Guys! What’s the best way to gather early adopters to evaluate new dev tool that literally just killed REST, gRPC, Thrift, SignalR, DAPR and GraalVM in one shot? The concept is to shift away from writing code to expose any business logic in any specific integration strategy like create REST controllers or provide proto interfaces or expose via subscription to queue events as well as avoid implementing the integration-specific client code to call that rest or gRPC endpoint. Instead of that the question comes when I call “zip” module from Nuget in .net I just use its public methods and handle exceptions. Why if I want to use it remotely I should expose the same method via REST, map it to routes, strange parameters, http codes and next call that on other end? Wy I cannot just say it will be on this remote node so whenever I ca that method to “unzip” my intention just travel over network and execute there? The potential solution is to bridge runtimes on native level. Think of it like intercepting developer intention at abstract syntax tree so when you perform operation in code before it gets executed and just send it to the remote runtime fulfill job there and return result. Wouldn’t be beautiful if you could just call methods of any module regardless if it’s same tech or different and regardless of its in memory or remotely? Just by calling methods? I know I know there are isolation interfaces etc… but if you apply those concepts design facade properly, decide what should be public, and allow to attach to those calls any headers (to still support JWT, NTLM, api Keys etc) and will add support that if method is static it goes stateless if it’s instance it goes stateful with sticky session and give the DevOps ability to change channel between WebSocket, http/2, tcp/ip or any message bus without touching code as it will be just pure method code. It could really work. Think of it. How clean your codebase would be, how much more design would fit your original uml, how much l

O Event Loop é o mecanismo responsável por decidir quando callbacks e continuidades de operações assíncronas devem ser executados. Ele não executa operações de I/O diretamente, mas organiza a ordem em que elas retornam para o JavaScript. Essa arquitetura permite que o Node.js mantenha uma única thread de execução para JavaScript, enquanto delega operações de rede, disco e sistema operacional para componentes especializados do runtime e do próprio sistema operacional. Início Quando iniciamos um processo Node.js, o runtime carrega o arquivo de entrada da aplicação e executa todo o código síncrono disponível na Call Stack. Somente após essa etapa o Event Loop passa a assumir o controle do fluxo da aplicação, verificando continuamente quais callbacks estão prontos para execução. │ timers │ └─────────────┬─────────────┘ │ v ┌───────────────────────────┐ ┌─>│ pending callbacks │ │ └─────────────┬─────────────┘ │ ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐ │ │ idle, prepare │ │ └─────────────┬─────────────┘ ┌───────────────┐ │ ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐ │ incoming: │ │ │ poll │<─────┤ connections, │ │ └─────────────┬─────────────┘ │ data, etc. │ │ ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐ └───────────────┘ │ │ check │ │ └─────────────┬─────────────┘ │ ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐ │ │ close callbacks │ │ └─────────────┬─────────────┘ │ ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐ └──┤ timers │ └───────────────────────────┘ Trecho retirado da documentação principal. Sobre o Event Loop Durante muito tempo tratei o Event Loop como um dos conceitos mais complexos do Node.js. Depois de estudar a documentação oficial com mais calma, percebi que a dificuldade não está no Event Loop em si, mas na quantidade de conceitos diferentes que normalmente são apresentados ao mesmo tempo: libuv, Call Stack, Promises, Microtasks, Sistema Operacional e I/O. Quando isolamos o papel do Event Loop, ele se torna surpreendentemente simples. Definindo os passos e apresentando o iceberg 🧊 O Event Loop não executa trabalho. Ele agenda tr

Build Governed, Grounded, and Trustworthy Data Agents Discussion | Link

Make the world's documents computable Discussion | Link

Apple is planning to raise prices in response to the ongoing memory shortage. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Apple CEO Tim Cook says "price increases are unavoidable:" We're doing our best to mitigate the huge increases that are being passed to us, and we've been trying to shield our customers from the […]

3x Mobile Automation. Same QE Team. Discussion | Link

Most dashboard icon problems do not come from bad icons. They come from good icons used with the wrong meaning. You search for users , pick a clean SVG icon, place it in the sidebar, and move on. Then later you need another icon for: Customers Team members Account owners Permissions Audiences Invited users Admins Suddenly, the same “user” metaphor has to carry too many meanings. That is where SaaS dashboards often start to feel noisy. Not because the icons are ugly. Not because the SVGs are technically wrong. Not because the design system is broken. Because the icon choices were made by keyword instead of meaning. Keyword search is only the first step Most developers choose icons like this: Need an icon for billing? Search billing . Need an icon for users? Search users . Need an icon for analytics? Search chart . Need an icon for settings? Search settings . That works for finding candidates. But it does not solve the real UI problem. A keyword tells you what the icon is related to. It does not tell you what the icon means in your product. For example, search for settings . You might find: A gear Sliders A wrench Control knobs A preferences panel A tune icon They all match the keyword. But they do not say the same thing. A gear usually means global settings. Sliders suggest adjustable preferences or filters. A wrench feels technical or maintenance-oriented. Control knobs suggest fine tuning. A panel icon may suggest a configuration screen. The same keyword can point to different mental models. And in a dashboard, mental models matter more than decorative accuracy. SaaS dashboards are meaning-dense interfaces A marketing website can sometimes get away with decorative icons. A SaaS dashboard cannot. Dashboards are dense. They contain navigation, actions, status indicators, tables, filters, empty states, permissions, billing screens, integrations, reports, and settings. Users do not look at each icon in isolation. They scan. They compare. They move quickly. They expect

