Expressive TTS with voice cloning in 15 languages Discussion | Link

LLM Cost Attribution with OTel, Next.js for AI Agents, LLM Security Testing Today's Highlights This week, we delve into practical strategies for managing LLM costs in production using OpenTelemetry and explore Next.js 16.2's new tooling for building AI agent frontends. We also examine an experiment on LLMs' ability to exploit application vulnerabilities, emphasizing security in applied AI. Per-project LLM cost attribution with OTel spans: the wiring (Dev.to Top) Source: https://dev.to/jasmine_park_dev/per-project-llm-cost-attribution-with-otel-spans-the-wiring-3897 This article details a practical approach to attributing Large Language Model (LLM) costs to specific teams or projects within an organization. Facing a common problem of LLM bills appearing as a single line item, the author describes how to implement granular cost tracking using OpenTelemetry (OTel) spans. The core idea involves instrumenting the LLM gateway to tag every request span with relevant metadata like team.id and llm.model_name . This allows for detailed reporting and chargebacks, enabling organizations to understand and manage their LLM expenditure effectively. The implementation focuses on "the wiring" behind this system, leveraging OTel for observability. By attaching custom attributes to spans, teams can aggregate usage data by project, department, or even specific application features. This moves beyond opaque cloud invoices to actionable insights, a crucial step for companies scaling their AI adoption and seeking to optimize resource allocation and financial accountability for generative AI services. The article provides a blueprint for integrating this mechanism into existing LLM infrastructure. Comment: Setting up OTel spans for LLM cost attribution is a game-changer for production environments, finally giving us visibility into who's spending what on which models. This technique is essential for scaling LLM applications sustainably. Next.js 16.2: Deeper Tooling for AI Agents (InfoQ) So

SQLite Optimizer Deep Dive, Change-Set Internals & Azure PostgreSQL Architecture Today's Highlights This week, we explore SQLite's query planner optimizations, delve into a critical flag for change-set replication, and dissect the architectural choices behind Azure's managed PostgreSQL. These insights offer valuable perspectives on performance, data integrity, and cloud database deployment strategies. Extend "Omit OUTER JOIN" optimization to COUNT(*) (SQLite Forum) Source: https://sqlite.org/forum/info/b949c721db6f0289104db944d6a7e3bbb94b7770915c42e5ae89f67fe6be6d84 A recent discussion on the SQLite forum highlights a potential enhancement to SQLite's query optimizer regarding OUTER JOIN clauses combined with COUNT(*) . Currently, SQLite can sometimes omit an OUTER JOIN if it determines that the LEFT JOIN semantics are not required for the query result, for instance, when only columns from the left table are selected. The proposed extension seeks to apply this optimization even when COUNT(*) is used, which can be more complex due to the way COUNT(*) inherently handles NULLs from unmatched rows. This optimization is crucial for improving the performance of analytical queries that often involve counting records across joined tables. By intelligently removing unnecessary OUTER JOIN operations, SQLite can reduce the amount of data processed and improve query execution times. Developers often encounter scenarios where they use LEFT JOIN out of caution, but if the optimizer can determine it's effectively an INNER JOIN for the given projection, significant speedups are possible. This discussion delves into the intricacies of the query planner's logic, revealing how subtle changes can lead to substantial performance gains in real-world applications. Understanding these internal mechanisms allows developers to write more efficient SQL and anticipate SQLite's behavior. Comment: This directly impacts how efficiently SQLite executes analytical queries, making it vital for anyon

NousResearch Agent, Open-Source Notebook LM, & Local Multimodal OCR for Consumer GPUs Today's Highlights Today's highlights feature new open-source tools empowering local AI inference and deployment, including an adaptive agent from NousResearch, a self-hostable AI-powered notebook, and a lightweight multimodal OCR solution. These practical GitHub trending projects enable developers to build and run advanced AI applications directly on consumer hardware. NousResearch Unveils Hermes Agent for Adaptive Local AI (GitHub Trending) Source: https://github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent NousResearch, a prominent contributor to the open-weight LLM ecosystem with models like the Hermes series, has unveiled hermes-agent , a new GitHub trending project described as "The agent that grows with you." This initiative represents a significant step towards practical, adaptive AI agents designed for local execution. While specific architectural details are awaiting a deeper dive into the repository, the "grows with you" philosophy strongly implies advanced capabilities for personalized learning, continuous adaptation, and long-term memory integration—features crucial for self-hosted AI applications. Such an agent is highly relevant for developers focused on local inference, as it provides an open-source framework to build sophisticated agentic workflows, potentially integrating seamlessly with local LLM runtimes such as llama.cpp or vLLM . This allows users to leverage powerful open-weight models directly on their consumer GPUs, enhancing privacy and reducing reliance on cloud services. The project's emergence from NousResearch solidifies its potential as a robust foundation for next-generation local AI applications. Comment: A NousResearch agent is exciting; it implies strong open-source model compatibility and local deployment. I'm keen to see its learning mechanisms and integration potential with local LLM runtimes. PaddlePaddle's Lightweight OCR Toolkit Bridges Images to Local LLM

With just two weeks to go, StrictlyVC Los Angeles is quickly approaching. On Thursday, June 18, at The Aerospace Corporation Campus in El Segundo, investors, founders, and tech leaders will gather for an evening of conversation exploring some of the most consequential shifts taking place across venture capital, defense technology, artificial intelligence, and advanced industry. Secure your spot here. […]

The USDA this week confirmed the first known infection of the carnivorous fly larva, which feast on the flesh of living mammals, after the United States eradicated the nightmare bugs in the 1960s.

