标签：#war

I game in a room that warms up fast. I could see CPU usage in Task Manager and watts in HWiNFO if I went looking. What I actually wanted was simpler: How much heat is this machine putting into the air right now? Not in a spreadsheet. In plain language I could glance at while the PC was running. The gap Lots of tools show watts and temperatures . Almost none answer room heat : BTU per hour Heat accumulated over a session Plain context like "about a quarter of a space heater" With ambient temp: still-air rise or rough exhaust CFM The conversion is straightforward ( BTU/hr ≈ watts × 3.412 ), but I didn't want to do it in my head every time. So I built HeatLens — a small desktop widget built around room heat, not raw sensor dumps. What HeatLens shows Total wattage — what the PC is drawing now Heat dissipation — BTU/hr or kW Session heat — BTU or kWh since launch Max temperature — hottest live sensor Trend graphs — watts, heat, and temp over time CFM estimate — with ambient temp: rough exhaust airflow for a +10 °F rise Still-air rise — how fast a reference room would warm with no ventilation Estimated power is labeled separately from measured sensors. Where the data comes from LibreHardwareMonitor / Open Hardware Monitor (HTTP + WMI on Windows) nvidia-smi for NVIDIA GPUs Linux RAPL / hwmon when exposed by the kernel Labeled fallbacks when direct power sensors aren't available On Windows, best results: LibreHardwareMonitor with Remote Web Server on port 8085 . What it is not HeatLens is not a replacement for a Kill-A-Watt at the wall. Software usually can't see monitor power, full PSU loss, or every platform rail. A plug-in meter is still the most accurate whole-system reading. HeatLens is for context : "~400 W gaming → ~1,400 BTU/hr into the room" Session heat over an hour or two Rough CFM / still-air numbers as sanity checks — not duct design Things I learned building it Sensor coverage is messy. Different backends, missing rails, and estimates that need clear labeling.

Every camera-equipped connected device you build today, from a smart doorbell to an ESP32-CAM streaming frames over Wi-Fi to a factory machine-vision rig, is a descendant of one clunky, toaster-sized prototype: the first digital camera , built at Eastman Kodak in December 1975. It weighed about 8 pounds, took 23 seconds to capture a single 0.01-megapixel black-and-white image, and recorded that image to a cassette tape. It looked like a science-fair project, but it proved a radical idea that underpins the entire IoT sensing industry: an image could be captured, digitized, and stored as data with no film at all. An engineer, a side project, and a CCD The camera was built by a 24-year-old Kodak engineer named Steven Sasson . His manager had handed him a loose assignment: could the newly invented charge-coupled device (CCD) image sensor be used to build a camera with no moving film? The CCD, developed at Bell Labs in 1969, converts light falling on an array of tiny capacitors into electrical charge, pixel by pixel. Sasson took a Fairchild 100-by-100-pixel CCD, bolted it to a lens from a Super 8 movie camera, added a digitizer, and wired the output to a portable cassette recorder. The result captured just 0.01 megapixels, a grid of 10,000 pixels. To view a photo, Sasson's team built a custom playback rig that read the tape and painted the image onto a television screen. That first image, a Kodak lab technician, took 23 seconds to write to tape and several more to display. Crude, yes, but it was the first fully electronic, filmless photograph. Why Kodak shelved the future Here is the twist that every embedded engineer should remember. Kodak owned the patent on the first digital camera, but the company made its money selling film, chemicals, and photo paper. Executives saw a filmless camera as a threat to that business, so the project was quietly set aside. Kodak did file the patent in 1978 and collected licensing revenue for decades, but it never led the digital transiti

The iPhone maker claims OpenAI encouraged poached employees to bring over confidential presentations, secret prototypes, and key supplier details.

Six years in prison for man who "sold out the very victims he was hired to represent."

The AI chip boom just produced its biggest Wall Street moment yet. Now SK Hynix and Samsung are being asked to build U.S. factories.

Dumb Co sells flip phones that sync to your smartphone, bridging the infinite connectivity of the iPhone and the unrealistic limitations of an early 2000s relic.

A third ransomware negotiator has been jailed for helping a notorious ransomware group extort American victim companies into paying the hackers.

Agentic testing is an AI-driven approach to end-to-end test automation introduced by Slack engineering. It uses AI agents that execute workflows based on intent rather than fixed scripts, adapting to UI and system changes at runtime. The approach aims to reduce brittle tests in distributed systems while complementing deterministic unit, integration, and E2E testing strategies. By Leela Kumili

GitHub has made the redesigned GitHub Copilot CLI terminal interface generally available. It adds a tabbed layout for sessions, gists, issues, and pull requests; an in-session, form-driven setup for MCP servers, skills, and plugins that avoids hand-editing config files; and a cleaner, theme-aware, more accessible UI with screen reader support. By Mark Silvester

