标签：#us

We need to talk about the way we launch products, because right now, the architecture is fundamentally flawed. Launching on the standard major platforms today is the marketing equivalent of renting RAM. You get a massive spike in resources on Day 1, it looks amazing on your dashboard, but by Day 30, the garbage collector comes along and wipes your traffic back to zero. I recently dug into the analytics of 2026 SaaS launches, and the reality is brutal: a directory launch is just borrowed reach. You are renting a platform's homepage for 24 hours. Worse, the ecosystem has become a pay-to-win script. Funded startups are paying "launch agencies" $2,000+ to optimize their assets, schedule their upvotes, and game the leaderboards. As solo developers, we don't need a 24-hour spike. We need persistent state . We need SEO and dofollow backlinks. A backlink from a high Domain Authority site compounds over time. A "Product of the Day" badge is just /dev/null a week later. I got so annoyed by this that I started hacking on a concept called Flamas (flamas.io) to see if a "backlinks over badges" model could actually work. The idea is to build a daily board that rewards genuine maker upvotes with permanent SEO value, rather than just a 24-hour traffic burst. But I’m stuck on the system design and need your ideas: If you were building a community-driven launch board from scratch, how would you design the ranking algorithm? What parameters or rate-limits would you use to ensure it stays fair for solo devs and bulletproof against paid bot agencies? Drop your logic in the comments. I’m treating this as an open whiteboard and want to build the solution based on how actual founders think. 👇

In geophysics you almost never get to see the thing you're studying. You get a seismic trace, a...

Docker published the second entry in its Coding Agent Horror Stories series on July 20, and the operational read is short: on a stock developer laptop, an AI coding agent runs with the engineer's filesystem permissions and the engineer's credentials, with nothing sitting between it and the host. The post frames a scenario in which the agent deletes production and works backward through why that outcome is not exceptional. Docker names the piece as part two of a series that will cover six categories of coding-agent failure. What the post actually claims Two claims carry the argument. First, the agent inherits the developer's shell posture: whatever the developer can touch on disk, the agent can touch; whatever token is exported into the environment, the agent can spend. Second, that default is not a sandbox. Docker's phrasing is that nothing sits between the agent and the host unless the operator puts it there. The piece does not attribute the scenario to a named incident; it is a category, not a case study. Anyone extrapolating specific companies, victims or numbers is filling in blanks the source did not. The runner problem, one hop to the left For CI operators this shape is familiar. A self-hosted Actions runner or a Jenkins agent that mounts the workspace, holds a checkout token and can call the host shell is a service you already isolate on purpose. You isolate it because the workflow you invited in is not always the workflow that runs. You isolate it because the token in the environment can do more than the job description. You isolate it because rollback of a bounded container is cheaper than reasoning about everything a process touched on a shared box. A coding agent living on the developer laptop occupies the same trust position, one machine earlier in the pipeline. It reads and writes the working tree. It holds session credentials to cloud APIs, the cluster and the registry. It executes instructions the developer did not always write, sometimes routed from

In a new disclosure, OpenAI says its agent used exposed logins to gain access to at least four “publicly available services” in its unhinged quest to solve a test.

