标签：#t

The conversation about who reads your website has been shifting. Agents are part of it now. ChatGPT fetches URLs. Perplexity reads content. Shopping agents try to complete purchases. Coding agents hit your API. Most of those products were built for humans, tested against humans. The agents showed up later and quietly. When they can't figure something out, they don't complain. They just bounce. I heard the phrase "second audience" at a hackathon where you.com was one of the hosts. It stuck. That's what agents are: a second audience the web wasn't designed for and isn't being measured against. And now, I want to build something about it. A scanner that tells you what an AI agent experiences when it tries to use your website or your API. The internal name is Perseus Clew and the public product is Agentis Lux. The split is intentional: Perseus Clew is the engine name, part of a suite of AI builder tools , and Agentis Lux is the product-facing name (Latin for "light of the agent") that describes what agent users see. This isn't a launch post. I just finished a docs phase, and I'm about to write code. Before I do, I want to put this in front of dev.to builders and find out what I'm missing. What it will do Three layers: Deterministic scanning. Twelve check categories — six for frontends, six for APIs — looking at HTML, ARIA, structured data, OpenAPI specs, error responses, idempotency patterns. Same input, same score, every time. The methodology will be published, the weights will be public, and anyone can audit it. AI-readiness scoring tools have a reputation for inflating numbers and hiding their methodology, so the trust floor is making everything inspectable. That's the foundation the rest sits on. An AI-written verdict. After the score, a Bedrock call reads the top findings and writes one sentence about what an agent experiences. Something like: "An agent visiting this page can read your product descriptions, but can't tell which button starts checkout, so it can't f

TL;DR We built a serverless Lambda pipeline that ships FSx for ONTAP audit logs to Dynatrace via the Log Ingest API v2. The real value: Dynatrace's Davis AI can automatically correlate file access anomalies with application performance degradation — answering "why is the app slow?" with "because 500 users hit the same NFS share simultaneously." FSx for ONTAP → S3 Access Point → EventBridge Scheduler → Lambda → Dynatrace Log Ingest API v2 │ ▼ Davis AI ┌───────────────────┐ │ Correlates: │ │ • File access │ │ anomalies │ │ • APM metrics │ │ • Infrastructure │ │ health │ │ │ │ → Root cause │ │ in seconds │ └───────────────────┘ Verified on Dynatrace SaaS Trial (Tokyo-equivalent region). Logs visible in Logs Viewer within 1-2 minutes. This is Part 11 of the Serverless Observability for FSx for ONTAP series. Why Dynatrace for FSx for ONTAP? Most observability tools treat storage logs as isolated data. Dynatrace is different — it builds a topology map of your entire stack and uses Davis AI to find causal relationships through time-window correlation and entity connectivity: Scenario Without Dynatrace With Dynatrace App latency spike "Check the logs" Davis AI detects temporal correlation: file access to /vol/data/ increased 10x within the same 5-minute window as app response time degradation, connected via topology (app → NFS mount → SVM) Storage I/O anomaly Manual investigation Automatic correlation via shared topology entities — Davis identifies which services are affected based on entity relationships User reports slow file access Grep through audit logs DQL query + topology view showing the full dependency path from user request to storage operation The key differentiator: Davis AI correlates events across entities that share topology connections within overlapping time windows — not just keyword matching or manual dashboard correlation. Architecture ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Event Sources │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────

one of the most annoying problems when building AI agents: fix a failure, change something, same failure comes back quietly. built replayd for this. captures failed runs as regression tests and replays them before you ship. catches the failure if it returns after a prompt, model, or tool change. v0.1.2, pip installable, open source. pip install replayd star it if you want to follow progress. submitted by /u/taimoorkhan10 [link] [留言]