Dialogue management is the process of tracking conversational state and deciding what an agent should say or do next. Classical systems split this into isolated modules: natural language understanding, dialogue state tracking, a policy engine, and response generation. Large language models can collapse these boundaries into a single inference step, but doing so reliably requires careful architecture choices. This article examines practical patterns for using LLMs as dialogue managers, with a focus on structured reasoning, tool use, and cost-efficient inference. What Is LLM Dialogue Management? An LLM-based dialogue manager treats conversation as a partially observable decision process where the model itself reasons over history, user intent, and available actions. Instead of hand-written rules or separate slot taggers, the model receives the full transcript, a system prompt defining the task, and optionally a schema of tools it can invoke. The model then emits either natural language or structured JSON representing the next system action. This approach excels in open-domain or rapidly changing domains where maintaining a rigid ontology is impractical. Architecture Patterns for LLM-Based Dialogue Most production implementations fall into one of four patterns. The right choice depends on how much control you need over state transitions and how willing you are to trade complexity for flexibility. End-to-end generation. The LLM receives the full chat history and outputs the next response. It works well for unstructured chit-chat but can hallucinate state or ignore business rules without additional guardrails. Structured state extraction. The LLM is prompted to output a JSON object representing dialogue state, such as slots, user intent, and confirmed facts. A lightweight policy layer reads this state to decide whether to ask a question, call an API, or close the task. This separates reasoning from control and makes debugging easier. Tool-augmented manager. The LLM uses

Texto com base no livro "Manual de DevOps" WIP significa "Work In Progress". É uma métrica essencial que representa a quantidade de trabalho iniciado, mas ainda não concluído. Na prática, ela ajuda a entender quantos tickets, tarefas, histórias ou demandas estão sendo executados simultaneamente pelo time. WIP Alto (Ruim) Time com 5 pessoas 20 histórias abertas Todos pegam várias tarefas ao mesmo tempo Dezenas de branches simultâneas Dezenas de PRs simultâneos WIP Baixo (Bom) Time com 5 pessoas Apenas 5 histórias abertas Cada pessoa trabalhando em uma tarefa por vez O time termina as tarefas antes de começar outras Menor Lead Time Essa métrica é essencial para uma boa estratégia de DevOps, além de ser um baita indicador para a saúde do projeto ou da companhia. Quanto maior o WIP: Maior troca de contexto Mais conflitos de merge Mais difícil rastrear e validar as entregas Maior "latência" no tempo de aprovação dos PRs Se seu time está começando muitas frentes e terminando poucas demandas, você está com um WIP alto, e isso afeta diretamente a qualidade das entregas e a qualidade de vida das pessoas. Sei que WIP aparece bastante nos princípios Lean, porém ainda não li o suficiente sobre o tema para me aprofundar nele.

FIFA Hack Authentication Flaw, Chrome Ad Blocker End, AI Supply Chain Security Today's Highlights Today's top security news covers a critical real-world authentication vulnerability, significant changes impacting browser privacy and ad blockers, and evolving national security concerns in the AI supply chain. I Could've Rickrolled the Entire FIFA World Cup. All I Needed Was My ID (Lobste.rs) Source: https://bobdahacker.com/blog/fifa-hack This article likely details a critical security vulnerability discovered within the systems managing the FIFA World Cup, potentially related to event access, public displays, or digital infrastructure. The phrasing "All I Needed Was My ID" strongly suggests an authentication or authorization flaw, perhaps involving an ID card or digital credential that was overly permissive or could be easily cloned/spoofed. The ability to "Rickroll the Entire FIFA World Cup" implies a widespread display or broadcast system was vulnerable, allowing an attacker to inject unauthorized content. This incident highlights the paramount importance of robust identity and access management, especially for high-profile events with extensive digital and physical infrastructure. It serves as a stark reminder for developers and security teams to conduct thorough penetration testing and review access controls for edge cases and potential over-privileges in all systems, from backend APIs to physical access credentials, to prevent widespread exploitation. Comment: This showcases how seemingly minor authentication oversights can lead to massive public exposure, urging developers to scrutinize ID-based access controls for edge cases and over-privileges. Google Chrome's next update will mark the end of popular ad blockers (Lobste.rs) Source: https://9to5google.com/2026/06/15/google-chromes-next-update-will-mark-the-end-of-popular-ad-blockers/ Google Chrome's upcoming Manifest V3 update is poised to significantly restrict the capabilities of many popular content blocker

