2026-01-02 16:01:32
Apache StreamPipes fixed a critical privilege escalation vulnerability (CVE-2025-47411) that allows non-admin users to hijack administrator accounts through JWT manipulation. Attackers can exploit this flaw to gain full system control, tamper with data, and compromise streaming infrastructure.
If you are using Apache StreamPipes, this is important. First, make sure it's isolated from the internet and accessible from trusted networks and users only. Then plan a very quick update, because the exploit is just changing a value in the JWT token.
Read the full article on BeyondMachines
This article was originally published on BeyondMachines
2026-01-02 16:00:12
2026.01.02일자 입니다. 문자열 부터 2차원 배열까지 몇 문제 풀어보았습니다.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
int main() {
int N, res = 0; string num; cin >> N >> num;
for (int c : num) res += c - '0';
cout << res;
}
가장 기본적인 방법입니다. 문자 '0'~'9'의 아스키 값을 0~9로 변환하기 위해 '0'을 뺍니다. std::string이 시퀀스 컨테이너이므로 for(int c : num)으로 작성이 가능합니다.
해당 문제를 scanf를 사용하여 풀면 배열을 사용하지 않고도 풀 수 있습니다.
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int N, res = 0; scanf("%d", &N);
while (N--) { int t; scanf("%1d", &t); res += t; }
printf("%d", res);
}
%1d로 설정하면 한 문자만 입력 받습니다. 조건이 변경되거나 하는 경우에는 string을 사용하는 것이 안정성이 높습니다. 이러한 방법이 있다는 것만 알아두면 될 것 같습니다.
문제 링크
공백을 기준으로 문자의 개수를 세면 되지만 앞 뒤로 공백이 입력될 수 있기 때문에 주의해야 합니다.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
int main() {
string str; int cnt = 1; getline(cin, str);
for (int i = 0; i < str.length(); i++) if (str[i] == ' ') ++cnt;
if (str[0] == ' ') --cnt; if (str[str.length() - 1] == ' ') --cnt;
cout << cnt;
}
처음에는 if 조건을 아래처럼 작성하였습니다.
i != 0 && i != str.length() - 1 && str[i] == ' '
이렇게 하니 공백만 입력된 경우를 걸러낼 수 없어 연산이 진행되지 않은 cnt 그대로인 1을 출력하였습니다. 따라서 for 루프를 끝낸 이후 앞 뒤가 공백이라면 개수를 줄이는 방식을 선택하였습니다.
또한 해당 코드에서 cin을 사용하면 제대로 동작하지 않습니다. cin은 공백 문자를 만나는 순간 입력을 끝내기 때문에 한 줄을 입력 받기 위해서는 getline(cin, str)를 사용해야 합니다.
trim 함수를 구현하는 방법을 고려했으나 공백은 연속 입력되지 않으므로 구현하지 않았습니다. 구현한다면 다음과 같이 구현할 수 있습니다.
string trim(string str) {
str.erase(0, str.find_first_not_of(' '));
str.erase(str.find_last_not_of(' ') + 1);
return str;
}
erase 메서드는 문자열에서 해당 범위를 지웁니다. erase(index, count)는 index로부터 count개의 문자를 지웁니다. erase(index)만 입력된다면 index부터 끝까지 삭제합니다.find_first_not_of(value) 메서드는 문자열을 처음부터 탐색하여 처음으로 value가 아닌 문자가 나온 위치를 반환합니다. str.erase(0, str.find_first_not_of(' '));는 맨 앞부터 처음으로 공백이 아닌 문자 전까지 삭제합니다.
반면 find_last_not_of(value) 메서드는 문자열을 뒤에서부터 탐색하여 처음으로 value가 아닌 문자가 나온 위치를 반환합니다. str.erase(str.find_last_not_of(' ') + 1);는 뒤에서 처음으로 공백이 아닌 문자 뒤부터 끝까지 모두 삭제합니다.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
int main() {
string num_pad[8] = { "ABC", "DEF", "GHI", "JKL", "MNO", "PQRS", "TUV", "WXYZ" };
string T; cin >> T; int n = 0;
for (char c : T) {
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (num_pad[i].find(c) != string::npos)
n += 3 + i;
}
} cout << n;
}
저는 find 메서드를 사용하여 풀었습니다. 해당하는 문자가 없을 때 false를 반환하는 게 아니라 string::npos를 반환하기 때문에 위와 같이 작성해야 합니다.
