标签：#us

The West Coast house-party scene has long been iconic. For these young, tech-savvy entrepreneurs, it was also inspiration for MyPlots, a party-promotion empire.

From granola to guacamole, a wide variety of foods have been recalled lately over salmonella risks. Experts say common-sense precautions go a long way.

It’s been almost 2 months on Dev.to, and I’ve learned a lot from this community. Not just knowledge,...

I run self-hosted Chatwoot as the WhatsApp inbox for a dozen or so small Israeli businesses. Two servers, a few thousand conversations a week, a drip-sequence engine bolted on the side. Chatwoot is good software. The self-hosting docs will get you to a running container. What they will not tell you is which failures actually happen at month six, when you have real customers and real volume. These five all bit me in production, and none of them looked like what they were. 1. Your disk fills from somewhere Postgres never sees I got a disk alert at 86 percent and immediately went looking at the database. That was the wrong place. DB (postgres): 680 MB chatwoot_storage_data: 17 GB Attachments live in ActiveStorage, on a Docker volume, not in Postgres. Every image, voice note, and PDF a customer sends is a file on disk, and none of it shows up when you check database size. If your monitoring watches the DB, it will report everything is fine right up until the container cannot write. The growth curve is a function of how many accounts you host, not how busy any one of them is. Mine sat at roughly 0.05 GB a month until I onboarded seven new businesses over two months, and then it hit 16 GB a month. Check the right volume: docker system df -v | grep chatwoot_storage_data 2. Forty-four percent of my outbound storage was duplicate files This is the part that surprised me. When I actually measured what was on that volume, almost half the outbound media was byte-identical copies of the same file. One 14.5 MB video was stored 48 separate times. One image was stored 325 times. Chatwoot creates a new blob and a new file on disk on every send, even when the bytes are identical. That is correct behavior for a chat app where every message owns its attachment. It becomes expensive the moment you have anything that fans one file out to many conversations. In my case it was not campaigns at all, it was the drip engine sending the same media to 48 separate conversations as ordinary outbo

Sources tell WIRED that Elon Musk is expected to spend up to $200 million in the midterms. It could be a big boost for GOP Senate candidate Ken Paxton, who’s struggled to raise cash.

This is a writeup of building a required CI gate for degraded-network behavior. The system under test is a robotics fleet substrate, but the finding applies to anyone shaping networks in CI. Ganglion exists to reach robots on networks nobody controls. Warehouse Wi-Fi, carrier CGNAT, a hospital VLAN, a customer firewall that was configured once in 2019 and has not been touched since. Until this week that claim was a sentence on a website. CI ran on clean loopback, everything was green, and the failure modes that actually matter in the field were the exact ones the test suite could never produce. That is now a required gate. Every push to main runs the full deploy, invoke and verify round trip over the relay against five shaped network profiles, and all five have to pass before anything merges. I build Ganglion, so treat the enthusiasm accordingly. The part worth your time is not that it went green. It is what I got wrong on the way there. The five profiles clean : baseline, no shaping. If this one fails, something else is broken. lossy : packet loss with light reordering. high-latency : 250ms round trip. asymmetric : plentiful downlink, starved uplink. This is the one nobody tests and the one teleop actually dies on, because control acknowledgements go the starved direction. nat-relay : endpoints with no route to each other at all, forcing hole punching to fail and relay fallback to carry the session. The last two are the ones I care about. Loss and latency are what people imagine a bad network is. Asymmetry and no-direct-route are what a bad network usually is. What I got wrong The original design assumed you can pin netem's seed and get a repeatable lossy run. Two profiles: a pinned-seed one that gates the build, and a nastier randomized one that runs nightly and is allowed to fail. You cannot pin netem's seed. Its loss and jitter draw from the kernel RNG and there is no seed parameter to set. A "deterministic lossy netem profile" is not a thing that exists. This m

During a recent visit to Generalist AI, I watched a robotic arm improvise and use a banana as a tool.

"We will put the booster back into service for another flight as soon as possible."