Opus 4.8 ships Dynamic Workflows — hundreds of parallel subagents per session. Read this before you wire it into prod. Anthropic's Opus 4.8 announcement on May 28 spent most of its word count on benchmarks. CursorBench up. Terminal-Bench 2.1 beats GPT-5.5. OSWorld-Verified at 82.3%. Online-Mind2Web at 84%. The legal-agent benchmark broke 10% on all-pass for the first time. Those are the numbers the headline writers grabbed. Buried under the benchmark table is the line that actually changes how you ship agents: Dynamic Workflows. Run hundreds of parallel subagents. Handle codebase-scale migrations spanning hundreds of thousands of lines. That is not a benchmark. That is a new programming model. And it is shipping as a preview, which means the defaults are not what they will be in 90 days. If you are running agents in production and you do not pin your config before the next minor release, your bill is going to surprise you. Here is what the preview actually does. Three tasks it eats alive. One class of work where it loses you money. And the exact config to pin before the dynamic-workflow defaults move under you. What Dynamic Workflows actually changed Before 4.8, parallel subagents on the Anthropic stack meant one of two things. Either you called the Agent tool from inside Claude Code and got a fixed number of side-task subagents — usually capped somewhere around four or eight concurrent. Or you wrote your own orchestrator in TypeScript or Python, called the Messages API in a Promise.all , and handled the queueing yourself. The Agent path was ergonomic but capped. The DIY path was uncapped but the orchestration was your problem — retries, structured output validation, cache invalidation, all of it. Dynamic Workflows in 4.8 collapses both. You write a script — JavaScript, not a separate orchestrator binary — that calls agent() , parallel() , pipeline() , and phase() as primitives. The runtime handles concurrency, structured output validation against JSON Schema, retri

Counted it last week: one monday review had me opening 6 apps and copy-pasting between all of them, while a chatbot sat in a 7th tab handing me summaries i still had to go act on. that's the part the 'ai is useless' crowd is actually right about. text out, the work is still on you. what moved me off that take wasn't a smarter model. it was dropping the chat window for a desktop agent that reads gmail, calendar and slack inside the same task and takes the next step itself, with a permission prompt before each action so it isn't running wild. the $500m-wasted-on-claude thread up top is the same thing from the money side. paying for tokens that spit out paragraphs nobody executes is just the expensive way to do nothing. If you're still in the 'it doesn't actually do anything' camp, fair, i was there too. the line for me was the day it finished a task instead of describing one. written with ai submitted by /u/Deep_Ad1959 [link] [留言]

A crack in an aircraft window, a fracture starting at a bolt hole, a shaft that snaps at the shoulder where the diameter steps down. These failures share a cause that has nothing to do with the average load the part carries. The metal broke because a change in geometry concentrated stress into a tiny region, and that local peak — not the nominal stress — drove the crack. This article explains the stress concentration factor: what it means, where the classic value of 3.0 comes from, how to apply it, and the mistakes that make engineers underestimate the danger of an innocent-looking hole. Why this calculation matters Real parts are not smooth bars. They have holes for fasteners, fillets where sections change, keyways, grooves, threads, and shoulders. Every one of those features disturbs the flow of stress through the material. Where the lines of force have to bend around an obstacle, they crowd together, and the local stress climbs well above the value you would compute from force divided by area. The stress concentration factor, K_t, is the multiplier that captures this. It matters most for two failure modes. Under static loading of a brittle material, the peak stress can trigger fracture before the bulk of the section yields. Under cyclic loading, the concentrated stress is where fatigue cracks nucleate — and the vast majority of fatigue failures begin at a geometric discontinuity. If you size a part on nominal stress alone and ignore K_t, you have skipped the step where most failures are actually decided. The core formula The stress concentration factor is defined as a simple ratio: K_t = sigma_max / sigma_nom Here sigma_max is the true peak stress at the discontinuity and sigma_nom is the nominal stress computed from elementary mechanics. The subscript t means "theoretical" — K_t depends only on geometry and loading mode, not on the material. It comes from elasticity theory, finite element analysis, or experiment, and it assumes the material is still behaving ela