하지만
int num_pad[26] = {3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, ...};
// ...
for (int c : T) n += num_pad[c - 'A'];
중첩반복문을 사용하지 않는 아래 코드가 더 좋은 것 같습니다.
EOF를 사용한 문제입니다. 어제 배운 게 생각나서 응용해서 풀어보았습니다.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
int main() {
string str; while (getline(cin, str)) cout << str << '\n';
}
입력 내에 공백이 입력될 수 있는 것을 간과하고 cin을 사용했다가 오답 처리 되었습니다. getline은 cin을 리턴하기 때문에 eof가 입력되면 false가 반환되는 것입니다.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
int main() {
int cnt[26] = { 0, }; string T; cin >> T;
for (int c : T) ++cnt[c >= 'a' ? c - 'a' : c - 'A'];
if (count(cnt, cnt + 26, *max_element(cnt, cnt + 26)) >= 2) cout << '?';
else cout << (char)(max_element(cnt, cnt + 26) - cnt + 'A');
}
아스키코드를 이용하여 풀었습니다. max_element 가 반환하는 주솟값에 cnt를 빼주어야 배열 시작으로부터 인덱스가 나옵니다.
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
int main() {
string croatia[] = { "c=", "c-", "dz=", "d-", "lj", "nj", "s=", "z=" };
string T; cin >> T;
for (string s : croatia) {
while (T.find(s) != string::npos) {
T.replace(T.find(s), s.length(), "*");
}
} cout << T.length();
}
크로아티아 문자를 찾아 *로 치환한 후 문자열 길이를 출력합니다.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
int main() {
int N; cin >> N; int cnt = N;
while (N--) {
string T; int idx = 0; bool check[26] = { 0, }; cin >> T;
for (int c : T) {
if (check[c - 'a'] == 0 || idx == c - 'a') {
idx = c - 'a'; check[idx] = 1;
}
else { --cnt; break; }
}
} cout << cnt;
}
새로 등장한 문자이거나 현재 그 문자가 아니면 cnt를 1 줄이고 검사를 끝냅니다.
문제 링크
2차원 배열에서 최댓값과 그 위치를 구하는 문제입니다. 2차원 배열 문제이므로 vector를 이용해 풀어보았습니다.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
int main() {
vector<vector<int>> v;
for (int i = 0; i < 9; ++i) {
vector<int> t;
for (int j = 0; j < 9; ++j) { int n; cin >> n; t.push_back(n); }
v.push_back(t);
}
int maximum = -1, row = 0, col = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 9; ++i) {
auto t = max_element(v[i].begin(), v[i].end());
if (*t > maximum) { maximum = *t; row = i + 1; col = t - v[i].begin() + 1; }
} cout << maximum << '\n' << row << ' ' << col;
}
사실 이 문제는 2차원 배열을 사용하지 않는 편이 더욱 간단합니다.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
int max_val = -1, row, col;
for (int i = 1; i <= 9; ++i) {
for (int j = 1; j <= 9; ++j) {
int t; cin >> t; if (t > max_val) { max_val = t; row = i; col = j; }
}
} cout << max_val << '\n' << row << ' ' << col;
}
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
int main() {
string str[5] = {}; for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i) cin >> str[i];
for (int i = 0; i < 15; ++i) {
for (int j = 0; j < 5; ++j) {
if (i < str[j].length()) cout << str[j][i];
}
}
}
행과 열을 바꾸어 탐색합니다. 즉 바깥 반복문이 열이고 내부 반복문이 행입니다. 현재 열이 해당 행의 길이(열의 개수)보다 작다면 출력할 수 있습니다.
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
int main() {
bool arr[100][100] = { 0, }; int T; cin >> T;
while (T--) {
int x, y; cin >> x >> y;
for (int i = x; i < x + 10; ++i) {
fill(arr[i] + y, arr[i] + y + 10, 1);
}
} int cnt = 0; for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) cnt += count(arr[i], arr[i] + 100, 1);
cout << cnt;
}
fill 함수로 입력 받은 구역을 1로 채운 뒤 count 함수로 총 1의 개수를 세었습니다.