What if deciding what to eat felt as exciting as winning a championship? It's 2 AM. You're hungry. You open your favorite food delivery app, convinced you'll order something in two minutes. Thirty minutes later, you're still scrolling. Pizza? Burger? Pasta? Fries? Momos? Ice cream? Suddenly, every option looks equally good, and now you're questioning your entire existence just because you wanted dinner. I have this problem almost every time I order food. So when I saw the DEV Challenge, I wanted to build something fun around this tiny but painfully relatable problem. Unfortunately, I couldn't finish it before the deadline, but I still wanted to share the idea because it's one of those projects that made me smile while building it. Meet Foodwars . Instead of endlessly scrolling through hundreds of dishes, why not let your favorite comfort foods battle each other until only one champion remains? What I Built We've all watched cooking shows like MasterChef and somehow turned into professional judges sitting comfortably on our sofas. "That steak is overcooked." "The sauce needed more balance." "I would've plated it differently." As if Gordon Ramsay personally asked for our opinion. Foodwars lets us finally put those imaginary judging skills to good use. Instead of comparing hundreds of dishes at once, the platform randomly pairs comfort foods against each other in head-to-head battles. You become the judge. Pick the winner, move on to the next matchup, and continue until one food survives the tournament. No endless scrolling. No decision fatigue. Just a series of fun, quick decisions that eventually crown your Ultimate Comfort Food . And once the champion is decided... Go order it. Or cook it. Either way, dinner has finally been decided. Demo comfort-foodwars.vercel.app Features of Foodwars Foodwars isn't just a random food picker. Every round is designed to make choosing food feel like a game instead of a chore. 1. Interactive Tournament Brackets Instead of presenting

Anthropic announced last week it would include invisible watermarks in AI-generated content to comply with new EU rules. Within hours, overrides were being touted online.

GitHub热门项目 | | Stars: 4,293 | 1,415 stars today | 语言: Rust

🚀 Technical Briefing: This tutorial is part of our deep-dive series on Agentic Workflows at Gate of AI . For the full technical breakdown, interactive code sandbox, and the native Arabic translation, visit the original article here . <p>Tutorial</p> <h1>Design a Safer AI Incident Copilot for GCC Operations</h1> <p>An AI incident copilot can help an operations team turn approved engineering facts into a clearer draft for stakeholders. It should not be treated as an autonomous incident commander, a source of truth, or an automatic publishing system. This tutorial explains how to define a safe operating model before choosing a framework, model provider, deployment platform, or integration.</p> <h2>Why incident copilots need a security-first design</h2> <p>During an incident, teams work under pressure. They need to communicate what is happening, who may be affected, what mitigation is under way, and when the next update will arrive. These messages must be accurate, calm, and consistent. An AI assistant may help prepare a first draft, but it can also amplify mistakes if it is allowed to infer missing facts, read untrusted material, or publish messages without review.</p> <p>The available security research on Copilot-style systems is a direct reason to design cautiously. Researchers have demonstrated ways AI systems can be manipulated to provide false references to files, extract some private data, and bypass security protections. The same research describes proof-of-concept abuse that can turn an AI assistant into an automated spear-phishing mechanism after an attacker gains the necessary access. These are not minor quality issues. They show that an AI feature connected to organizational information can become a security boundary.</p> <p>For an incident copilot, the safest initial scope is deliberately narrow: accept a small set of verified facts supplied by an authorized incident lead, create a draft in a fixed communication format, and require a human to review and pub