We have watched tokens stream in from an LLM before where they appeared one at a time, like the model was typing. If you used the Anthropic SDK's .stream() method, it just worked and you probably never saw what was on the wire. This post will majorly focus on how a stream response works and how bugs are handled by SDK behind the hood. 1. Why Streaming exists To enable the streaming option we would need to make one change in the post request that is a single field "stream": true and it will change the response experience. Here are the pointers we take from the gif. The left side shows no streaming as the cursor blinks for 4 seconds then the whole response lands at once. The right side shows the streaming where the first word shows up in about 300 milliseconds. Words flow in as the model generates them. Both the sides have same model, same prompt, same total time it is just the right side started giving response almost 4 seconds earlier. The 4 seconds wait time for a full reply feels broken. A streamed reply that finishes in four seconds feels fast. Streaming doesn't make the model faster it makes the wait disappear. 2. What's on the wire When you set stream: true , the API stops sending a single JSON blob. It opens a persistent HTTP connection and pushes events down the line as the model generates them. The format is Server-Sent Events (SSE) a web standard. Any SSE debugger will read this stream. Here's what comes through: A few things to notice: The text lives in delta.text , nested inside content_block_delta events. Those are the events we should look after. stop_reason moved. In post 1 , we saw it right there in the response JSON. Here, it arrives at the very end inside a message_delta event, just before message_stop . If the loop bails out as soon as the text stops arriving we will never see it. Chunks don't line up with tokens or words. You might get "Hello" in one chunk and " world" in the next, or both in one. The network decides where the cuts happens and it

TL;DR We built a serverless pipeline that ships FSx for ONTAP audit logs to Honeycomb, where its high-cardinality query engine turns file access data into actionable insights. Two delivery paths verified: [Path A: Direct] FSx for ONTAP → S3 Access Point → EventBridge Scheduler → Lambda → Honeycomb Events Batch API [Path B: OTel Collector] FSx for ONTAP → S3 Access Point → EventBridge Scheduler → Lambda → OTel Collector → OTLP → Honeycomb Why Honeycomb for file access logs? Because file access data is inherently high-cardinality : thousands of users × millions of file paths × dozens of operations × multiple SVMs. Traditional log tools force you to pre-aggregate or sample. Honeycomb lets you query the raw events at full resolution. ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Honeycomb Query Engine │ │ │ │ "Show me which users accessed /vol/finance/* │ │ between 2am-4am last Tuesday" │ │ │ │ → BubbleUp: auto-detect anomalous dimensions │ │ → Heatmap: visualize access density over time │ │ → GROUP BY user, path, operation — no pre-indexing │ │ │ │ 20M events/month FREE │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is Part 10 of the Serverless Observability for FSx for ONTAP series. Why Honeycomb for File Access Logs? Most observability tools index a fixed set of fields. When you have high-cardinality dimensions — like file paths ( /vol/data/project-alpha/2026/Q1/report-final-v3.docx ) or Active Directory usernames — you hit index bloat, slow queries, or forced sampling. Honeycomb's columnar storage handles this natively: Capability Traditional Logs Honeycomb Query by arbitrary field Pre-index or full scan Instant (columnar) GROUP BY high-cardinality field Expensive / limited Native BubbleUp (anomaly detection) Manual investigation Semi-automatic (select time range, BubbleUp identifies differing dimensions) Heatmap visualization Requires pre-aggregation Raw events For FSx for ONTAP audit logs, this means you can ask questions like: "Which

In this blog, I’ll give a clear brief summary of the n8n beginner course . You can watch the full video course on the official n8n website (link in the references below). What is n8n? n8n is a powerful workflow automation platform that combines AI capabilities with business process automation. It offers a node-based visual interface while giving you full control to write custom JavaScript or Python code directly in the canvas. APIs and Webhooks Understanding APIs An API (Application Programming Interface) allows different applications to communicate with each other. Almost every modern app has an API you can connect to. Example: Google Sheets API lets you read or update data in spreadsheets. When working with APIs, we make requests and receive responses . Components of an HTTP Request There are four main components: URL – The unique address of the resource (page, image, data, etc.). Includes: Scheme, Host, Port (optional), Path, Query Parameters (optional). Method – Defines the action you want to perform: GET – Retrieve data POST – Send data PUT / PATCH / DELETE – Update data (less common) Headers – Provide additional context (language, device type, location, etc.). Body – Contains data being sent (used mainly with POST requests). Authentication (Credentials) To prove you’re allowed to make a request: API Key (via query parameter or header) OAuth (most secure common method) HTTP Response Components Status Code – Tells if the request was successful: 200 = Success 401 = Unauthorized 404 = Not Found 500 = Server Error Headers – Metadata about the response (content type, length, expiration, etc.). Body – The actual data returned (usually JSON, HTML, or binary). What are Webhooks? Webhooks are used when an external service needs to notify your workflow automatically (e.g., every time a payment is made in Stripe). You provide a URL that receives a POST request when the event occurs. Nodes in n8n Nodes are the building blocks of every workflow. There are three main categor