해당 코드 채점 이후 다시 짠 코드입니다.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
bool arr[100][100] = { 0, }; int T, cnt = 0; cin >> T;
while (T--) {
int x, y; cin >> x >> y;
for (int i = x; i < x + 10; ++i) {
for (int j = y; j < y + 10; ++j) {
if (!arr[i][j]) { arr[i][j] = 1; ++cnt; }
}
}
} cout << cnt;
}
구역을 채움과 동시에 카운트를 진행하는 방식입니다. 입력 이후 배열을 다시 훑는 전 코드보다 효율입니다.
그런데 전자를 왜 짰냐고 하면 fill, count 함수를 학습했다는 점에서 의미가 있다고 봅니다.
2026-01-02 16:00:00
Angular Signal Forms make client-side validation feel clean and reactive, but how do you actually submit them? Without proper submission handling, forms refresh the page, ignore server validation errors, and lack loading states. Angular's new submit() API solves this by providing async submission, automatic loading state tracking, touched field handling, and seamless server-side error mapping. This guide shows you how to implement Angular Signal Forms form submission the right way.
Let's start by examining what Signal Forms already do well.
Here's a simple signup form built entirely with the Signal Forms API:
Notice that the "Create account" button is disabled out of the gate:
That's because the form is invalid. We haven't entered a username or email yet.
When I click into the username field and blur it, a validation error appears:
This is client-side validation running immediately.
And we have the same behavior with the email field.
Click in, blur out, and an error appears:
After entering valid values, the errors disappear and the submit button becomes enabled:
So far, so good. This is exactly what we'd expect from a properly validated form.
Now let's try submitting the form.
When I click "Create account", the browser actually refreshes:
That's obviously not what we want.
There's no submission logic, no async handling, and no way to surface server validation errors.
This is the gap we need to fix.
Let's examine the component template to understand why this is happening.
At the top, we have a plain <form> element with no submit handler attached:
<form>
...
</form>
The username input is wired up using the field directive, which connects the input to the Signal Form:
<input
id="username"
type="text"
[field]="form.username" />
Below that, we conditionally render validation errors only when the field has been touched and is invalid:
@if (form.username().touched() && form.username().invalid()) {
<ul class="error-list">
@for (err of form.username().errors(); track $index) {
<li>{% raw %}{{ err.message }}{% endraw %}</li>
}
</ul>
}
The email field follows the same pattern.
It uses the field directive to connect the input to the Signal Form:
<input
id="email"
type="email"
[field]="form.email" />
And it conditionally renders validation errors only when the field has been touched and is invalid:
@if (form.email().touched() && form.email().invalid()) {
<ul class="error-list">
@for (err of form.email().errors(); track $index) {
<li>{% raw %}{{ err.message }}{% endraw %}</li>
}
</ul>
}
At this point, the submit button is disabled because the form is invalid:
<button type="submit" [disabled]="form.invalid()">
Create account
</button>
Everything here works perfectly for client-side validation.
We just don't have submission logic yet.
Now let's look at the component TypeScript.
One of the first things we see is the model signal:
protected readonly model = signal<SignupModel>({
username: '',
email: '',
});
This is the backing data for the form.
Next, we create the Signal-based form using the form() function and pass in the model:
protected readonly form = form(this.model, s => {
...
});
Inside this function, we define our field-level validators:
protected readonly form = form(this.model, s => {
required(s.username, { message: 'Please enter a username' });
minLength(s.username, 3,
{ message: 'Your username must be at least 3 characters' });
required(s.email, { message: 'Please enter an email address' });
});
All of this is client-side validation.
It's fast, synchronous, and runs before we ever attempt to submit anything.
In a real application, form submission usually means calling a service.
For this demo, I've created a mock signup service that simulates a backend call:
import { Injectable } from '@angular/core';
export interface SignupModel {
username: string;
email: string;
}
export type SignupResult =
| { status: 'ok' }
| {
status: 'error';
fieldErrors: Partial<Record<keyof SignupModel, string>>;
};
@Injectable({ providedIn: 'root' })
export class SignupService {
async signup(value: SignupModel): Promise<SignupResult> {
await new Promise((r) => setTimeout(r, 700));
const fieldErrors: Partial<Record<keyof SignupModel, string>> = {};
// Username rules
if (value.username.trim().toLowerCase() === 'brian') {
fieldErrors.username = 'That username is already taken.';
}
// Email rules
if (value.email.trim().toLowerCase() === '[email protected]') {
fieldErrors.email = 'That email is already taken.';
}
if (Object.keys(fieldErrors).length > 0) {
return { status: 'error', fieldErrors };
}
return { status: 'ok' };
}
}
This service returns either a successful result or an object containing field-specific server errors.
