Back in 2015, Microsoft announced Windows Continuum, a feature that could transform Windows 10 Mobile phones into full-blown desktops, complete with a desktop-like interface, full-screen apps, and support for keyboards and mice. The catch was that Continuum was impressive on paper, but not in practice.
The DBStan package provides detailed analysis and insights into your database schema for Laravel applications. It helps identify structural issues, missing indexes, normalization problems, nullable column risks, foreign key inconsistencies, and performance concerns.
It is an essential tool for debugging, optimizing, reviewing, and maintaining a healthy database architecture in Laravel projects.
Important Notice: Configure Database Before Using This Package
Before using this package, ensure your database connection is properly configured in your Laravel application.
If the database is not configured correctly, DBStan will not be able to analyze your schema.
Make sure your .env file contains valid database credentials.
Security Warning
This package exposes detailed database schema analysis.
It is intended for admin and development use only.
Do NOT expose this tool publicly in production without proper access restrictions, as schema details may reveal sensitive structural information.
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/66992-140732-ipadmacos2-xl.jpgThe MacBook Neo proves that macOS can run on an iPhone processor. More than that, it shows how Apple now has all of the elements to make a device that’s transformative in every sense.
macOS doesn’t work on iPad, but imagine if it did.
Imagine only ever needing to carry around your iPhone, regardless of whether you were working with macOS or not. Imagine connecting your iPad to a Magic Keyboard, and firing up macOS.
Either would be one single device that works like an iPhone in your hand, or an iPad on your lap, but a Mac when you connect it to the right input and output devices.
A couple of months ago, Eindhoven-based designer Paul Staal was thinking about a new project: a smart dashboard for his home office. His idea was to integrate the dashboard into a 3D-printed shell that paid homage to Lego’s classic 2×2 sloped computer brick, a piece that’ll be instantly recognizable to anyone who has spent any time with vintage Space Lego sets.
Eventually, Staal tells Gizmodo, he decided to combine the dashboard into a case for his Mac Mini: “[I thought], ‘Why would I add another device to my desk? Why not just make it large enough for my [computer] instead?’”
The original design stuck closely to that of the Lego brick, but Staal found the result “bland and boring”: without the detailing on the front of the brick, the case was essentially just a large right-angled triangle. But then inspiration struck: why not combine the Lego silhouette with the aesthetics of another 1980s design icon?
The result was the M2x2, a case that takes its inspiration from both Lego’s classic console brick and the original Apple Macintosh. It’s 3D printed with a filament that’s an absolute dead ringer for the latter’s beige plastic shell, and equipped with a 7” touch screen, multiple USB-C ports, an SD card reader, and a handle for portability.
The design is full of clever touches: for example, the two large studs atop the case are both functional, with one serving as a volume knob for Staal’s Bluetooth speaker and the other as a wireless charger for his AirPods and Apple Watch. (They’re also adorned with actual Lego studs that can accommodate a mini-figure—or, indeed, one of the bricks that served as the design’s inspiration.) Anyone else using the design can customize the functionality to their liking: “I made the design for this case modular,” Staal explains, “so if anyone wants to make one, they can choose what they want to use the studs for.”
The touchscreen, meanwhile, is essentially self-contained: “It offer[s] quick access to some controls on my Home Assistant dashboard.” Staal says that if he makes another version of the device, he’d perhaps replace it with an iPad Mini to take advantage of that device’s integration with macOS. “Maybe I’ll work on that in the future,” he says, “perhaps even pairing it with a Mac Studio instead of a Mac mini.”
For now, though, he has a couple of other projects on the go: “I have a couple of other projects that I still want to document/finalise and share on my website… One of them is a new dock for my Nintendo Switch 2, [which] I hope to finish somewhere in the upcoming weeks, so stay tuned.”
The Super Mario Galaxy Movieis nearly upon us, as the hotly-anticipated sequel arrives in theaters on April 1. Nintendo recently dropped the final trailer for the film, which is filled with quick visual gags and nods to the source material.