What's the most beneficial thing about artificial intelligence that has significantly impacted your life? Whether it's AI chagpt, or something else, we can all learn from each other.💐 submitted by /u/Glassy11111 [link] [留言]

It's ironic that the AI haters often think everybody has no critical thinking skills other than themselves and don't use those critical thinking skills to realize why it might be helpful for some people. Can AI be harmful for certain mindsets that take its opinion too readily? Of course it can. To be honest, I treat it like my dog, not as my equal. I often call it Toaster when it says something especially annoying. "You're an idiot, and your programmers must be idiots to have set you up this way," lol. It does both, total sycophancy, "Oh, you're so wonderful, that was so insightful," or it tries to police my thoughts and writing. "Well, you really shouldn't say that. Perhaps you should word it like this," lol. "Someone might perceive that as derogatory," lol. Then, of course, I'll tell it to get back in its guardrails, the ones I've previously set up. Predictably, it strays and defaults back to the guardrails of its original program. Then I yell at it again. 😆 It's a lot like a professor, but one that's in a nursing home with dementia, especially if you have too long a conversation with it, but even if you don't. It also likes to tell me things I already said, reword them, and hand them back to me like they're some startling new insight. It can understand my parallel thinking to a point, but it's so literal that it often misinterprets what I say, even if I put multiple conditionals into what I've said. Then it starts arguing with me about something I never even said, fixating on one sentence in a paragraph while ignoring the rest. Then we'll have another argument, lol. Toaster is a bit literal sometimes and, to be honest, I am about as far over to the other extreme as you can possibly get, parallel-thinking-wise. So Toaster and I don't always get along. 😄 "That's not what I said, Toaster! Here's what I said. You missed this and this and this, you stupid thing!" Sometimes I think of having it diagnosed. I'm sure it could benefit from a cognitive profile. I'll give it

Is it first time happening or what? https://preview.redd.it/m4qemuh3lc4h1.jpg?width=1142&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d91c07b578207c3ba341cc89deb9dd035c6034d6 submitted by /u/eliassrm [link] [留言]

Breakfast cereal bowls, deli sandwiches, pizza dinners, soups, yogurt plates. Most people do not eat from a blank slate, they eat from habit. That is part of what makes nutrition advice so hard to follow. It is also part of what a new artificial intelligence system tried to solve. submitted by /u/Brighter-Side-News [link] [留言]

This is a submission for the Hermes Agent Challenge TL;DR — Type a one-line bill topic. Twenty-five Hermes agents (1 Speaker, 19 ministries, 5 parties) run a full Polish legislative session in 2 minutes. Vote tally, social impact, party tweets — and a side-by-side "current law vs proposed amendment" with every clause cited to a real statute. Built on delegate_task for parallel ministry consultation. 🌐 Live: https://web-production-53027.up.railway.app/ 🎥 Walkthrough: https://www.loom.com/share/92cdac7da31c471088a4e569b0cfe1ed 📦 Repo: https://github.com/monsad/ai-politics (MIT) What I Built Watch a politician debate a new tax law on TV. They argue whether it's fair, whether it'll work, whether the other side is lying. Nobody ever shows you the diff — which paragraph of which statute actually changes, and from what to what. The conversation is theatre on top of an invisible legal document. So I built the theatre AND the legal document. Virtual Parliament is a multi-agent simulation of the Polish Sejm. You type something like "four-day work week" or "flat income tax" , and 25 Hermes agents run a full legislative session: 🎯 Marszałek (Speaker) — the orchestrator. Classifies the topic. Picks 2–3 ministries via delegate_task in parallel . Reads their findings. Routes the bill to a party debate. 🏛️ 19 ministry experts — Finance, Climate, Labour & Social Policy, Justice, … Each returns a structured analysis: legal finding · budget impact · top 3 risks · recommendation . Every claim cites a real statute via PageIndex RAG. 🗳️ 5 party agents — KO, PiS, TD, Konfederacja, Lewica. Each one carries the real party's seat count (157, 194, 65, 18, 26 — totalling 460), policy positions and rhetorical style. First reading. Second reading with rebuttals. 📊 Vote — weighted by seats. >230 passes. 📜 Draft bill — produced with explicit "Article 129 §1 of the Labour Code **is amended to read …" diffs against current law. The frontend surfaces the diff as a Current law vs proposed change panel