This distinction is important because server validation is very different from client validation:
Now it’s time to actually make this form submit.
This is where things get interesting.
Signal Forms provides a new submit() API that handles a lot of the hard stuff for us.
Back over in the component TypeScript, I'll start by injecting the signup service:
import { inject } from '@angular/core';
import { ..., SignupService } from './signup.service';
export class SignupComponent {
...
private readonly signupService = inject(SignupService);
}
Next, I'll add an onSubmit method:
protected onSubmit(event: Event) {
}
The first thing we do is call preventDefault() on the event to prevent the browser from performing a full page refresh:
protected onSubmit(event: Event) {
event.preventDefault();
}
Then we use the new submit() function and pass in our form.
import { ..., submit } from '@angular/forms/signals';
protected onSubmit(event: Event) {
...
submit(this.form);
}
The second argument is an async callback:
protected onSubmit(event: Event) {
...
submit(this.form, async f => {
});
}
What's really nice about this is that Angular will:
Inside this callback, we get access to the form's field tree via f.
Let's create a variable to store the current value:
submit(this.form, async f => {
const value = f().value();
});
This gives us the current form value, already validated by client-side rules.
Next, we pass that value into the signup service:
submit(this.form, async f => {
...
const result = await this.signupService.signup(value);
});
This simulates calling the backend.
Now here's where the real power of submit() shows up.
If the server rejects the submission, we return validation errors instead of throwing errors or manually setting state:
submit(this.form, async f => {
...
if (result.status === 'error') {
...
}
});
We'll create a variable to push errors into using the ValidationError interface:
import { ..., ValidationError } from '@angular/forms/signals';
submit(this.form, async f => {
...
if (result.status === 'error') {
const errors: ValidationError.WithOptionalField[] = [];
}
});
This interface represents a validation error that can optionally target a specific field.
Now let's add a condition to check if there are errors on the username field:
submit(this.form, async f => {
...
if (result.status === 'error') {
...
if (result.fieldErrors.username) {
}
}
});
If so, we push an error object into the errors array with the following properties:
field reference (our username field)kind which is a unique category for these messages (we'll call it "server")message to display
submit(this.form, async f => {
...
if (result.status === 'error') {
...
if (result.fieldErrors.username) {
errors.push({
field: f.username,
kind: 'server',
message: result.fieldErrors.username,
});
}
}
});
Let's do the same for email:
submit(this.form, async f => {
...
if (result.status === 'error') {
...
if (result.fieldErrors.email) {
errors.push({
field: f.email,
kind: 'server',
message: result.fieldErrors.email,
});
}
}
});
Now comes the key decision point.
If we have errors we return them, if not we return undefined:
submit(this.form, async f => {
...
if (result.status === 'error') {
...
return errors.length ? errors : undefined;
}
});
Returning errors tells Angular: "Do not submit the form, surface these errors instead."
Returning undefined tells Angular: "Everything's good. The form submitted successfully."
Now we need to wire up our new onSubmit method in the template.
The main thing we need to do is add the submit event handler to the form element:
<form (submit)="onSubmit($event)">
...
</form>
This connects the native form submit to our custom handler.
At this point, we're good to go.
Our form should submit properly.
But there are a few small adjustments we should make to the submit button to make it more useful to the end user.
For one, we should make the button disabled while the form is submitting to prevent multiple submissions while we communicate with the server.
With Signal Forms, this is easy.
We just need to use the submitting property:
<button
type="submit"
[disabled]="form.invalid() || form.submitting()">
...
</button>
Then let’s also use this to swap out the button label during this period as well:
<button
type="submit"
[disabled]="form.invalid() || form.submitting()">
...
@if (form.submitting()) {
Creating...
} @else {
Create account
}
</button>
Now the button will be disabled during submission and show "Creating..." instead of "Create account".
Let's test the complete flow.