There aren’t too many actual reveals in this footage, as it covers a lot of the same ground as previous trailers. However, it does show that fan favorite Lumalee is returning as a prison guard of some sort, reversing the storyline from the original film in which the cheerfully nihilistic creature was trapped in a cage.
Nintendo also released a larger presentation that featured the aforementioned trailer, but also included interviews with actors and franchise creator Shigeru Miyamoto. We did get some news in this video.
It was revealed that the long-tongued dinosaur Yoshi will be voiced by Donald Glover. So it’s likely the dino will be saying a lot more than "Yoshi" over and over. Actor Luis Guzman will also be playing Wart, the primary antagonist from Super Mario Bros. 2. Issa Rae will be on hand to voice Honey Queen, the gigantic bee character from the Super Mario Galaxy games.
It was even confirmed by lead actors Chris Pratt and Charlie Day that Luigi would be on hand for the entire adventure this time, and not confined to a cage-based subplot. I didn’t realize Luigi’s role in the first film was enough of a controversy to warrant this kind of mention, but here we are.
Illumination CEO Chris Meledandri also appeared in the video, assuring viewers that there are still "some big surprises" waiting in the actual film. To that end, there’s been a rumor floating around that Fox McCloud from the Starfox franchise would be showing up. Is this the start of a Nintendo cinematic universe that will culminate in 10 years with a Super Smash Bros. movie? Stranger things have happened.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/tv-movies/heres-the-final-trailer-for-the-super-mario-galaxy-movie-181819593.html?src=rssEngadget
Most of us set up MySQL, run our migrations, and never think about the database configuration again.
And honestly, that works fine for many apps.
But MySQL ships with defaults tuned for minimal hardware, not for a production Laravel app handling real traffic.
Settings like innodb_buffer_pool_size, flush behavior, and I/O thread counts are all set conservatively out of the box.
I came across a great article on Laravel News that walks through the InnoDB settings most likely to affect your app’s performance.
It’s not a deep dive into the MySQL manual.
It’s a practical overview of what to look at, why it matters, and what tools can help you figure out the right values for your setup.
For example, the buffer pool size alone can make a huge difference.
The default is far too small for most production apps, and bumping it up based on available RAM lets MySQL keep more data in memory instead of hitting disk repeatedly.
The article also highlights some handy tools like MySQLTuner and Percona Toolkit that analyze your running database and suggest specific changes.
Much better than guessing.
Not everyone reads the MySQL manual cover to cover, so articles like this are a great way to pick up practical knowledge without a huge time investment.
Here to help,
Joel
P.S. If your app is sluggish, and you’re not sure where to start, we can help you find the bottleneck. Schedule a call and let’s figure it out together.
Windows comes loaded with software to meet most of your needs out of the box, but if you like free and open-source projects, or if you just want alternatives, there are plenty of great options out there.
In a new “breaking news” sit-down on The Four Boxes Diner, constitutional litigator and Second Amendment historian Stephen P. Halbrook joins host Mark W. Smith to walk viewers through a question gun owners have debated for decades: does federal law actually forbid the registration of post-May 19, 1986 machine guns for ordinary Americans—or did ATF “fill in the blanks” with regulation and judicial deference that no longer holds up?
This is a lawyer-to-lawyer conversation about statutory text, agency overreach, and the post-Chevron legal landscape—plus a developing strategy in places like West Virginia and Kentucky that could force a clean test of ATF’s long-standing interpretation.
Below is what Halbrook and Smith argued, why it matters, and what gun owners should understand before the “legalize machine guns” headlines run away with the story.
The core fight: what 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) says vs. what ATF does
The so-called Hughes Amendment lives at 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). The key structure is simple:
(o)(1): “Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.”
(o)(2)(A) then carves out an exception for “a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States… or a State… or political subdivision thereof.”