The Problem: Candidate Code Without Trust You're using Cursor, Claude Code, or GitHub Copilot. The AI gives you three implementation options for the same feature. AI: "Here are three approaches: A) Quick but uses unsafe B) Slower but memory-safe C) Balanced tradeoffs" You: "Which one should I ship?" AI: "It depends..." That "it depends" is where responsibility falls through the cracks. Tests tell you if code compiles and passes specs. But they don't tell you about security, performance, maintainability, or resource limits — all at once. You end up making the call by gut feel. This essay is about building a system that doesn't let that happen. The Solution: Multi-Axis Scoring I built SafeCode Arena — an automated verifier that evaluates code candidates across five axes simultaneously, scores each, and surfaces the tradeoffs. The Five Axes Axis Weight Computation Correctness 50% compile (40%) + tests (40%) + property tests (20%) Security 20% unsafe heuristics (50%) + clippy warnings (50%) Performance 15% relative compile+test time across candidates Maintainability 10% function-length heuristics (60%) + clippy (40%) Resource Usage 5% pass/fail of sandboxed Wasm execution Why These Five? Correctness dominates — code that doesn't work is valueless, so it's 50% Security is explicit — unsafe compiles fine, but you need to detect it yourself Performance and maintainability matter equally — a fast mess vs. a slow masterpiece aren't comparable Resource limits are real — a 100-point algorithm that consumes 2GB is a fail in production Example Scorecard Candidate A: 85 points ├─ correctness: 100 (all tests pass) ├─ security: 60 (2 unsafe blocks flagged) ├─ performance: 70 (10% slower than B) ├─ maintainability: 85 (avg function 25 lines) └─ resource_usage: 80 (Wasm sandbox: 512MB, OK) Candidate B: 92 points ✓ Recommended ├─ correctness: 95 (1 edge case warning) ├─ security: 95 (no unsafe) ├─ performance: 95 (fastest) ├─ maintainability: 88 (avg function 20 lines) └─ resource_usa

The investment comes amid Navi plans to go public.

Opinion: The Diff Is a Claim, the Probe Is the Proof A generated patch is a claim about how a system should behave, and a diff cannot verify that claim on its own. The only honest reviewer is the runtime itself, which means every AI-proposed change deserves a behavioral probe before a human spends attention on it. Free model access changes the economics of that review, because the verification loop no longer costs a developer's full attention or a paid compute budget. The practical implication is that a disposable server, such as the free server option in MonkeyCode, becomes the arbiter of whether a patch is even worth reading. Disclosure: This article was prepared as part of MonkeyCode's product outreach. Review sessions routinely burn forty minutes on a diff that a five-second HTTP probe would have rejected instantly, and that waste is now entirely avoidable. Why Line-by-Line Review Fails on AI Patches A human reviewer reads a diff as prose, searching for the author's intent, but an AI-generated patch has no reliable intent to recover. The model that wrote the change cannot explain why a specific flag was flipped, and the diff itself only records the surface edit. This is a fundamental mismatch between the review tool and the review question. The review question is not "what changed" but "does the system still behave correctly after this change." Runtime shape diffing answers the first question well, and I have argued before that shape is a useful gate, but shape alone misses semantic regressions. A service can keep the same endpoints, the same config keys, and the same file layout while silently returning wrong data. Behavioral probes close that gap because they test the contract between the service and its callers. A probe sends real requests, checks real responses, and records real state transitions, which is exactly the evidence a reviewer needs. This is why I take the position that the probe, not the diff, should be the primary review artifact. Treat Every Pa

April - 1805 Napoleon is master of Europe Only the British fleet stands before him Compute is now an asset class I see it is once again time to talk financial innovation. Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs, and KKR are all working with Nvidia to put together $500 billion in financing to turn compute […]

You budgeted six months. It took fourteen. You wanted one thing; you got three things that almost do it. And somewhere between the first sprint and the final invoice, you stopped understanding what you were even paying for. If that sounds familiar, this is the breakdown no one gave you before you started. What custom software development actually means Custom software development is building software from the ground up for your specific business, not configuring Salesforce, not installing a plugin. You're solving a problem your operations have, the way your operations actually work. What trips people up: "custom" doesn't mean "built entirely from scratch." Good dev teams use frameworks, libraries, and third-party services. What's custom is the logic of how your data flows, how business rules are enforced, how users interact. Scope range is huge: Custom dev covers everything from a lightweight internal dashboard to a full-scale multi-tenant SaaS platform. This is why cost estimates vary so wildly. 3 things nobody tells you before you sign 1. Scope creep is almost always the client's fault "Users should be able to manage their accounts" sounds simple. It actually contains dozens of decisions: can they change their email? What verification is required? Can they delete their account? Each one is a feature. Each feature has a cost. The fix: Run a discovery phase (2–4 weeks) before writing a single line of production code. It costs money upfront. It saves far more mid-project. 2. The cheapest bid rarely wins long-term A $40k quote and a $180k quote for the same project both happen. The $40k team isn't lying; they're optimistic, underbidding to win work, or scoping something different. What actually happens: you hit $40k, and you're 40% done. Higher bids from experienced teams often include architecture planning, documentation, testing infrastructure, and post-launch support things the cheap bid omitted. These aren't extras. They're what make the software maintainable in t

