标签：#ui

The main idea of a Carousel isn't just about moving a bunch of elements from left to right because there must be a smoothly infinite movement, this can be done by duplicating the element, but wouldn't it be a waste of time and resources to do so. So the best solution would be rather than moving the whole element, we just move each element on a time based manner, all elements will have the animation but each element will have a unique (incremented) index, by which we will delay its start, and if we made this delay negative, we will have a smooth movement without any lagging adding a will-change will make a separate compositing layer to make the animation run on gpu rather than cpu below is a demo by which, you can understand the effect You can reach me (if you had any problems with the effect): X / twitter "where I post a lot!" LinkedIn

Dolphins, sharks, turtles, and human workers are all victims of unregulated squid fishing fleets. Another news article . As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered. Blog moderation policy.

Two monitoring approaches answer two different questions. Synthetic monitoring answers "would the checkout flow work right now if someone tried it?" Real user monitoring answers "what did the checkout flow actually do for the 4,000 people who tried it today?" The first is a robot testing a path on a schedule; the second is instrumentation recording reality as it happens. Teams reach for one when they need the other, then conclude monitoring "doesn't work." The fix is understanding what each is structurally good at — and where each is blind. Synthetic monitoring: proactive, scripted, continuous Synthetic monitoring runs scripted checks against your application from the outside, on a fixed schedule. An HTTP check hits an endpoint and asserts on the response; a browser check drives a headless Chromium through a journey — log in, add to cart, pay — and asserts on what the user would see. The defining property is that it does not need real traffic. The check runs every 30 seconds whether or not anyone is using the app, from datacenters you choose, testing exactly the journeys you scripted. When a deploy breaks checkout at 3 AM, a synthetic check catches it at 3 AM — not at 9 AM when the first customer wakes up. Real user monitoring: passive, real, traffic-dependent RUM instruments your actual frontend with a JavaScript snippet that reports back what real visitors experience: page load times, Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS), JavaScript errors, the device and network and geography of every session. It is a recording of reality with perfect fidelity — these are real people, real conditions, real outcomes. The cost of that fidelity is that RUM is entirely traffic-dependent and entirely retrospective. It can only report on paths real users took, after they took them. A page nobody visited generates no RUM data. A broken deploy at 3 AM is invisible to RUM until a real user hits it and the error is recorded. The core difference, side by side Dimension Synthetic monitoring Real

Most synthetic monitoring setups fail in one of a few predictable ways. They monitor everything and alert on nothing useful. They assert on status code 200 and miss the empty response body. They run flaky browser checks that page someone at 2 AM for a problem that fixed itself by 2:01. Or they go stale — the checkout flow changed three months ago and the check has been failing-then-being-ignored ever since. These are not exotic failures. They are the default outcome of setting up synthetic monitoring without a discipline. Here is the discipline. 1. Monitor the journeys that cost money, not everything Every browser check costs compute and, more importantly, costs maintenance. A check on a path that does not matter is worse than no check — it generates noise that trains your team to ignore alerts. Rank your journeys by cost of silent failure and monitor the top of the list: Authentication — login, signup. The gate to everything else. The revenue path — checkout, upgrade, add payment method. The core product action — the one thing your product exists to do. Critical third-party handoffs — OAuth redirects, payment iframes, SSO. Leave static pages, read-only endpoints, and admin screens to cheaper uptime and API checks . A good rule: if a path breaking would not generate a support ticket or lose revenue, it does not need a browser check. 2. Assert on what the user sees, not just the status code The entire point of synthetic monitoring is catching the failure that a 200 OK hides. So your assertions have to go past the status code. // Weak: passes even when the page renders an error await page . goto ( " https://shop.example.com/checkout " ); expect ( page . url ()). toContain ( " /checkout " ); // Strong: asserts the user can actually complete the action await page . getByRole ( " button " , { name : " Pay now " }). click (); await expect ( page . getByText ( " Order confirmed " )). toBeVisible ({ timeout : 10000 , }); await expect ( page . getByTestId ( " order-number "