LLM Fallback in Production, Agentic eCommerce, and GitHub Copilot for Parallel Agents Today's Highlights This week highlights practical applications and architectural considerations for AI frameworks, focusing on robust LLM deployments and agent orchestration. We cover building resilient multi-provider LLM systems, leveraging agents for dynamic e-commerce, and GitHub's new desktop app for managing parallel AI agent workflows. How I built a 3-provider LLM fallback system in production (and what actually broke) (Dev.to Top) Source: https://dev.to/ayush_notsogreat_b673d5/how-i-built-a-3-provider-llm-fallback-system-in-production-and-what-actually-broke-46jk This article details the implementation of a robust LLM fallback system designed for production environments, addressing the common challenge of provider reliability and API rate limits. The author shares practical insights gained from building Socra, an application reliant on multiple LLM providers. The core of the system involves orchestrating requests across three different LLM APIs, ensuring that if one fails or encounters issues, the system seamlessly switches to an alternative without disrupting the user experience. The piece delves into the specific architectural decisions made to achieve this, including strategies for managing API keys, handling varying response formats, and implementing intelligent retry mechanisms. It also transparently discusses unexpected failures and critical lessons learned during the system's deployment, offering invaluable advice on anticipating real-world production issues beyond theoretical design. This practical guide provides a blueprint for developers seeking to build more resilient and fault-tolerant LLM-powered applications, crucial for maintaining high availability and consistent performance in AI workflows. Comment: Implementing multi-provider LLM fallbacks is essential for production-grade reliability; this article provides practical architecture and lessons from real-world

I recently calibrated a recovery-rate model that had only two weak features. Its point accuracy was almost nothing — R² basically zero. I expected its uncertainty estimates to be junk too. They weren't: the 90% conformal prediction intervals covered ~89% of held-out outcomes. Valid, just wide . That surprised me enough to nail it down, because it contradicts a belief a lot of us carry around: "my model isn't accurate, so I can't trust its uncertainty." For split conformal prediction, that's backwards. Here's the precise statement, a runnable demo, and the one caveat that actually bites. Coverage is a property of the procedure, not the model Split conformal prediction gives a distribution-free, finite-sample marginal coverage guarantee : P( Y ∈ Ĉ(X) ) ≥ 1 − α and it holds for any point model, as long as the calibration and test data are exchangeable. The model is a black box. You fit it however you like, then on a held-out calibration set you take the (1−α) quantile of the absolute residuals, and that quantile becomes the half-width of your intervals. Nowhere does that construction require the model to be good. A bad model just has large residuals, so the calibration quantile is large, so the intervals are wide — wide enough to still cover at the stated rate. Accuracy doesn't buy you validity ; it buys you efficiency (narrower intervals at the same coverage). The demo (numbers are reproducible, seed fixed) Same dataset and target, three models from strong to useless, target coverage 90%: model R² marginal coverage mean interval width gradient boosting 0.741 0.895 5.39 weak linear (1 noisy feature) 0.061 0.905 10.39 predict-the-mean −0.000 0.907 10.83 All three land at ~90% coverage. The only thing that changes is width: the good model's intervals are half as wide . That's the whole story in one table — validity is constant, efficiency tracks accuracy. import numpy as np from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingReg

Certifications help when they match a role and are backed by proof — not as a scoreboard. The problem Beginners are told certifications are the key to IT, so they buy the most popular one, pass it, and are surprised when interviews still go badly. A certificate proves you can pass an exam; it does not, on its own, prove you can do the job. Why this matters now Certifications remain useful signals, and official providers like CompTIA, Microsoft, AWS, Cisco and Google keep their exam objectives public and current. But as AI makes it easier to grind practice questions, employers lean harder on whether you can actually apply the knowledge. The value of a certificate is increasingly in what you can demonstrate alongside it. There is also a cost reality. Exams, courses and retakes add up in money and time, and career changers usually have limited amounts of both. Spending three months and a chunk of savings on a certificate that no target role actually asks for is one of the most common and most avoidable mistakes in an IT transition — which is exactly why the order you choose them in matters. The practical framework Use certifications as targeted evidence, not as a scoreboard. Three rules: Match objectives to a job. Open the certification's published objectives next to a real job description. Overlap means it is relevant; no overlap means it is a hobby. Prove the same skills in practice. For each major objective, build one small artefact that shows you can do it, not just recall it. Stop at enough. One well-chosen, well-demonstrated certification beats three unrelated ones. Sequence them to roles, not to availability. Which one first? Let the target role decide, not the brand with the loudest marketing. As a rough guide: a vendor-neutral foundation (such as CompTIA A+ for general IT support, or Network+/Security+ as you specialise) suits broad support roles; a cloud-fundamentals exam (Microsoft Azure or AWS) suits cloud-leaning roles; Cisco-flavoured paths suit networkin

Chi-Hua Chien has spent more than two decades as a venture capitalist, but he thinks like a cultural anthropologist.