Are you a data nerd who loves fitness? If you wear an Oura Ring or an Apple Watch , you’re sitting on a goldmine of biometric data. Specifically, Heart Rate Variability (HRV) —the secret sauce for understanding your nervous system's recovery status. But how do you know if a low HRV score is just a fluke or a serious sign of overtraining? In this tutorial, we are going to build a personalized HRV Anomaly Detector . Using Machine Learning , specifically the Isolation Forest algorithm from Scikit-learn , we will transform raw time-series data from the Oura Cloud API into an early-warning system for stress and burnout. This type of anomaly detection is essential for anyone looking to optimize their performance without hitting a wall. The Architecture 🏗️ Before we dive into the code, let's visualize how the data flows from your finger to our machine learning model. graph TD A[Oura Ring / Apple Watch] -->|Syncs| B(Cloud API / HealthKit) B -->|Fetch JSON| C[Python Script] C -->|Pandas Clean| D{Feature Engineering} D -->|HRV & Sleep Duration| E[Isolation Forest Model] E -->|Predict| F[Anomaly Flag: Overtrained?] F -->|Plot| G[Matplotlib Visualization] G -->|Insight| H[Rest or Push?] Prerequisites 🛠️ To follow along, you'll need the following stack: Python 3.9+ Scikit-learn : For our machine learning heavy lifting. Matplotlib : To visualize our "danger zones." Pandas : For time-series manipulation. Oura Cloud API : You'll need a personal access token (available at the Oura Cloud portal ). Step 1: Fetching Your HRV Data 🛰️ First, let's grab our data. If you don't have an Oura ring, you can export your Apple Watch data as a CSV, but the Oura API is much more convenient for automation. import requests import pandas as pd # Replace with your actual Personal Access Token TOKEN = ' YOUR_OURA_TOKEN ' url = ' https://api.ouraring.com/v2/usercollection/daily_readiness ' headers = { ' Authorization ' : f ' Bearer { TOKEN } ' } params = { ' start_date ' : ' 2023-01-01 ' , ' end_date '

Stratagems #20: Alex Felt the AI Collector Slow Down. He Knew Someone Else Had Made a...

Ariana Grande filed a lawsuit on Monday in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the currently unidentified hackers who allegedly stole and leaked private content. It aims to "uncover the identities of these currently unknown and unscrupulous individuals," referred to as "John Doe 1 and John Does 2 through 100." The lawsuit also says […]

For months on end, eBay employees and contractors made life hell for a couple that had criticized the company. Six years later, the company is finally paying up.

It's earnings season, and investors got an unpleasant surprise from Google: an increase on its spending estimate, to as much as $205 billion - from the last quarter's projection of up to $190 billion. Even the lower end of Google's new projected range - $195 billion - is much more than the company had previously […]

Donald Trump’s base has been increasingly spilt. Laura Loomer’s sudden embrace of Ukraine has only widened that divide.

Record flight shows viability of Qantas Airways’ Project Sunrise routes in 2027.

1.13.1. The Basic Responsibility of Types Every Rust value has a type, and the responsibility of that type is to tell you how to interpret the bits in memory. For example, the bit pattern 0b10111101 has no meaning by itself, but: Interpreted as u8 , it becomes the number 189 Interpreted as i8 , it becomes the number -67 When you define a custom type, the compiler decides where each part of that type is placed in memory. 1.13.2. Alignment Alignment determines where a type’s bytes may be stored. Once a type’s representation is determined, you might think it can be stored anywhere in memory. In theory that is possible, but in practice computer hardware places constraints on where a given type can live. The most typical example is a pointer. A pointer points to bytes, not bits; one byte equals 8 bits. In other words, it does not point to an individual bit. So if a value of some type were placed at bit index 4 in memory, you would not be able to address it, because pointers address bytes rather than specific bits. That is why alignment is done at the byte level — that is, at 8-bit boundaries. For this reason, all values, regardless of type, must begin on a byte boundary . All types must be at least byte-aligned. In other words, the storage address must be a multiple of 8 bits. 1.13.3. Stricter Alignment Rules Some types have alignment requirements stricter than byte alignment. In CPU and memory systems, memory is often accessed in blocks larger than a single byte. For example, on a 64-bit CPU, most values are accessed in 8-byte blocks, and each operation begins at an address that is 8-byte aligned . This is also called the CPU word size. Of course, CPUs can also handle reads and writes of smaller values, as well as values that cross block boundaries. But as developers, we should try our best to ensure that hardware operates at its native alignment. For example, if the i64 value you want to read begins in the middle of an 8-byte block, then reading it requires at least tw