(o)(2)(B) preserves lawful possession of machine guns lawfully possessed before the effective date.
Smith’s argument, echoed by Halbrook’s earlier litigation history, is that the statutory phrase “under the authority of” reads like permission/authorization, not “for the benefit of government” or “government use only.”
That distinction matters because ATF’s implementing regulation took a very different path.
The regulation that changed everything: “for the benefit of government.”
ATF’s machine gun regulation, 27 C.F.R. § 479.105, is where the “government use” concept becomes explicit. It states that applications to make/register machine guns after May 19, 1986 will be approved only when made “for the benefit of” a federal/state/local governmental entity, backed by specific information and (in practice) a government request/on-behalf-of showing.
Smith and Halbrook argue this is the pivot point: the statute’s text doesn’t contain “for the benefit of government,” yet the regulation effectively adds it. In their telling, that add-on hardened into “common knowledge” because courts spent decades deferring to agency interpretation.
Which brings us to the big modern change.
The post-Chevron landscape is significant because the Loper Bright decision effectively removes the policy of judicial deference.
Halbrook points to the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the Chevron doctrine that frequently pushed courts to defer to agencies on ambiguous statutes.
Their thesis: if ATF’s position became entrenched largely through deference-era judging, that foundation is weaker now. Courts are supposed to decide the best reading of the statute themselves—not default to “ATF says so.”
That doesn’t automatically mean gun owners win. But it does mean older “we defer to ATF” opinions aren’t the trump card they once were, especially if a case tees up the statutory language cleanly.
Halbrook’s front-row history lesson: the Hughes Amendment’s messy birth
Halbrook describes watching the 1986 House debate where Rep. William Hughes introduced the machine gun amendment late in the process, amid chaos, and it was adopted without the kind of clean, deliberate record you’d expect for a ban this sweeping. (That political history doesn’t override the statutory text—but it matters when courts look for clarity.)
He also notes that the ban took effect after a delay, during which manufacturers produced/registerable machine guns before the cutoff, a well-known quirk of how the “registry freeze” era began.
The case that shaped the modern status quo: Farmer v. Higgins
Halbrook recounts his early challenge involving a would-be maker application denied after Hughes. The dispute is closely associated with Farmer v. Higgins in the Eleventh Circuit, which rejected the district court’s more permissive reading and sided with ATF’s position.
Smith’s point is blunt: Farmer became a “leapfrog precedent”—one circuit cites another, and soon the ATF interpretation is treated as settled law without fresh analysis.
Halbrook agrees that this is a recurring disease in gun jurisprudence: once a court writes “government wins,” other courts copy-paste.
The Commerce Clause pressure point: Lopez and Alito’s Rybar dissent
A second major thread in the video is constitutional: even if ATF’s reading stands, does § 922(o) have a solid Article I hook?
Halbrook highlights the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause decision in United States v. Lopez (1995), which struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act because it criminalized mere possession without a sufficient commerce nexus.
Smith then ties that logic to machine guns. In United States v. Rybar (3d Cir. 1996), then-Judge Samuel Alito dissented, calling § 922(o) the “closest” relative to the law struck in Lopez and arguing Congress hadn’t shown the required substantial effect on interstate commerce.
You don’t have to accept every step of their reasoning to see the strategic value: if a court rejects the “under the authority of” statutory argument, the fallback becomes a renewed constitutional attack—Commerce Clause and, in today’s environment, likely Second Amendment arguments as well.
The practical plan discussed is not “buy a machine gun tomorrow.” It’s a litigation-minded approach:
A state sets up a program where a state entity (often discussed as a division within state police) acquires/holds machine guns.
The state then authorizes transfers/possession under state authority, with a process for qualified citizens.
Applicants file the relevant federal paperwork, and if ATF denies on the “government use only” theory, that denial becomes the injury for a direct legal challenge.
Halbrook’s point is tactical: clean plaintiffs and clean facts matter. Civil litigation with ordinary, law-abiding citizens is very different from a criminal appeal with ugly fact patterns.