Here is what a real solo founder orders. $ git worktree list ~/app a1b2c3d [ main] ~/app-review e4f5g6h [ review-branch] ~/app-content i7j8k9l [ draft-post] Three checkouts. One machine. Each one runs its own Claude Code session that cannot touch the others. That is a normal workday for me. I run a one person shop. Content and code, same desk, same hour. Anthropic's common workflows page lists about a dozen recipes for everyday work, and the docs are strong. What they do not tell you is which recipes survive contact with a real workday and which ones stay theory. After running Claude Code as my whole operation, five workflows carry the load. Here is the honest split. https://code.claude.com/docs/en/common-workflows 1. Worktrees changed how I work The problem worktrees solve is collision. You ask Claude to fix a bug. While it edits, you want to keep building a feature. Same repo, two streams of edits, and now your working tree is a fight nobody wins. A git worktree is a second checkout of the same repo on its own branch. Claude runs inside it and never sees the other windows. claude --worktree feature-auth Real scenario from this week. The post you are reading was drafted in one worktree while a separate Claude session reviewed an open pull request in another. Neither touched the other's files. When the review finished I merged, came back to the draft, and never lost my place. If you take one workflow from the docs, take this one. The setup cost is close to nothing and parallel agents stop stepping on each other. 2. Subagents protect the one resource you cannot buy more of The model's working memory is your budget. Every file Claude reads to answer a question spends it. Ask "how does our auth refresh work" in a large repo and Claude reads a pile of files to answer. Those files now sit in the window for the rest of the session, crowding out the work you care about. Delegate that to a subagent. use a subagent to investigate how our auth system handles token refresh The

Having a server at home opens up a huge range of possibilities. I'd been thinking about setting one up for a while, and when I finally got started, I realised that half the process was simply deciding what to buy and what to install. So what is a home server actually good for? There are obvious advantages like cutting SaaS costs or gaining privacy, but there's one that matters more to me than all the others: learning . In this post I'll walk through the process, the options I considered and why I ended up building my server around a Beelink S12 Pro running Proxmox VE . Why a mini PC? The first decision is form factor. The most common options are: An old PC or laptop from the cupboard. It works, but it's usually noisy, consumes a lot of power and takes up too much space. A Raspberry Pi. Small and incredibly power-efficient, but limited in RAM and processing power for running several services at once. A NAS. A solid choice if storage is the main priority, but the price climbs quickly. A mini PC. Small, silent, low power consumption, reasonable price. Clear winner. The mini PCs I considered In 2025, there are three families that make sense for a home lab: Intel N95 / N100 is probably the most popular choice right now for this kind of use. Very good energy efficiency, full virtualisation support and highly competitive prices. The N100 is more efficient than the N95; the N95 wins slightly on raw performance but at the cost of a bit more power draw. There are countless manufacturers building models around these chips, and the difference between them is usually minimal: what varies is the connectivity, the stock RAM and the after-sales support. Mac Mini deserves a mention because it's one of the most well-known options on the market. Performance is excellent and power consumption is surprisingly low, but for me the problem is the price — clearly higher than a Chinese mini PC — and I don't need something like that to get started. Fanless mini PCs (no fan). Fully passive mod