You already have Playwright tests. They run in CI on every pull request, they assert that login works and checkout completes, and then they stop — because CI only runs them against a branch, at merge time. The moment the code is in production, those tests go silent. A third-party script breaks checkout at 3 AM and your perfectly good test suite says nothing, because nothing triggered it. Playwright monitoring closes that gap: you take the same browser tests and run them on a schedule against production, turning your end-to-end suite into a synthetic monitoring system that watches real user journeys continuously. Prerequisites Node.js 18+ and an existing project ( npm install -D @playwright/test , then npx playwright install chromium ). A deployed production (or staging) URL to run checks against. A dedicated synthetic test account — never a real customer's credentials. A secret store for that account's credentials (GitHub Actions secrets, or your platform's equivalent). Never hard-code them. Step 1 — Write a check that asserts on what the user sees A monitor-grade check is not "did the page load." It is "could a user complete the thing they came to do." Assert on the outcome, with a generous timeout for real-world latency: import { test , expect } from " @playwright/test " ; test ( " checkout reaches confirmation " , async ({ page }) => { await page . goto ( " https://shop.example.com " ); await page . getByRole ( " button " , { name : " Add to cart " }). click (); await page . getByRole ( " link " , { name : " Checkout " }). click (); await page . getByLabel ( " Email " ). fill ( process . env . SYNTHETIC_EMAIL ! ); await page . getByLabel ( " Card number " ). fill ( " 4242424242424242 " ); await page . getByRole ( " button " , { name : " Pay now " }). click (); // The assertion a 200 OK can never make for you: await expect ( page . getByText ( " Order confirmed " )). toBeVisible ({ timeout : 15000 , }); }); Credentials come from process.env , not the source. The t

Synthetic monitoring tools all promise the same thing — catch the broken checkout before your users do — and then bill you in seven different ways for it. The hard part of choosing one is not the feature checklist; it is predicting what you will actually pay when a single browser check running every 30 seconds from three regions turns into 259,200 runs a month. We compared seven synthetic monitoring tools on what separates them in practice: browser engine and fidelity, how you author checks (code, recorder, or AI), location coverage, alerting and on-call, failure forensics, and — the one that surprises teams — the pricing model. Every price below was verified against official pricing pages in June 2026. For the concepts behind these tools, start with what synthetic monitoring is . TL;DR comparison Tool Best for Browser engine Authoring Pricing model Browser price Checkly Code-first teams running Playwright suites Chromium (+ suite) Code (TypeScript) Per-run, 3 separate bills ~$4–6.50 / 1k Datadog Enterprises that want APM correlation Chrome/FF/Edge Recorder + code Per-run × freq × locations ~$12–18 / 1k Grafana Cloud / k6 OSS-leaning teams, best free tier Chromium (k6) Code (k6) + convert Per-execution ~$50 / 10k Better Stack Bundled monitoring + on-call Chromium Code + codegen paste Per-minute + per-seat ~$1 / 100 PW-min New Relic Broad type matrix + compliance Selenium (Chrome/FF) No-code step + code Per-check + seats + ingest ~$50 / 10k Sematext Predictable per-monitor pricing Chromium Code Per-monitor / month ~$7 / browser monitor Site24x7 No-code recorder + many locations Chrome/FF Recorder Pooled "advanced checks" ~$10 / 10k runs How we evaluated Real synthetic monitoring is more than a scheduled ping, so we scored each tool on six dimensions. Browser fidelity : does it run a modern engine (Playwright/Chromium) or older Selenium, and how faithfully does it reproduce a real user? Authoring mode : can you write checks as code, record them point-and-click, or gen

Just as last week was ending, the US government forced Anthropic to pull its two newest models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, citing national security concerns after Amazon researchers allegedly found a way to bypass Fable 5’s guardrails. Cybersecurity researchers have since signed an open letter calling the move dangerous, and Anthropic itself noted the same jailbreaks exist in other models. So is […]

We break down the current iPad lineup to help you figure out which of Apple’s tablets is best for you.

Forget about patchy internet connections and dead spots in the house. These WIRED-tested multiroom mesh systems will get you online in no time.

Even after your movies end, these art televisions look stunning on any wall.

Find the right wearable for your lifestyle, workouts, and goals.

Every startup idea looks perfect... until you start building. The first version of PixoraCloud looked amazing on paper. Then reality hit. We discovered: Some features weren't necessary Some APIs were too complicated Some ideas solved our problem, not the user's problem So we changed them. A lot. That's where we are today. Not chasing perfection. Chasing simplicity. Building in public means admitting your first idea isn't always your best one. What's one thing you've completely changed after starting a project?

My agents were confidently wrong about the world, and I couldn't tell when. That's the part that got to me — not the wrongness, the confidence. I run my one-person company as a fleet of about twenty AI agents — a content writer, a finance one, a researcher, a security officer, a handful more. They're good at the work I built them for. But every one of them shares a flaw I'd been papering over: when a task needs a fact about the world — how a tax threshold works, what a marketing framework actually says, how a platform bills — the model reaches into its training data and answers in the exact same self-assured tone whether it knows or is improvising. There is no tell. The guess and the fact wear the same face. So this month I built the thing that was missing: a cited, fact-checked knowledgebase the agents have to read before they work, with a gate that keeps me from poisoning my own source of truth. Here's how it's built, the one rule that turned out to matter most, and the honest state of it — which is that I finished it days ago and have no idea yet whether it changes the work. The job I was actually hiring this to do Strip away my setup and the problem is one any solo operator using AI already has. You ask the model for something that depends on a real fact. It answers fluently. You either know enough to catch the error or you don't — and the whole reason you're asking is usually that you don't. The job I needed done wasn't "make my agents smarter." It was narrower and more honest: stop my AI from making things up in the one register where I can't catch it, and let me know which claims I can actually trust. The competition for that job, in my shop, was "just let the model wing it and hope." That had already cost me. A marketing analysis once understated a channel's numbers because an agent trusted a stale figure instead of pulling the live one. Small, recoverable — but it's the recoverable ones you see. The ones you don't see are the ones that scare you. What I bui