You just merged an AI-assisted feature branch, the code review looks clean, and the app works in your local smoke test. Now comes the real question: do you add another traditional browser test, let an AI tool generate the coverage, or spend the time improving the observability around the existing suite? That decision is where a lot of teams get stuck. AI-assisted development changes more than coding speed. It changes the shape of bugs, the pace of UI churn, the expectations for review, and the amount of test maintenance you can tolerate. If you treat AI testing as a magic replacement for your current process, you will probably add noise. If you ignore it entirely, you miss a chance to reduce repetitive work and catch gaps earlier. The real choice is not AI vs non-AI The useful decision is usually this, should AI help create and maintain tests, should it assist human review, or should it stay out of the critical path and only support investigation? That splits into three practical modes: 1. AI assists development, but humans own test strategy This is the safest default. AI can help draft test cases, suggest assertions, summarize failing traces, or propose missing edge cases, but the team still decides what belongs in the suite. If your product has regulated flows, complex permissions, or revenue-critical paths, that ownership matters more than any automation shortcut. 2. AI generates or heals tests inside a human-defined framework This is useful when the team already knows what it wants to cover, but not every selector, fixture, or assertion has to be hand-written. AI can reduce repetitive maintenance, especially for UI-heavy apps that change often. The hidden cost is that you still need a way to judge whether the generated test reflects product intent or just mirrors the current page state. 3. AI becomes part of the evaluation and triage loop Here the value is not test creation, it is speed of diagnosis. AI can summarize logs, cluster failures, or explain a flaky pa

FCC did not violate carriers' right to jury trial, court says in 8-1 ruling.

Flight map from cabin Wi-Fi Discussion | Link

Microsoft published two Defender vulnerabilities on May 19, 2026 that are being actively exploited in the wild, and CISA has already pushed both into the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. If you run Windows endpoints, this is a same-week update item, not a "schedule it for the next maintenance window" item. The patches exist, the abuse is happening, and the BOD 22-01 deadline for federal civilian agencies is June 3, 2026. what follows: what happened, who needs to act, and what to do today before someone else makes the decision for you. What's being exploited CVE-2026-41091 is an Elevation of Privilege bug in Microsoft Defender's scanning logic, rated Important. The root cause is improper link resolution before file access. An authenticated local attacker plants symbolic links or NTFS junctions that point at attacker-controlled paths, then triggers Defender to follow them. Defender operates with SYSTEM privileges during scan operations, so the file actions Defender performs on those crafted targets execute as SYSTEM. Net result: a non-admin local user gets full SYSTEM on the host. The attacker needs an authenticated session already. That sounds like a high bar until you remember that initial-access malware lands at user-level, then chains a local privilege escalation to get persistence and lateral-movement capability. CVE-2026-41091 is the second-stage tool intrusion sets are looking for. The Hacker News and BleepingComputer both confirm the in-the-wild abuse is happening. CVE-2026-45498 is a Denial of Service in the Microsoft Defender Antimalware Platform itself. Attackers can trigger a platform-level crash that takes Defender's protection capabilities offline. The exploitation pattern here is the obvious one: kill the EDR/AV before deploying the actual payload, get a clean window for follow-on actions, restore Defender or leave it broken depending on how careful the operator is. CISA's KEV listing tells you this is being chained operationally, not a theoreti

Hey HN I've been using ECS for a while now and found it annoying having to log into the console everytime I use Lens for Kubernetes but couldnt find an equivalent for ECS so i built one! The project is open source as well https://github.com/utibeabasi6/mercek

Can an AI decide that it's going to nefariously drive the human it's interacting with slowly insane? submitted by /u/Numerous-Cup1863 [link] [留言]

The Framing Problem When industry analysts discuss "AI CAD," they are frequently conflating two fundamentally different computational paradigms: generative mesh synthesis and parametric feature modeling. This conflation has produced a decade of inflated expectations, underwhelming demos, and a persistent belief that real AI CAD is still "coming." It is not coming. For a specific and technically meaningful definition of AI CAD, it has arrived. Mesh Generation vs. Parametric Modeling: Why the Distinction Is Everything Contemporary generative 3D tools including neural radiance field reconstructions, diffusion-based mesh generators, and implicit surface networks produce geometry as an unstructured point cloud or polygon mesh. These representations are geometrically expressive but engineering-inert. They carry no feature history, no constraint graph, no dimensional intent. A mesh cannot be toleranced. A mesh cannot propagate a design change. A mesh cannot be submitted to a manufacturer without full reconstruction from scratch. Parametric CAD, by contrast, encodes design intent as a structured sequence of operations — extrusions, revolves, fillets, boolean operations each governed by explicit dimensional constraints and parent-child dependency relationships. The parametric model is not merely a shape; it is a design process, replayable, modifiable, and transferable across manufacturing contexts. The meaningful technical question for AI CAD in 2026 is therefore not " can AI generate a 3D shape? " that has been demonstrable since 2019. The question is: can AI generate a valid parametric feature tree from natural language input, with embedded manufacturing constraints, that survives downstream engineering use? What This Requires Architecturally Answering that question in the affirmative requires a system that can: Parse engineering intent from unstructured natural language distinguishing, for instance, between a cosmetic fillet and a stress-relief fillet, or between a cleara