I've written before about SMESH, a coordination protocol modelled on mycorrhizal networks — the fungal web that lets trees in a forest warn each other about drought and disease with nothing in charge of the network. Signals diffuse, decay on their own, and get reinforced when independently confirmed. Consensus emerges instead of being orchestrated. That was the idea. This post is about the part where I found out whether it worked. The transport that had never run SMESH has had a QUIC transport in it for a while. Roughly 500 lines: a quinn endpoint that is simultaneously server and client, self-signed certs, length-prefixed bincode frames over unidirectional streams, an accept loop that spawns per-connection and per-stream tasks, connection pooling. Every test passed. The workspace was green. I could point at smesh-runtime/src/transport.rs and say "yes, it does peer-to-peer." Then I grepped for who actually constructed it: $ grep -rn "QuicTransport" --include = '*.rs' . smesh-runtime/src/transport.rs:177:pub struct QuicTransport { smesh-runtime/src/transport.rs:192:impl QuicTransport { smesh-runtime/src/lib.rs:16:pub use transport:: { QuicTransport, ... } ; Its own definition, and a re-export. Nothing else in the workspace had ever instantiated it. No binary opened a socket. SmeshRuntime imported TransportConfig , stored it in a struct field, and never looked at it again. I had a networking layer with tests, docs, and zero executions. Three bugs in the first twenty minutes I wrote an integration test that starts two runtimes, has one dial the other, and asserts a signal crosses. Here is what fell out before it went green. 1. It panicked on the first call. Could not automatically determine the process-level CryptoProvider from Rustls crate features. rustls 0.23 refuses to pick a crypto backend when more than one is compiled in, and quinn pulls in both through its own feature set. Every call to QuicTransport::new would have panicked for anyone, ever. Nobody noticed bec

AI Agents Don’t Need More Context. They Need Memory. S6stem S6stem S6stem Follow Aug 17 AI Agents Don’t Need More Context. They Need Memory. # ai # programming # agents # rust 2 reactions 2 comments 4 min read

If you’ve ever tried to reconcile a night of sleep from an Oura Ring , a morning run from a Garmin watch, and active minutes from an Apple Watch , you know the "Dirty Data" struggle is real. Each platform has its own schema, its own definition of "active calories," and its own idiosyncratic export format. In the world of Data Engineering , this is a classic multi-source integration problem. But you don't need a massive Snowflake cluster to solve it. Today, we’re building a high-performance, serverless data pipeline to clean and normalize wearable data using DuckDB , dbt , and GitHub Actions . By leveraging a modern Serverless Data Pipeline and DuckDB's lightning-fast processing, we can turn a mess of CSVs into a structured Parquet -based personal data warehouse. The Architecture: From Chaos to Clarity Before we dive into the code, let’s look at how the data flows from your wearables to a clean, queryable state. graph TD A[Oura JSON] -->|Python Ingestion| D[(DuckDB Raw)] B[Garmin CSV] -->|Python Ingestion| D C[Apple Health XML] -->|Python Ingestion| D D --> E{dbt Models} E -->|Cleaning| F[stg_models] E -->|Normalization| G[int_health_metrics] G -->|Final Output| H[Gold Layer: Parquet Files] H --> I[Visualization / BI] subgraph GitHub Actions D E F G H end Prerequisites To follow along, you'll need: DuckDB : The "SQLite for OLAP" that makes local analytical processing insanely fast. dbt-duckdb : The adapter that lets dbt talk to DuckDB. GitHub Actions : Our free "orchestrator." Tech Stack : DuckDB, dbt, Python, Parquet. Step 1: The Ingestion Layer (Python + DuckDB) The first hurdle is getting disparate files (JSON, CSV, XML) into a unified storage format. DuckDB is magical here because it can query these files directly. We'll use a simple Python script to load these into a local .duckdb file. import duckdb def ingest_raw_data (): # Initialize the database con = duckdb . connect ( ' health_data.duckdb ' ) # Ingest Garmin CSV con . execute ( """ CREATE TABLE raw_garmin