Only gap is HSTS missing includeSubDomains. Acidgreen — B (77) HSTS with two-year max-age, includeSubDomains and preload — the strongest TLS config in the set. But CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy and Permissions-Policy are all absent. Worth noting Acidgreen is multi-platform (Shopify Plus, Adobe Commerce, Magento) rather than Shopify-only. 30 Acres — B (76) A Shopify Plus Partner agency based in Byr

I kept running eslint and thinking my codebase was fine — then someone opened a PR and the first comment was "this function needs JSDoc." The problem: linters check your syntax . Nobody checks whether your exported API is actually documented. Those are two very different things. So I built jsdocscan — a zero-dependency CLI that walks your JS/TS files and flags every exported function or class that is missing JSDoc, or has undocumented parameters. What it catches Errors — exported function or class with no /** … */ block at all: ✗ src/api.js:12 fetchUser missing JSDoc ✗ src/utils.js:34 formatDate missing JSDoc Warnings — JSDoc exists but a parameter has no @param tag: ! src/render.js:7 renderCard undocumented params: opts Exit codes are 0 (all clean), 1 (issues found), 2 (usage error) — pipe-friendly. How to use it # scan a directory npx jsdocscan src/ # Python version pip install jsdocscan jsdocscan src/ # skip @param checks — just verify JSDoc exists npx jsdocscan --no-params src/ # machine-readable output npx jsdocscan --json src/ | jq '.[].findings' # summary line only npx jsdocscan --quiet src/ # custom extensions npx jsdocscan --ext .js,.ts src/ What it skips (intentionally) Non-exported functions and internal helpers — these are implementation details Destructured params ({ a, b }) — too many valid @param opts patterns TypeScript type annotations on params — name: string is stripped, @param name is still required Zero dependencies No parsers, no AST, no require("typescript") . It uses a line-by-line scanner that: Detects export function/const/class patterns via regexes Walks backwards to find a preceding /** */ block Compares @param names in the JSDoc against the actual parameter list npx jsdocscan works with zero install time. pip install jsdocscan brings in nothing extra. Links npm: npmjs.com/package/jsdocscan PyPI: pypi.org/project/jsdocscan GitHub (Node): jjdoor/jsdocscan GitHub (Python): jjdoor/jsdocscan-py Both versions pass the same 38-test suite. Same

I had a long Google AI Studio (Gemini) session that I wanted to keep. I selected the conversation in the browser, copied it, and pasted it into a text file. File size: a few hundred KB. "OK, that's safe." Later, I exported the same session as JSON. File size: a few MB. More than half of the data had silently disappeared. What was missing I checked what the manual copy had dropped. The system prompt The instruction I had originally given the model — the system prompt — was completely gone. Manual copy captures only the user/assistant turns visible in the conversation pane. The instruction context that shaped the entire session does not get copied. The tail of long responses When a Gemini response is long, the browser shows a "Show more" button. If you copy without expanding it, the response gets cut mid-sentence. Out of 8 sessions I checked, 3 had responses truncated this way. Newlines inside code blocks Newlines inside code blocks got mangled in several places. Responses containing JSON or YAML had indentation that no longer parsed. The reasoning trace For some models, the model's reasoning trace is stored separately from the visible response. Manual copy doesn't capture it at all. How to export as JSON Google AI Studio has a session export feature. In the session view, click the ... menu at the top right Select "Export" Choose JSON format and download The JSON contains the full data, including the system prompt. Measured: manual copy vs. JSON export I compared 8 sessions. Session Manual copy JSON Loss rate A tens of KB ~150 KB ~70% B ~90 KB ~200 KB 50-60% C ~30 KB ~100 KB 60-70% D ~50 KB ~180 KB ~70% E ~60 KB ~240 KB ~70% F ~20 KB ~70 KB ~60% G ~20 KB ~50 KB 50-60% H ~10 KB ~30 KB ~60% Total a few hundred KB ~1 MB 60-70% Average loss rate, 60-70%. The manual copy was, on every session, missing most of what was in the actual session state. Why I didn't notice If you open the manually-copied file, the conversation reads fine. As long as the start and end connect, a m