When we click into and blur the fields, the client validation still works:
Now let's enter values that pass client validation but fail server validation:
The client errors disappear because the form is technically valid based on the required and minLength validators in our Signal Form.
The button is now enabled, so let's try to submit the form.
Nice! The button is disabled and the label changes to "Creating..." while we communicate with the mock server:
And there we go! Server validation errors appear in the same UI as client validation:
The form didn't submit successfully because we returned errors.
We can see this because there's nothing logged to the console after the form submission:
With the submit() function, Angular internally knows when the form submits successfully.
We don't need to do anything separate to handle it.
Let's add a valid username and email and try again:
Perfect! This time the form actually submitted the data.
Here's the complete component code:
import { ChangeDetectionStrategy, Component, inject, signal } from '@angular/core';
import { CommonModule } from '@angular/common';
import { Field, form, minLength, required, submit, ValidationError } from '@angular/forms/signals';
import { SignupModel, SignupService } from './signup.service';
@Component({
selector: 'app-form',
imports: [CommonModule, Field],
templateUrl: './form.component.html',
styleUrl: './form.component.scss',
changeDetection: ChangeDetectionStrategy.OnPush,
})
export class FormComponent {
protected readonly model = signal<SignupModel>({
username: '',
email: '',
});
protected readonly form = form(this.model, s => {
required(s.username, { message: 'Please enter a username' });
minLength(s.username, 3,
{ message: 'Your username must be at least 3 characters' });
required(s.email, { message: 'Please enter an email address' });
});
private readonly signupService = inject(SignupService);
protected onSubmit(event: Event) {
event.preventDefault();
submit(this.form, async f => {
const value = f().value();
const result = await this.signupService.signup(value);
if (result.status === 'error') {
const errors: ValidationError.WithOptionalField[] = [];
if (result.fieldErrors.username) {
errors.push({
field: f.username,
kind: 'server',
message: result.fieldErrors.username,
});
}
if (result.fieldErrors.email) {
errors.push({
field: f.email,
kind: 'server',
message: result.fieldErrors.email,
});
}
return errors.length ? errors : undefined;
}
console.log('Submitted:', value);
return undefined;
});
}
}
And the template:
<div class="form-container">
<h2>Sign up</h2>
<form (submit)="onSubmit($event)">
<div class="field">
<label for="username">Username</label>
<input
id="username"
type="text"
[field]="form.username" />
@if (form.username().touched() && form.username().invalid()) {
<ul class="error-list">
@for (err of form.username().errors(); track $index) {
<li>{{ err.message }}</li>
}
</ul>
}
</div>
<div class="field">
<label for="email">Email</label>
<input
id="email"
type="email"
[field]="form.email" />
@if (form.email().touched() && form.email().invalid()) {
<ul class="error-list">
@for (err of form.email().errors(); track $index) {
<li>{{ err.message }}</li>
}
</ul>
}
</div>
<div class="actions">
<button type="submit" [disabled]="form.invalid() || form.submitting()">
@if (form.submitting()) {
Creating…
} @else {
Create account
}
</button>
</div>
</form>
</div>
This is why the new submit() API matters.
It gives you:
submitting() signal tracks submission statusIt kind of "completes" the Signal Forms story.
If you're building real Angular apps for the future, this is going to be the pattern you want.
Want to experiment with submit()? The integration is straightforward once you understand how it works.
If you have any questions or spot improvements to this approach, please leave a comment.
2026-01-02 15:59:05
Looking for the best HRMS for distributed teams? I’ve spent more than 60 hours evaluating the top platforms that help global teams thrive, from hiring and onboarding to payroll, compliance, and document management. Drawing from my own hands-on use and experience in building HR solutions over the last five years, this guide brings you the tools that actually make remote work easier - and flags the ones that cause more headaches than help.
Disclaimer: Parts of this content were created using AI assistance and may include businesses I'm associated with.
Have you come across an incredible HRMS that isn’t on this list, or have a story to share about your experience with one? I’d love to hear from you.
I wanted this comparison to be practical and fair for anyone running or joining a distributed team. Here’s my approach:
Modern, straightforward, and built for convenience.
The setup on TFY is about as close to instant as possible. The dashboard is neat, and I could start real tasks quickly after sign-up. Rather than overload me with features or trip me up with confusion, it nails the balance of capability and ease.