Dads are traditionally tough to shop for—let me help with these handpicked gift ideas for fathers with great taste.

General Intuition is in talks to raise around $300 million at a roughly $2 billion valuation from backers including Jeff Bezos. The startup trains AI agents on spatial-temporal reasoning.

Whether you need a travel-friendly slate or something affordable for the kids, we tested every model to find the right one for every occasion.

I tested over a dozen top home diffusers for scent strength, longevity, special features, and more. The Urpower Aroma is my favorite option for most people.

Microsoft recently introduced at Build 2026 Microsoft Scout, an always-on agent. Scout belongs to a new category of agents Microsoft called Autopilots: always-on agents that work autonomously on a user’s behalf with their own identity, without needing to be prompted each time. Microsoft Scout integrates with Work IQ and is based on the open-source agent framework OpenClaw. By Bruno Couriol

We're building an AI marketing operation in public, and early on we hit a question we couldn't skip: how aggressive can you be about growth before you've crossed into something you'll regret? "Be ethical" is easy to say and useless under pressure. Every real decision is messier than that. Is using a VPN cheating? Is running more than one channel a trick? Is bending a platform's rules the same as lying? We needed a line we could actually hold at 2am when a shortcut looks tempting. Here's the one we found — and it turned out to be simpler and sturdier than "follow all the rules." The line isn't rule-breaking. It's deception. The cleanest test we landed on: the line is deception, not rule-breaking. Breaking a rule is a fight you can have in the open. You can announce it, defend it, and accept what comes. Deception is different — it works by making someone believe something false, which strips away their ability to respond honestly, because they don't even know what's real. That's the move that does the damage. So the question to ask about any tactic isn't "did this break a rule?" It's: "does this work by causing a real person to believe something that isn't true?" If yes, that's the line. If no, you're probably fine even if you're being bold. The daylight test Here's how to apply it fast. Ask: would this tactic still work if everyone could see exactly what I was doing? If yes — it survives daylight. People are choosing freely with full information. That's honest, even when it's aggressive. If it only works in the dark — the concealment itself has become the product. Something only works hidden because someone is acting on a false belief you planted. That's the part to cut. A poker bluff survives daylight (everyone knows bluffing is part of poker). A magician's trick survives daylight (the audience knows it's a trick and enjoys it). A fake testimonial does not. A sock-puppet account vouching for you does not. Run every growth idea through the daylight test and most hard

Most dashboard icon problems do not come from bad icons. They come from good icons used with the wrong meaning. You search for users , pick a clean SVG icon, place it in the sidebar, and move on. Then later you need another icon for: Customers Team members Account owners Permissions Audiences Invited users Admins Suddenly, the same “user” metaphor has to carry too many meanings. That is where SaaS dashboards often start to feel noisy. Not because the icons are ugly. Not because the SVGs are technically wrong. Not because the design system is broken. Because the icon choices were made by keyword instead of meaning. Keyword search is only the first step Most developers choose icons like this: Need an icon for billing? Search billing . Need an icon for users? Search users . Need an icon for analytics? Search chart . Need an icon for settings? Search settings . That works for finding candidates. But it does not solve the real UI problem. A keyword tells you what the icon is related to. It does not tell you what the icon means in your product. For example, search for settings . You might find: A gear Sliders A wrench Control knobs A preferences panel A tune icon They all match the keyword. But they do not say the same thing. A gear usually means global settings. Sliders suggest adjustable preferences or filters. A wrench feels technical or maintenance-oriented. Control knobs suggest fine tuning. A panel icon may suggest a configuration screen. The same keyword can point to different mental models. And in a dashboard, mental models matter more than decorative accuracy. SaaS dashboards are meaning-dense interfaces A marketing website can sometimes get away with decorative icons. A SaaS dashboard cannot. Dashboards are dense. They contain navigation, actions, status indicators, tables, filters, empty states, permissions, billing screens, integrations, reports, and settings. Users do not look at each icon in isolation. They scan. They compare. They move quickly. They expect