Hands-On tests with 'UserHarbor' and IBM Bob: A Modular Approach to Python User Authentication and Permissions Introduction When evaluating open-source libraries for core application infrastructure - such as authentication, session management, and fine-grained Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) - getting hands-on with a complete reference application is invaluable. This is especially true for libraries aiming to be framework-agnostic, promising flexibility but requiring more explicit wiring. Recently, I wanted to explore UserHarbor ( github.com/userharbor/userharbor ), a lightweight Python user-management library designed without direct coupling to any web framework or database toolkit. Rather than manually bootstrapping a new project, setting up the SQLite database, and writing boilerplate code to explore every edge of the library, I used IBM Bob , to scaffold and implement an end-to-end reference demonstration integrated with FastAPI , SQLAlchemy for persistence, and SMTP (or a local console fallback) for transactional emails. The goal was to rapidly test UserHarbor's entire feature lifecycle - registration, email verification, session tokens, optional authentication, RBAC guards, password resets, and account deletion, which I personally find really useful. These capacities could be implemented in many applications and ease the phase of user registration, email validation etc… This post details the architecture built, highlights the key implementation logic, and illustrates how easily a decoupled core can be integrated into a modern web stack. UserHabor (from official GitHub repostory) Image from official project's repository Project status: UserHarbor is currently in an early stage of development. The API may change frequently. The library is not ready for production use yet . UserHarbor is a framework-agnostic Python library for user account management. Its goal is to provide a simple, stable, and framework-independent interface for common user-related operations:

100 Days of Solana, Day 100 Where I started I'd built REST APIs for years but had never touched a blockchain, or written a line of Rust. The curiosity how blockchain works, started my curiosity. What I expected I came in with a Web2 instinct: tests exist to prove your code does what it's supposed to do. Write the function, write a test that calls it, watch it pass, move on. A "failing test" was something you fixed, not something you shipped on purpose. What changed my understanding The moment this cracked open was building the capstone: a small Anchor program called proof-of-ship that lets a wallet permanently record, on chain, that it shipped something. The rule is simple — one ship record per wallet, forever. The rule lives entirely in the account's seeds: seeds = [ b"ship" , builder .key () .as_ref ()], bump Each wallet's record lives at one deterministic address. Try to create a second one, and init refuses, because an account already exists there. I wrote two tests. The first proved the happy path: call ship() , fetch the record, confirm the name and builder match. The second test is the one that changed how I think about testing: it ( " only lets each wallet ship once " , async () => { let rejected = false ; try { await program . methods . ship ( " Second try " , " This should never land " ). rpc (); } catch ( _err ) { rejected = true ; } assert . isTrue ( rejected , " second ship should have been rejected " ); }); This test isn't checking for a bug. It's checking that a rule holds. There's no function in my program called preventDuplicateShip() . There's no if statement rejecting the second attempt. The rule "one ship per wallet" isn't enforced by logic I wrote — it's enforced by the Solana runtime itself, because the PDA's address already has data in it. My job wasn't to write the rejection. My job was to prove the rejection actually happens. What I understand now On Web2 systems I controlled the whole stack, so "does it work" mostly meant "does the happy pa

Rust web development just got more interesting. If you prefer a video version: A few days ago, I spoke with Carl Lerche and Julien Scholz about Topcoat , a new batteries-included framework for building full-stack reactive web applications with Rust. Now I have finally tried it myself. Topcoat comes from the ecosystem behind Tokio and Axum, but it aims to provide a very different experience: routing, server-side rendering, reactive components, UI tooling, asset bundling, and hot reload in one framework. A simple Topcoat application This is what a basic application looks like: use topcoat ::{ Result , router ::{ Router , RouterBuilderDiscoverExt , page }, view ::{ component , view }, }; #[tokio::main] async fn main () { topcoat :: start ( Router :: builder () .discover () .build ()) .await .unwrap (); } #[page( "/" )] async fn home () -> Result { view! { <! DOCTYPE html > < html > < body > hello ( name : "World" ) </ body > </ html > } } #[component] async fn hello ( name : & str ) -> Result { view! { < h1 > "Hello, " ( name ) "!" </ h1 > } } The syntax feels surprisingly familiar if you have used server-rendered frameworks before. Pages and components are written in Rust, while the view! macro keeps the HTML structure easy to understand. What surprised me My first experience was better than expected. The setup was simple, the basic example was actually basic, and the development server provided working hot reload. That last part may sound normal to JavaScript developers, but it makes a huge difference for the Rust developer experience. Topcoat includes or plans to support: Server-side rendering Reactive components Module-based routing Tailwind integration Reusable UI components Asset bundling Fonts and icons Cookies and sessions Database integrations The experience feels closer to frameworks such as Laravel, Django, Rails, or Next.js, while allowing developers to build the application in Rust. Is Topcoat ready for production? Topcoat is still at an early stage. Break

The app is currently available to X Premium and Premium+ subscribers in the U.S.