Artificial intelligence has transformed software development. Instead of simply generating code snippets, modern coding assistants can understand entire codebases, refactor applications, write tests, debug issues, and even execute development workflows. Among the most capable tools available today are Claude Code and Codex. While both are designed to accelerate software development, they take different approaches to coding assistance. This article compares their strengths, weaknesses, and ideal use cases. What Is Claude Code? Claude Code is Anthropic's command-line coding assistant built around the Claude family of language models. Rather than functioning as a traditional autocomplete tool, Claude Code works as an AI development agent that can inspect projects, edit files, explain code, write tests, fix bugs, and help developers navigate large repositories. Its workflow is centered around natural language. Developers describe what they want, and Claude Code performs the necessary steps while keeping the developer involved throughout the process. Key features Deep understanding of large codebases Multi-file editing Test generation Refactoring assistance Terminal-based workflow Strong reasoning for complex programming tasks Excellent documentation generation What Is Codex? Codex is OpenAI's AI coding agent designed to help developers write, understand, and modify software. Unlike the original Codex model introduced in 2021, today's Codex operates as a software engineering agent capable of working across repositories, generating code, fixing bugs, creating pull requests, running tests, and assisting with development workflows. Codex integrates closely with OpenAI's ecosystem and focuses on turning natural language instructions into production-ready code while maintaining awareness of project context. Key features Repository-aware coding Autonomous task execution Code generation Bug fixing Test writing Pull request assistance Integration with modern development workflow

Most organisations approach a Dynamics 365 Customer Engagement implementation with one question at the top of their agenda: How long will this take? It is a reasonable question, and one that deserves a precise, well-considered answer rather than a vague estimate designed to win the deal. The reality is that Dynamics 365 CE implementation timelines vary significantly, shaped by factors that are unique to each organisation: business complexity, data readiness, customisation depth, integration requirements, and internal stakeholder availability. This guide provides a structured, phase-by-phase breakdown of what a Dynamics 365 CE implementation actually involves, realistic timeline benchmarks by business size and industry, and the critical factors that either accelerate or delay your go-live date. Why there is no one-size-fits-all timeline for Dynamics 365 CE implementation Why There Is No Single Answer to the Timeline Question Dynamics 365 Customer Engagement is not a standalone application. It is a modular platform encompassing Sales, Customer Service, Field Service, and Marketing, each carrying its own configuration requirements, data dependencies, and user adoption considerations. A professional services firm deploying D365 Sales for a 25-person team operates in an entirely different context than a multi-national enterprise rolling out Customer Service and Field Service across three regions. Treating these as comparable projects, with comparable timelines, is where expectations first go wrong. As a reference framework, Dynamics 365 CE implementations broadly fall into three tiers: Implementation Scope Basic deployment, minimal customization :- 6 – 12 weeks Mid-market with integrations and moderate configuration :- 3 – 6 months Enterprise, multi-module or multi-region rollout :- 6 – 16 months These are informed benchmarks, not guarantees. What determines where your project lands within or beyond these ranges is examined in detail below. Core phases of a Microsoft Dyn

Vivo's joint venture could become a template for Chinese smartphone makers in India.

Should Anthropic trust Elon Musk to host its models? With about $40 billion in revenue at stake, Musk insists that the company can.

Broadcom accuses Allstate of dodging VMware audits.

The company is taking a modular approach to designing these chips, anticipating that their needs will change as AI evolves rapidly by the time the chips are in production.

PR volume went up, ticket quality didn't, and the gap got filled with LLMs on both sides of the review: bots reviewing, bots replying, bots occasionally arguing with bots about priorities that only existed in a teammate's head. Our CEO named the actual problem, and it's bigger than code review.

With increased adoption of AI, there is often an argument that code-reviews are now the new bottleneck. And I agree with this completely. Code-Reviews, especially the review you do yourself after AI has written your code, take time. But I would object to the notion that this is a bad thing. What is a bottleneck? A bottleneck is something that slows down the process. It becomes a point where work must get in a line, to pass through a narrow space. With the speed of AI producing code, code reviews become a bottleneck. But is having a bottleneck in the process always a bad thing? The value of slowing down I can only speak from my personal experience of developing software for roughly 7 years now. But in my experience, slowing down is not always bad. On the contrary, it can be very healthy. When you slow down, and take the time to really think about things, you often come up with insights that you would not have if you always rush through things. And these insights can be golden opportunities to change something for the better. Be that a subtle bug discovered, be that a design flaw addressed or something else - the list is long. But as British computer scientist Tony Hoare famously said: "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies." But simplicity is hard "I would have written a shorter letter, but did not have the time." If it was Mark Twain or Blaise Pascal who said it is beside the point. The point is, there is a lot of truth in this quote. A writer of prose I know also confirmed what many senior software engineers know - to make something complex simple and easily comprehensible takes way more time and effort in the form of careful thought than it takes to leave it being complicated and hard to understand. AI is good at writing code quickly, yes. But is it also good at writing code which has high q

