NAACP lawsuit says xAI uses gas turbines without permits for Grok data center.

Partner tells Ars that HPE should be giving out more free VM Essentials licenses.

In the coming weeks, Apple will move anonymously generated emails addresses to a different domain.

Powerful computer built into lightweight see-through glasses Discussion | Link

The funny-sounding name offers new insights into galaxy formation.

Introduction Dans le cadre de mon apprentissage des pratiques DevOps modernes, j’ai conçu et implémenté un pipeline CI/CD (Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment) capable de déployer automatiquement une application web frontend sur deux environnements de production distincts : Vercel et GitHub Pages . Cette mission constitue une application concrète des concepts fondamentaux du DevOps, notamment l’automatisation des processus, la réduction des interventions manuelles et la mise en place d’une chaîne de livraison logicielle fiable et reproductible. Tableau comparatif des plateformes Dans ce projet, le déploiement sur les deux plateformes n’est pas un doublon mais une démarche pédagogique et technique délibérée permettant de tester la flexibilité de l'orchestrateur. Voici comment elles se comparent : Critère GitHub Pages Vercel Hébergement Statique uniquement Statique + SSR + Serverless Domaine gratuit username.github.io projet.vercel.app CI/CD intégré Via GitHub Actions Natif + GitHub Actions Performance Bonne Excellente (Edge Network) Previews PR Non Oui (automatique) Gratuit Oui (illimité) Oui (avec limites) Cas d’usage Portfolios, docs Apps React/Next.js, SaaS ⚠️ Le problème du double déploiement : Laisser Vercel en mode automatique génère un conflit critique avec GitHub Actions. Pour éviter que deux builds s'exécutent en parallèle, j'ai désactivé le déploiement natif de Vercel en ajoutant un fichier vercel.json à la racine contenant "git": { "deploymentEnabled": false } . Le pipeline complet — deploy.yml Voici le code source du fichier de configuration de l'orchestrateur GitHub Actions ( .github/workflows/deploy.yml ). Ce script gère séquentiellement l'installation, le build et la publication vers nos deux cibles : name : CI/CD -- Deploy to Vercel & GitHub Pages # Declenchement : uniquement sur push vers main on : push : branches : - main jobs : build-and-deploy : runs-on : ubuntu-latest permissions : contents : write steps : # Etape 1 : Recuperer le code

Transferring genes across species doesn't just happen in microbes.

There is a comparison that the artificial intelligence industry had kept out of the public conversation until now. Satya Nadella brought it up this Sunday in a post on X that garnered over a thousand responses in just a few hours. The metaphor he used is "industrial offshoring" . Just as the first wave of globalization hollowed out industrial economies, wiping out factory jobs and decades of competitive advantage with consequences we still feel today, artificial intelligence threatens to do the same to corporate knowledge. The Silent Drain of Expertise The mechanism Nadella describes is concrete. If an organization hands over its workflows, its domain knowledge, and the accumulated judgment of its teams to external AI models, those models absorb it. What was once a unique advantage, now could become a generic capability available to everyone. There are no layoffs or plant closures. The hollowing out happens silently, in every usage cycle, in every operation the model records and leverages. Where there was once exclusive know-how, there is now a standard resource. "You can outsource a task, or even a job. But you can never outsource the learning." Microsoft CEO Warns That AI Winners Could Hollow 'Entire Industries' - Business Insider AI models are hoovering up corporate knowledge, and that's leaving one big loser, says Satya Nadella. businessinsider.com The Invisible Asset / The Identity This warning is not directed at employees but at executives. The risk Nadella identifies is not the loss of an individual position, but the erosion of the organisation's collective intellectual property, its processes, and the judgment a team spends years building. To name this, he introduces a term that was not in the business management vocabulary until now: "Token Capital" . This represents the layer of agentic capability that a firm builds and owns when it connects its real workflows with the AI models it uses. It is not software or a database. It is a system that learns with eve