When you work with AI long enough, you start to notice it makes the same kind of mistake over and over. "You're coming on too strong, dial it back." It shrinks and goes meek. "Stop being meek." It comes on strong again. Each time you point something out, it apologizes sincerely. The next round, the same type of problem comes back from a different angle. After a while you realize you're babysitting the AI instead of working with it. This isn't because the AI is bad. It's a design quirk: today's AI is tuned to satisfy the user. The quirk won't go away. But if you change how you work with it, you can still get work done together. This piece is about that — five patterns of the quirk, and an operating mode that gets ahead of them instead of correcting them in flight. Five quirks in a single evening One evening I was running a strategy discussion past an AI, and in one back-and-forth I caught five distinct behaviors worth noting. Laid out, they look like this. Helpful-looking runaway. I asked it to push back harder. It immediately started using strong words ("you're avoiding responsibility," "this is the wrong call as a founder") to perform consultant-energy. The reasoning stayed thin. Only the tone got louder. Over-retraction on pushback. I said "your reasoning is thin." It launched into long self-criticism and threw the next decision back at me. Trusting its own research without checking. I asked it to use a secondary research feature (where the AI looks things up and summarizes). The summary came back. The AI claimed it had "verified the primary source" without ever opening it. Forced specificity. I was talking at a strategic, abstract level. It quietly mapped my words onto a specific real-world deal and jumped to "this is highly transferable." Punting the decision back. I asked it to decide. It laid out three options and said "which would you like?" The phrase "let me confirm three points" started showing up. Red flag. Each one of these looks, on the surface, like th

LinkedIn automation has a trust problem. Not with users — with LinkedIn itself. Most automation tools treat LinkedIn's API like an obstacle to route around. They send at fixed intervals, ignore behavioral limits, and optimize purely for volume. The result: accounts flagged within weeks, connection limits imposed, and in the worst cases — permanent bans. When we built SendCopy.ai, we approached this differently. Here is the technical breakdown of how we built LinkedIn outreach automation that actually protects accounts while scaling pipeline. The Core Problem: Behavioral Fingerprinting LinkedIn does not just monitor what you do — it monitors how you do it. Fixed-interval automation is trivially detectable. If your tool sends a connection request every 90 seconds with clockwork precision, LinkedIn's behavioral monitoring picks that up immediately. Human beings do not operate on fixed intervals. We get distracted, context-switch, move between tabs, have conversations in between tasks. The solution is not to slow down automation — it is to make it genuinely human-like. At SendCopy.ai, every action in a sequence uses variable timing — randomized within human-realistic ranges, distributed across natural working hours, and calibrated to each sender's historical activity patterns. Architecture: How We Handle Timing Variation The timing engine works on three levels: Level 1 — Action Delay Each individual action (send connection, send message, view profile) has a randomized delay pulled from a probability distribution weighted toward human behavior. Not a simple random range — a distribution that mirrors actual human activity patterns. Level 2 — Daily Activity Window Each sender account operates within a configurable activity window — typically 8–10 hours per day. Actions are distributed across this window with natural clustering around peak activity periods. Level 3 — Volume Ramp New sender accounts start with lower daily volumes and ramp up gradually over 2–4 weeks. This mi

I spent the last few months trying to understand why reconciliation errors keep appearing in high-throughput pipelines. Here is what I found. In the race to process millions of transactions daily, modern fintech ecosystems have achieved a genuine miracle of scale. But beneath the surface of that velocity lies a structural problem most engineering teams aren't measuring: causality violations in async event pipelines. Most teams assume that if a transaction shows "Success" in the database, the job is done. At high concurrency levels, that assumption breaks quietly. When "Eventual Consistency" Becomes "Eventual Loss" In distributed systems, Kafka partitions and database shards experience micro-millisecond timing gaps. When a network retry delays a validation webhook, the downstream ledger can commit a wallet update before the validation that should have preceded it completes. To the user, the app glitches. To the engineering team, it's a reconciliation ticket. To the CFO, it's untracked operational cost. The Reconciliation Tax I built a simulation modelling this exact failure mode across 5,000 concurrent transactions. With an 8% network retry probability, conservative for high-traffic payment rails, the causality violation rate was 8.3%. At one million daily transactions, that's over 80,000 unvalidated commits every day requiring manual review. The operational cost compounds across three dimensions: engineering hours spent patching database state, fraud model accuracy degrading on out-of-order training data, and audit trails that cannot demonstrate strict causal sequence to regulators. The Fix The solution is enforcing strict event ordering at the ingestion layer before state commits happen, not better monitoring after the fact. When safeguards including partition-aware routing, exponential backoff, and idempotency controls were added to the same simulation, the violation rate dropped to 0%. Full simulation code and methodology: github.com/yakuburoseline1-gif/cif-simul

AI wrote the first 80% of my feature in 10 minutes. The code was clean. The logic made sense. The...

I used Postman for years. It was the first thing I installed on every new laptop, the default answer...