I built an LED Strip Tetris game — without writing a single line of code. No keyboard mashing. No debugging at 2 AM. No reading 500 pages of datasheets. Just natural language prompts, an AI agent, and a Tuya T5 AI Core board. Here's the full breakdown of how it works 👇 🧩 What Is LED Strip Tetris? LED Strip Tetris is a DIY hardware game built entirely through natural language prompts using TuyaOpen IDE and Claude Code. It runs on a Tuya T5 AI Core development board with a WS2812 LED strip (72 LEDs) and three color-matched buttons — red, green, and blue. Colored LEDs fall from the top of the strip; players press the matching button to shoot a colored LED upward and eliminate the falling one on contact. The entire game — firmware, game logic, hardware wiring, sound effects, compilation, and flashing — was generated by AI. Zero manual coding. 🔌 The Hardware (Ridiculously Simple) Component Role Tuya T5 AI Core Board Main MCU — runs game logic, drives LED strip and buttons WS2812 LED Strip (72 LEDs) Display — colored LEDs fall and get eliminated 3 Push Buttons (Red / Green / Blue) Input — shoot matching color upward to clear falling LEDs Speaker Sound effects on button press That's it. No custom PCB. No complex wiring harness. Just four components plugged into a dev board. 🤔 Why This Is a Big Deal Here's what building a hardware game normally looks like: Step Traditional Approach Vibe Coding with TuyaOpen IDE Dev environment setup Install toolchain, configure SDK, fight dependencies Copy a workflow link, paste into Claude Code, click confirm Game logic Write C code from scratch, design state machines Describe the game in one sentence, AI generates the code Hardware config Read datasheets, look up GPIO mappings, manually configure Tell AI which pins you're using, it handles the rest Sound effects Write audio decoding code, integrate codecs Give AI the file path, it decodes and compiles Debugging Serial logs, oscilloscope, hours of trial and error AI self-diagnoses compile

tags: hardware, iot, opensource, electronics As software developers, many of us reach a point where writing code inside a virtual environment isn't quite enough—we want to manipulate the physical world. Whether it's blinking an LED via an ESP32, visualizing audio frequencies on a desk display, or building custom bench tools, hardware hacking is easily one of the most rewarding rabbit holes to fall down. At NextPCB , we’ve spent the past few years supporting the open-source hardware community by sponsoring independent creators, makers, and embedded engineers to help turn their digital schematics into real, physical circuit boards. If you’re looking for inspiration for your next weekend project, here are four curated roundups of real-world projects featuring open-source files, schematics, and design breakdowns. 1. Retro Tech & Nostalgic Geek Culture Builds 🎮 There’s something uniquely satisfying about recreating classic tech using modern hardware components. From custom hand-held arcade consoles to retro synth modules and glowing mechanical displays, retro builds combine aesthetic nostalgia with serious embedded engineering. These projects aren't just for show—they showcase clever power management, compact multi-layer PCB routing, and custom display interfaces. 👉 Check out the project breakdowns & schematics: 8 Retro Geek Culture PCB Projects: Open-Source Gerbers & Schematics 2. Smart Audio & Interactive Visual Displays 🎵 Audio reactive electronics bridge the gap between digital signal processing (DSP) and hardware UI/UX. Think custom spectrum analyzers, RGB LED matrix drivers, and tactile smart knobs that update in real-time. Building custom audio hardware requires paying extra attention to noise isolation, clean power delivery, and signal integrity—making these projects fantastic learning material for intermediate hardware devs. 👉 Explore the audio & display designs: Smart Audio & Interactive Display PCBs: Open-Source Design Guide 3. DIY Power & Precision Lab Equipm

Originally published on tamiz.pro . The Signal: Core Developer Competencies Effective code evaluations must identify signal - the skills that directly impact software quality and long-term maintainability. Focus on: Problem-Solving Approach : How candidates break down complex problems Code Structure : Organization, modularity, and separation of concerns Edge Case Handling : Proactive identification of boundary conditions Test Coverage : Implementation of meaningful unit/integration tests Performance Awareness : Appropriate algorithm selection and resource management These elements predict real-world engineering capabilities, not just syntax mastery. The Noise: Common Evaluation Pitfalls Avoid overemphasizing noise - factors that correlate weakly with actual job performance: Noise Factor Why It Fails Signal Alternative Coding style Reflects personal preference Consistency within project conventions Syntax errors Easily fixed with linters Code correctness after tooling Solution speed Varies by individual Final solution quality Language trivia Library/framework knowledge changes Core programming principles Interview anxiety Doesn't reflect daily work Paired programming sessions Measuring Signal Effectively Task Design : Create realistic coding challenges that mirror production problems Rubric-Based Evaluation : Use weighted scoring matrices focused on signal factors Code Review Simulations : Evaluate candidates' ability to interpret and improve existing codebases Collaboration Metrics : Track communication clarity during pair programming sessions Iterative Development : Assess how well candidates refine solutions based on feedback Signal Amplification Techniques Time-Bounded Challenges : Set strict time limits to reduce focus on perfectionism Tooling Freedom : Allow candidates to use their preferred IDEs and debugging tools Post-Coding Debrief : Ask candidates to explain their design choices and tradeoffs Follow-Up Questions : Test understanding of implementation decis