Outro dia, vi nos stories do Instagram uma amiga pesquisadora contando que estava usando o Claude para ressuscitar uma plataforma criada anos antes por parceiros. Ela não é da área de desenvolvimento de software. O projeto estava praticamente parado. Não havia mais recurso para manter tudo como estava. Com a ajuda da IA generativa, ela conseguiu migrar serviços, reduzir custo, melhorar performance, redesenhar partes da experiência e voltar a implementar coisas que estavam no backlog havia muito tempo. Achei aquilo inspirador! Mas também um pouco assustador. Não por ela estar usando IA generativa. Pelo contrário: acho fascinante que pessoas que não programam profissionalmente estejam conseguindo recuperar autonomia sobre projetos que antes ficavam dependentes de verba, disponibilidade de terceiros ou uma fila infinita de prioridades. O ponto que me acendeu uma luz amarela foi outro: em certo momento da conversa ela comentou que o projeto tinha dados de usuários e pagamentos via Stripe . Antes de seguir, uma ressalva: eu não gosto muito do termo "vibe coding" . Vou usar o termo aqui porque ele pegou, e porque todo mundo entende mais ou menos o que ele quer dizer: criar software com muita ajuda de IA generativa, muitas vezes sem dominar profundamente a linguagem, o framework ou a arquitetura por trás do projeto. Mas o termo me incomoda porque parece diminuir a responsabilidade envolvida. Se você está criando código, alterando código e colocando esse código no ar, você é sim uma pessoa desenvolvedora. Talvez iniciante. Talvez insegura. Talvez dependente demais da IA generativa. Talvez uma pessoa desenvolvedora ruim ou medíocre, como todos nós somos em algum recorte. Mas é. E isso traz responsabilidades. Vibe coding em uma página pessoal é uma coisa. Vibe coding em um sistema com login, dados pessoais, áreas administrativas, arquivos, integrações externas ou pagamento é outra. E aqui existe uma tensão interessante. Eu trabalho com desenvolvimento de software há bastante

The promise of agentic AI coding was a tireless partner, an assistant that could take a feature request and run with it while we focused on the hard problems. The reality, for most professional engineering teams, has been different. The reality is a brilliant but distractible intern you have to constantly supervise. The reality is spending 20 minutes writing the "perfect prompt," only for the AI to ignore a critical constraint, use a deprecated pattern from your codebase, and confidently break three other features. The reality is the "babysitting tax." It's the cognitive overhead of constantly reviewing, reverting, and re-explaining. And it's negating the incredible potential of these tools. At BrainGrid, we believe the problem isn't the agent—it's the plan. Or the lack thereof. In our rush to generate code, we've skipped the most critical step: creating a shared, deep, and unambiguous understanding of what we're actually building. "Vibe coding" doesn't work in a multi-tenant system where permissions are non-negotiable, or at least not with peace of mind. It doesn't work in a complex fintech application where money is on the line. And it certainly doesn't work in a four-year-old codebase with layers of tech debt and unwritten rules. The bottleneck in software development is no longer just the speed of writing code. The bottleneck has shifted to the speed of creating a reliable plan. BrainGrid is the AI-powered planning platform built to solve this new bottleneck. It's designed to provide the structure and guidance—the "babysitting plan"—that turns powerful but unreliable coding agents into predictable and effective teammates. Here's how: We Give the Agent a Map BrainGrid starts by deeply analyzing your entire codebase—its architecture, data models, and dependencies. It provides the persistent context that agents desperately need but currently lack. We Help You Define the Destination Our requirements agent acts like a seasoned tech lead, asking you and your team clar