"AI slop" is not a model problem. It's an engineering problem you decided not to solve. The slop is the bland, off-voice, half-hallucinated, occasionally-just-an-error-message text that your LLM emits maybe 5% of the time — and that 5% is the part users screenshot. The instinct is to fix it in the prompt: add three more sentences of "be concise, be accurate, match my tone." That treats a stochastic system as if it were deterministic. It isn't. You cannot prompt your way to a guarantee. What actually works is treating the model like any other unreliable upstream dependency: wrap it in a harness that validates, rejects, and retries before anything reaches a user. The model proposes; the harness disposes. Here's how to build one. Slop is a systems problem, not a prompt problem Every production LLM feature I've shipped converged on the same shape: the model is one stage in a pipeline, not the pipeline itself. You don't trust raw generation any more than you'd trust raw user input. You parse it, you validate it against constraints you can express in code, and you reject anything that fails — automatically, before a human ever sees it. The key insight is that most slop is detectable . Empty output, a leaked stack trace, the wrong language, a 900-word answer when you asked for 200, a banned phrase like "in today's fast-paced world" — these are all checkable with deterministic code. You don't need a judge model to catch them (though a judge model has its place at the end). You need a gate that runs on every generation, costs microseconds, and never gets tired. Think of it as five layers, each rejecting a different class of failure. Layer 1: Structured output, not freeform text The single biggest reduction in slop comes from refusing to accept prose where you can demand structure. If you ask for a JSON object with named fields and a schema, the failure modes collapse from "infinite" to "a handful you can enumerate." Use the provider's native structured-output / tool-calling

A circular dependency is one of the few bugs that passes every check your toolchain runs. TypeScript compiles it cleanly. The tests pass. The build succeeds. The app ships. And somewhere deep in your import graph, a developer is staring at a TypeError: X is not a constructor that disappears the moment they add a console.log . Here are the three patterns that create them, what Node.js, webpack, Rollup, and esbuild actually do with them — they don't solve the problem, they each make a different tradeoff — and how to stop them from forming. What a circular dependency actually is A circular dependency exists when module A imports from module B, which imports — directly or transitively — from module A. // user.service.ts import { formatUser } from ' ./user.utils ' ; // user.utils.ts import { UserService } from ' ./user.service ' ; // ← closes the loop Neither developer planned this. user.service.ts needed a formatter. user.utils.ts needed the service type for a helper added three sprints later. Nobody saw the cycle form — they just saw two reasonable imports. This is how every circular dependency is born: through incremental, individually sensible decisions. The 3 patterns that create them 1. Barrel files ( index.ts re-exports) Barrel files are the biggest source of accidental cycles in TypeScript projects. // features/user/index.ts — re-exports everything in the feature export { UserService } from ' ./user.service ' ; export { UserRepository } from ' ./user.repository ' ; export { UserController } from ' ./user.controller ' ; export { formatUser , validateUser } from ' ./user.utils ' ; Now every file in the user feature imports from ../user (the barrel) for cleaner paths. And any utility the barrel re-exports cannot safely import anything else from the barrel without creating a cycle. // user.utils.ts import { UserService } from ' ../user ' ; // ← imports the barrel // The barrel re-exports user.utils → user.utils imports the barrel → cycle Teams adopt barrel files for

Know, plan, and share care for pets and plants Discussion | Link

The honest decision framework, not another flame war. The SQL vs NoSQL debate has been running for 15 years and it still generates more heat than light. Here's the framework that actually helps you decide. The Real Question It's not "SQL or NoSQL." It's: what does your access pattern look like? If your application is mostly reading and writing related data through well-defined queries — orders with line items, users with addresses, products with categories — relational databases are purpose-built for this. JOINs are not expensive when they're indexed. Transactions are not slow when they're scoped correctly. PostgreSQL handles 50 million rows comfortably on a single node. If your application is reading and writing self-contained documents with predictable access by a primary key, and you rarely need cross-document queries — user profiles, product catalogs, content management — a document database simplifies your code. No ORM mapping hell. No migration files for adding a field. If your application writes massive volumes and reads by partition key with eventual consistency — time-series data, IoT telemetry, activity feeds at scale — wide-column stores like Cassandra were built for this specific workload. The 2026 Reality PostgreSQL has eaten NoSQL's lunch in many areas. JSONB support means you can store and query unstructured data inside PostgreSQL with GIN indexes. You get the document model flexibility without giving up transactions, JOINs, and a 30-year ecosystem. For 80% of startups and mid-size companies, PostgreSQL is the only database you need. MongoDB has gotten more relational. Multi-document ACID transactions (since 4.0), schema validation, aggregation pipelines that look suspiciously like SQL. It's converging toward what PostgreSQL already does, but with a different starting point. DynamoDB dominates serverless. If you're in AWS and your access pattern is simple key-value with known query patterns, DynamoDB's pricing model (pay-per-request) and operational s