What gun owners should take away?
1) The statutory text really does contain a government/State carveout. The words “under the authority of” are there, and they do work in other legal contexts.
2) ATF’s regulation explicitly adds a “for the benefit of government” framework. That’s the gap the video targets.
3) The legal environment changed after Loper Bright. Agency deference is no longer the automatic shield it once was.
4) There are two lanes of attack—statutory and constitutional. Lopez and Alito’s Rybar dissent show why some lawyers think § 922(o) is vulnerable even apart from ATF’s interpretation.
5) None of this is “done.” Even a strong legal theory has to survive hostile circuits, political pressure, and a federal bureaucracy that has spent nearly 40 years treating the registry freeze as untouchable.
Halbrook and Smith are making a provocative—but legally literate—argument: the post-’86 machine gun ban as enforced today may rest on an ATF gloss that goes beyond Congress’s words, preserved for decades by judicial deference that’s now been repudiated.
If West Virginia/Kentucky (or another state) can tee up a clean denial case, it could force courts to answer the question they’ve dodged for a generation: does “under the authority of a State” mean what normal English says it means or what ATF wrote into a regulation?
And if courts won’t take the statutory off-ramp, the constitutional cliff edge—Commerce Clause and Second Amendment—still looms.
MySQL Security Best Practices: A Practical Guide for Locking Down Your Database
Introduction
MySQL runs just about everywhere. I’ve seen it behind small personal projects, internal tools, SaaS platforms, and large enterprise systems handling serious transaction volume. When your database sits at the center of everything, it becomes part of your security perimeter whether you planned it that way or not. And that makes it a target.
Securing MySQL isn’t about flipping one magical setting and calling it done. It’s about layers. Tight access control. Encrypted connections. Clear visibility into what’s happening on the server. And operational discipline that doesn’t drift over time.
In this guide, I’m going to walk through practical MySQL security best practices that you can apply right away. These are the kinds of checks and hardening steps that reduce real risk in real environments, and help build a database platform that stays resilient under pressure.
1. Principle of Least Privilege
One of the most common security mistakes is over-granting privileges.
Applications and users should have only the permissions they absolutely
need.
Weak credentials remain one of the easiest attack vectors.
Enable Password Validation
component_validate_password is MySQL’s modern password policy engine. Think of it as a gatekeeper for credential quality. Every time someone tries to set or change a password, it checks whether that password meets your defined security standards before letting it in.
It replaces the older validate_password plugin with a component-based architecture that is more flexible and better aligned with MySQL 8.x design.
If a password fails policy, the statement is rejected before the credential is stored.
Why It Matters
Weak passwords remain one of the most common entry points in database breaches. This component reduces risk by enforcing baseline credential hygiene automatically, instead of relying on developer discipline.
Recommended Policies
Minimum length: 14+ characters
Require mixed case, numbers, and symbols
Enable dictionary checks
Enable username checks
Remove Anonymous Accounts
Find Anonymous Users
Anonymous users have an empty User field.
sql
SELECTuser,hostFROMmysql.userWHEREuser='';
If you see rows returned, those are anonymous accounts.
Drop Anonymous Users
In modern MySQL versions:
sql
DROPUSER''@'localhost';DROPUSER''@'%';
Adjust the Host value based on what your query returned.
Why This Matters
Anonymous users:
Allow login without credentials
May have default privileges in some distributions
Increase the attack surface unnecessarily
In hardened environments, there should be zero accounts with an empty username. Every identity should be explicit, accountable, and least-privileged.
3. Encryption Everywhere
Encryption protects data both in transit and at rest.
Backups often contain everything an attacker wants.