With TFY, you get a single place to hire, manage, and pay employees, contractors, and vendors legally and efficiently in more than 184 countries. They keep the focus on security, fast onboarding, and global simplicity.
Contractor & Vendor Management System (VMS) / Agent of Record (AOR): From £5 per active contractor, plus a 1.5% fee on payments. Features include onboarding, bulk payment, compliance, e-signature contracts, integrations, and reporting. Their AI-ATS is free for nonprofits and charities. No mandatory long-term contracts.
Wide international options, with occasional usability challenges.
Deel is hard to beat if you need payroll and compliance covered in a huge list of countries - they support 130+ markets and offer both EOR and contractor management. But the everyday experience can be challenging. I found the interface slow at times, the learning curve steep, and the help resources less than stellar.
There’s no real free trial; only a limited demo is available.
Loaded with tools, but more complex than it needs to be.
Papaya Global packs in some serious country coverage (over 160) and strong compliance support. There are payroll and EOR services for every scenario, but I had a tough time with their dense dashboard and hands-off onboarding. Often, I’d have to look up help docs or contact support just to complete routine tasks.
Excellent country reach, but could be easier to use.
Remote handles EOR in 170+ countries, offers automated contractor processes, and manages payroll, benefits, and integrations. While their coverage is extensive, I found the platform's design a little outdated and the workflows more complex than necessary. Customer support does not always respond quickly, something many users pointed out.
No true free trial, just a basic demo.
Biggest reach, but not the simplest tool in practice.
Pebl (previously Velocity Global) touts payroll, EOR, benefits, and compliance in more than 185 countries. They use AI to speed up onboarding and support, and offer many integrations. In reality, the user experience is complicated, with a tough login process and confusing navigation. Support can also be a gamble.
Pebl doesn’t show pricing publicly. Past users report custom quotes can be expensive, especially with complex compliance. No meaningful free trial exists.
Great on paper, but onboarding and support are a challenge.
Safeguard Global is designed for enterprise-level global teams, with coverage for 187 countries and full contractor/employee management. It connects to popular HCM and ERP tools. While their Global Unity platform packs a lengthy features list, the onboarding is not straightforward, and delays with support and payments are common. Users report that the offboarding process especially causes headaches.
Take a look at Safeguard Global.
Pay per contractor: Starts at $10/person/month for smaller teams, drops to $5 for 11 or more. Billing is monthly. No free trial, just a guided demo.
A provider with reach, but not the smoothest for everyday use.
G-P can help your team hire in over 180 countries with EOR plus full compliance and contractor management. There are dedicated experts for legal advice in tough markets. Yet, the platform feels behind the curve on design, and customer support doesn’t always keep pace.
Most EOR packages fall between $599–$999 per employee/month depending on the country and team size. Contractor rates begin at $39 per contractor/month. G-P Prime (for extra support and planning) will be even higher. There is no trial available.
Easy contracts and global support, but still has operational kinks.
Multiplier gives you hiring, onboarding, payroll, and compliance in 150+ countries without creating your own entity. Contracts are drafted instantly, and their pricing is flat and upfront. While the concept is strong, a few processes remain manual, analytics are limited, and sometimes support can take a while, especially for tricky problems.
No free trial, demo available on request. Billing available in several major currencies.
All the EOR services you need, but not built for quick starts.
Atlas offers EOR across 160+ countries, with international payroll, compliance management, onboarding, and big-picture consulting. This platform is clearly built for large organizations looking for deep assurance as they expand. However, many processes are stuck in legacy workflows, with a lot of required communication and unclear costs.
No public pricing - tailored for each case, usually suited for larger enterprises.
Strong global reach, but processes are heavy and support is slow.
Omnipresent enables hiring in over 160 countries, takes care of contracts, payroll, and legal needs as your EOR. Their integrations cover more than 100 third-party tools. But things can feel slow: both in customer service responses and in rolling out changes or getting answers to urgent payroll questions.
Choosing the best HRMS for distributed teams is hard. A lot of platforms are either too technical, too basic, or just unreliable if you’re managing a global workforce. Many promise seamless remote processes, but some will slow you down or surprise you with costs.
During my deep dive, TFY stood out as a clear winner because it gets the basics right and still offers the advanced features needed for a distributed team. It’s intuitive, brings together everything you need - from global hiring to payroll, onboarding, automation, and compliance - and keeps their pricing and operations transparent.