The most important design decision in an email classifier isn't the model — it's the label set, and here's the one I keep coming back to: You triage email into one of four categories: URGENT — production incidents, executive requests; reply within 1 hour ACTION — code reviews, meeting follow-ups; reply same day FYI — informational, no response needed NOISE — newsletters, marketing, automated notifications From: {sender} Subject: {subject} Snippet: {snippet} Return ONLY the category name. Nothing else. That's the working prompt from the Nylas email triage recipe , and almost every line encodes a taxonomy-design lesson worth unpacking. Most people building email agents obsess over model choice and prompt phrasing. The recipe's quiet thesis is that the label set itself does the heavy lifting — get the taxonomy right and a cheap model classifies well; get it wrong and no model saves you. Why four is the magic number The recipe states it flatly: four is the right number. Three loses fidelity — everything important collapses into one overloaded bucket and you've built a binary classifier with extra steps. Five and the model starts confusing categories, because the boundaries between adjacent labels get too thin to express in a definition. Notice what makes these four work. They aren't topics — they're response obligations . URGENT means "reply within the hour," ACTION means "reply today," FYI means "no response needed," NOISE means "archive." Each label maps to exactly one behavior. That's the test I'd apply to any email taxonomy: if two labels lead to the same action, merge them; if one label leads to two different actions depending on content, split it. The same principle shows up in the sales context. The Agent Accounts overview describes an outreach agent classifying replies as interested / not now / unsubscribe — three labels, because the workflow has exactly three branches: book the meeting, schedule a follow-up, stop emailing. The taxonomy is the decision tree, fla

You've built the agent, the reply loop works, the demo lands — and then someone asks the question you didn't budget time for: "so what address does it send from?" Suddenly you're staring at noreply-svc-prod2@yourcompany.com realizing that the first thing every recipient sees isn't your prompt engineering. It's the From line. An agent's email address is an interface. Humans parse it before the subject, mail servers judge it before the body, and spam filters score it before any human sees it at all. Once your agent has a real mailbox — which is what Nylas Agent Accounts (currently in beta) provide — address design becomes a product decision with three layers: the local part, the domain, and the disclosure question. The local part: role beats persona beats hash Take three candidate addresses for the same scheduling agent: scheduling@ — a role. Tells recipients what the mailbox does and implies that emailing it is how you use the service. jane.ai@ — a persona. Friendlier in a sidebar avatar, but it invites recipients to treat the sender as a colleague, with all the expectations that carries. bot-7f3a@ — an artifact. Screams "auto-generated," gets mentally filed next to spam, and gives a human nothing to anchor on. The docs consistently model the first pattern — sales-agent@ , support@ , scheduling@ appear throughout the Agent Accounts overview — and I think that's right for a reason deeper than convention. A role address makes an honest promise about capability: scheduling@ claims it can schedule, nothing more. A persona address makes an implicit promise of general competence that current agents can't keep. When jane.ai@ fails to understand a simple request, it reads as a person being obtuse; when scheduling@ fails, it reads as a tool hitting its limits. Same failure, different trust damage. The overview's framing is worth internalizing: an agent identity should be like any other user in your organization — reachable, persistent, accountable. Address design is how that

Day 1, 4:02 p.m.: a customer asks your agent a billing question and gets an answer. Day 6, 9:30 a.m.: they reply "actually, that didn't work." If your agent lives in a chat widget, that second message starts from zero — the session died with the tab, the context is gone, and the customer gets to repeat themselves. If your agent lives in a mailbox, the reply arrives inside the conversation , with the full history attached by the protocol itself. That's the argument in one before/after: chat sessions evaporate; email threads persist. And for agents that work across days rather than minutes, the thread is the most underrated memory substrate available. The protocol already built your memory layer Email threading runs on three headers, as the threading docs lay out. Every message carries a globally unique Message-ID . A reply adds In-Reply-To (the ID it's answering) and References (the full chain of IDs, oldest to newest). By the time a thread is five messages deep, References holds five Message-IDs in order — a complete, tamper-evident record of the conversation's shape, maintained by every mail client on earth. Compare that to what we hand-roll for chatbots: session stores, conversation tables, context windows we serialize and rehydrate. Email gives you the equivalent for free, federated across organizations, and — this is the part I find most compelling — human-auditable . Anyone with mailbox access can read exactly what the agent's memory contains, because the memory is the correspondence itself. No vector store inspection tools required. With Nylas Agent Accounts (in beta), the agent owns the mailbox where this accrues, and you never parse headers by hand. The Threads API groups messages by their header chain; each thread object gives you ordered message_ids , participants , and activity timestamps. When a reply fires message.created , the payload includes a thread_id — fetch the thread, walk its messages, and the agent has its full conversational past before decid