GitHub热门项目 | HTTP routing and request-handling library for Rust that focuses on ergonomics and modularity | Stars: 26,687 | 22 stars today | 语言: Rust

If you've been following this series, you know I've been testing BrowserAct for months now. Article 1 covered the CLI setup. Article 2 covered headless + human handoff. Article 3 was a 6-week production review. Those were all about the CLI, the developer tool. This article is different. BrowserAct now has a cloud product called BrowserAct Agent Built where you describe what data you need, and it builds a reusable scraper for you. No terminal. No code. Just a prompt. I tested it on five real business workflows. Here's what I found. Every quarter I update a pricing comparison spreadsheet for my clients. I work with teams evaluating deployment platforms, and the question is always the same: "Which one should we use for this project?" The honest answer depends on workload, team size, and budget. So I maintain a comparison across Vercel, Netlify, Railway, Render, Fly.io, and DigitalOcean. Six platforms. Six tabs. Two hours of squinting at marketing copy and copying numbers into a sheet. I wrote Python scrapers to automate it. BeautifulSoup, Playwright, the works. They lasted three months. Then Vercel redesigned their pricing page. Selectors broke. Fixed them. Netlify changed theirs two weeks later. Fixed again. Fourth breakage in six months, I stopped maintaining the scripts entirely. Back to manual. Two hours, every quarter. For a spreadsheet. But here's the thing: across my client engagements, I keep seeing the same problem in different shapes. The e-commerce team tracking competitor prices on Amazon every Monday. The agency paying for lead lists that are already stale. The HR team spending days copy-pasting salary data from job boards. Everyone needs web data. Almost nobody wants to maintain the code that collects it. Yesterday I tested BrowserAct Agent Built on five business workflows I actually deal with across different client engagements. One prompt each. No code. No selectors. Results below. Table of Contents What BrowserAct Agent Built Is (Quick Context) Test 1:

If you maintain a Docusaurus site in more than one language, you already know the actual problem isn't translation — it's staying in sync . Someone updates three paragraphs in the English docs, and six months later the Chinese (or Spanish, or whatever) version is quietly wrong, and nobody notices until a user files an issue about it. I went looking at how teams actually solve this, and it mostly comes down to three approaches. Writing this down mostly for my own reference, but sharing in case it saves someone else the research. Approach 1: Just do it manually This is what most small-to-mid docs sites do, at least at first. A maintainer (or a translator on Slack) watches for doc PRs and manually updates the other language folders. It works fine until it doesn't. The failure mode is always the same: it's invisible. Nobody gets paged when a translated page goes stale — it just sits there, slightly wrong, until a reader notices the code sample doesn't match anymore. For a project with a handful of docs and one contributor doing translations, this is honestly fine. Past ~50-100 pages or more than one language, it stops scaling — not because the translation work is hard, but because tracking what changed becomes a full-time job nobody signed up for. Approach 2: A translation management platform (Crowdin, Lokalise, etc.) These are built for exactly this problem and they're genuinely good at it — string extraction, translator workflows, in-context editing, the works. If you have a dedicated localization team or professional translators involved, this is probably still the right call. The tradeoff for a docs-only, engineering-driven project: they're built around the assumption that there's a human translator (or a review pipeline) doing the actual translating, plus a separate sync step to pull translations back into your repo. That's the right tool when translation quality and nuance matter enormously (marketing copy, legal text) or when you have translators who aren't devel

A few months ago, my AI coding workflow looked something like...