Distributed teams need tools that keep things simple and flexible, without sacrificing legal or financial security. Based on my tests, TFY really delivers on that promise. It’s your best bet for a streamlined, all-in-one HRMS that helps you focus on team success across borders, not on wrestling with a complicated platform.
2026-01-02 15:58:20
Staring at a blank screen? AI tools promise to spit out words that don't suck. But most deliver robot drivel that screams "fake." These five cut through the noise raw, fast, human-ish. No fluff. Just tools that actually write like you mean it.
Walter Writes AI grabs your clunky AI draft and humanizes it. Dodges detectors like Originality.ai with 90% success. Rebuilds sentences. Kills repetition. Users cut editing time in half, watch bounce rates drop.
Hoppy Copy nails emails. Generates sales pitches, newsletters in seconds. Spam checker built in. Converts blogs to tweets, emails to texts. Marketers swear by its speed content that lands in inboxes, not junk.
GravityWrite packs 250+ tools. Blogs, ads, social posts. AI humanizer makes it undetectable. Streamlined for bloggers: title to full post in minutes. Freelancers love the variety no more blank page hell.
Wordhero churns unlimited words. Blog ideas, video scripts, sales copy. SEO baked in, no plagiarism. Fast outputs, modern UI. Ditches writer's block for pros pumping daily content.
AImReply owns email replies. Chrome extension pops suggestions. Tones, lengths, 16 languages. Cuts composition time, keeps your voice. Busy pros automate FAQs without sounding canned.
These aren't magic. Feed them crap prompts, get crap back. But prompt smart like "write a sarcastic hook for Pakistani freelancers dodging deadlines" and they shine. Walter Writes turns raw AI into gold I've tested endlessly. As I often explain on my main platform https://beyondtools.io/, layering human tweaks seals the deal.
GravityWrite's workflow? Title drops, outline spits, article flows. Dark truth: AI detectors evolve, but this one's humanizer holds up in 2025 tests. Hoppy Copy's templates feel cheeky, perfect for bold hooks that convert.
Wordhero's unlimited gen means no burnout. AImReply? Game changer for global hustlers juggling Karachi time zones and client whines.
Dark side: Over rely, your voice vanishes. Blend AI with your edge sarcasm, local flavor. I've broken this down in detail on Beyond Tools' official site for real world hacks.
Scale content without selling your soul? These tools let you. Raw honesty: They're crutches, not replacements. Use 'em to amplify your raw take.
Which of these beasts saves your next deadline or have you ditched AI for pen and paper?
2026-01-02 15:54:48
🛡️Exam Guide: Cloud Practitioner
Domain 2: Security & Compliance
📘Task Statement 2.2
You need to understand how AWS and customers address:
Governance: policies, controls, and oversight to ensure AWS use aligns with business goals and risk tolerance.
Compliance: meeting legal/regulatory/industry requirements (e.g., POPIA, HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR).
AWS provides a compliant cloud foundation, but you must configure and use services in a compliant way (shared responsibility).
AWS Artifact is the go-to place for on-demand compliance reports and agreements, such as:
“Where do you download AWS compliance reports?” → AWS Artifact.
For understanding which programs AWS supports and general compliance guidance (across Regions/industries), use AWS Compliance resources.
“Where do you learn about AWS compliance programs by industry/region?” → AWS Compliance.
Compliance requirements commonly differ by:
Some frameworks require controls like encryption, logging, retention, and access auditing.
Some programs (e.g., HIPAA) have eligible services lists, so compliance can depend on which AWS services you choose.
Know the purpose of these services:
Protects data while moving across networks.
Protects stored data (e.g., on disks, in databases, in object storage).
If the question or scenario says “protect data moving between client and AWS,” choose encryption in transit. If it says “stored in S3/EBS/database,” choose encryption at rest.
Security and compliance rely heavily on logging. Know what each log type records and where it typically ends up.
“Audit API activity” → CloudTrail.
“Monitor and alert on logs/metrics” → CloudWatch.
“Track configuration history and drift” → AWS Config.
Recognize which tools align to monitoring, auditing, and reporting:
Helps continuously gather evidence and map it to common compliance frameworks, reducing manual audit effort.