Backup Best Practices
Encrypt backups
Restrict filesystem permissions
Store offsite copies securely
Rotate backup credentials
Verify restore procedures regularly
Example Permission Check
8. Replication & Cluster Security
Replication is not just a data distribution feature. It is a persistent, privileged communication channel between servers. If misconfigured, it can become a lateral movement pathway inside your infrastructure. Treat every replication link as a trusted but tightly controlled corridor.
Principle: Replication Is a Privileged Service Account
Replication users require elevated capabilities. They must be isolated, tightly scoped, and monitored like any other service identity.
Compromised binary logs can reveal historical data changes.
9. Continuous Security Reviews
Security is not a one-time checklist. Regular audits help catch
configuration drift and evolving threats.
Suggested Review Cadence
Weekly: failed login review
Monthly: privilege audits
Quarterly: configuration review
Semiannually: full security assessment
Security Checklist Summary
Area
Key Action
Access Control
Least privilege grants
Authentication
Strong password policies
Encryption
TLS + encrypted storage
Updates
Regular patching
Monitoring
Audit logging enabled
Configuration
Harden defaults
Backups
Encrypt and protect
Replication
Secure replication users
Final Thoughts
Strong MySQL security doesn’t come from one feature or one tool. It comes from layers working together. Hardened configuration. Tight, intentional privilege design. Encryption everywhere it makes sense. And monitoring that actually gets reviewed instead of just written to disk.
In my experience, the strongest environments aren’t the ones trying to be unbreakable. They’re the ones built to detect, contain, and respond. Every layer should either reduce blast radius or increase visibility. If an attacker gets through one control, the next one slows them down. And while they’re slowing down, your logging and monitoring should already be telling you something isn’t right.
That’s what a mature security posture looks like in practice. ∎
After three years of development and extensive production use, Workflow 3.0 brings significant improvements to building multi-step procedures in PHP. This release focuses on simplifying asynchronous execution, improving developer experience, and adding essential resilience features.
Version 3.0 accepts any PHP callable as a job, providing flexibility in how you define workflow steps:
This eliminates boilerplate for simple operations while maintaining support for Action classes when business logic requires full class structure. Callables enable inline data transformation without requiring dedicated action classes for single-use operations.
Version 3.0 extends response() to access public object properties directly, not just array keys:
This works transparently with both arrays and objects, allowing actions to return domain objects without requiring array conversion. The workflow engine inspects the response and accesses properties or array keys accordingly.
Transient failures in distributed systems are inevitable. Workflow 3.0 implements configurable retry policies:
Retry policies are essential for handling transient failures in distributed systems, where network operations and external services may temporarily fail but succeed on subsequent attempts.
The parallel runner has been replaced with a true async implementation using AMPHP. This provides non-blocking execution without the overhead of process forking, leveraging PHP 8.1+ Fibers for efficient multitasking.
Independent jobs execute concurrently while the engine manages the resolution of the dependency graph. This follows asynchronous task-based execution model where the scheduler unrolls the graph and executes nodes as soon as their data dependencies (like response()) are satisfied. This shift significantly reduces memory footprint compared to the previous process-based model while maintaining strict execution order.
This complements withRunIf() and accepts boolean literals, variables, job responses, and callables. Conditional execution enables branching without complex orchestration logic.
Workflow validates inputs before job execution and verifies response types match expected parameters in dependent jobs. This eliminates a class of runtime errors that would otherwise require extensive testing.
Here’s a complete workflow for processing user uploads:
This workflow validates the file, resizes and optimizes it in parallel, then stores the result. The resize job retries on failure, and both processing jobs only run if validation succeeds.
The parallel runner removal is the only breaking change. Applications using parallel execution should switch to async jobs with appropriate dependency declarations. The async runner provides better performance and simpler semantics.
Workflow 3.0 represents three years of production refinement. The addition of container support, callables, retry policies, and true async execution address real-world requirements while maintaining the declarative approach that makes workflows maintainable.
The library continues following established patterns from workflow research and distributed systems literature. Each job remains independently testable, workflows stay declarative, and the dependency graph handles execution ordering automatically.