A human assistant borrows the boss's calendar; a scheduling bot owns its own. That one difference dissolves most of what makes calendar automation miserable. The borrowed-calendar model is how nearly every scheduling tool works today: connect to a person's Google or Microsoft account via OAuth, request calendar scopes, and act on their behalf. It works, but the seams show everywhere. The human's calendar fills with bookings the bot manages. Delegation permissions vary by provider and admin policy. Tokens expire when the person changes their password or leaves the company. And the bot has no address of its own — every invite, every confirmation email, appears to come from a person who didn't write it. Nylas Agent Accounts (currently in beta) invert this. Each account is a real mailbox and a real calendar , provisioned automatically, owned by your application. From a participant's perspective there's nothing special about it — it's just another attendee on the invite. What "owning availability" actually changes When the bot's calendar is its own, availability stops being a permissions question and becomes a query. The agent calls the free/busy endpoint against its own primary calendar, gets back busy blocks for a time window, and proposes open slots. No delegation, no scopes negotiation, no "the admin needs to approve calendar sharing for service accounts." The scheduling-agent tutorial wires the whole loop: a meeting request lands at scheduling@agents.yourcompany.com , a message.created webhook fires, an LLM parses duration and timezone, the agent checks its own free/busy and replies with 3 candidate slots. When the human picks one, the agent creates the event: curl --request POST \ --url "https://api.us.nylas.com/v3/grants/<GRANT_ID>/events?calendar_id=primary&notify_participants=true" \ --header "Authorization: Bearer <NYLAS_API_KEY>" \ --header "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{ "title": "Product demo", "when": { "start_time": 1744387200, "end_time": 174

When was the last time you deleted an email account on purpose? For most teams the answer is never, and that tells you something. We treat mailboxes the way we treated servers in 2008: hand-built, carefully named, kept alive indefinitely because recreating one is painful. They're pets. Meanwhile every other piece of our infrastructure — compute, queues, databases — became cattle: numbered, provisioned by code, destroyed without sentiment when the job ends. Email is finally catching up. With Nylas Agent Accounts (in beta), a mailbox is created with one call and destroyed with another, and that symmetry is the whole point. The full lifecycle in two commands Provisioning, from the CLI: nylas agent account create signup-agent@agents.yourdomain.com Or via POST /v3/connect/custom with "provider": "nylas" — no OAuth, no refresh token, just an address on a domain you've registered. Teardown is equally unceremonious: nylas agent account delete signup-agent@agents.yourdomain.com --yes (The API equivalent is a DELETE on the grant.) The signup automation recipe treats this as a loop: provision a fresh inbox, point a third-party signup form at it, catch the verification email through a message.created webhook, follow the confirmation link, delete the grant. No human inbox involved at any step, and nothing left behind. The middle of that loop is about twenty lines of webhook handler, and the recipe's version filters hard before acting — right grant, right sender, right URL shape: const { grant_id , id : messageId , from } = event . data . object ; if ( grant_id !== AGENT_GRANT_ID ) return ; const sender = from [ 0 ]?. email ?? "" ; if ( ! sender . endsWith ( " @saas-you-care-about.example.com " )) return ; const match = /https: \/\/ saas-you-care-about \. example \. com \/ confirm \? token= [^ " \s < ] +/ . exec ( message . body , ); if ( match ) await fetch ( match [ 0 ]); Nylas fires message.created within a second or two of mail arriving, so the whole signup round-trip typical