IBM says it has created the world's first sub-1 nanometer chip
Netris provides software that runs on network switches, and offers a platform that helps neocloud operators reduce the time it takes to go live.
The Department of Commerce declined to give the Chinese-owned automaker a special authorization to keep selling EVs in the U.S.
Apple raises prices of MacBook Air and Pro along with iPad Air and Pro.
Macs, MacBooks, iPads and other Apple products just got more expensive.
Now that Bungie has moved on from Destiny 2, the game studio is being hit with its latest round of layoffs. In a statement posted on X, the studio said that "we are announcing a reduction in force as we reorganize Bungie." No specific numbers were revealed. But in a separate statement, Hermen Hulst, CEO […]
Every day I see more projects where a layer-per-entity approach is created by default: UserService , UserRepository , OrderService , OrderRepository , and so on. My issue is not with layering itself, but with how these layers are used. In theory, a Service should represent application behavior: something that encapsulates real use cases or meaningful interactions with external systems (payments, emails, APIs, etc.). Something with enough significance to justify being isolated. A Repository , in theory, should exist when there is real complexity in data access: multiple data sources, non-trivial persistence logic, evolving storage mechanisms, etc. However, in practice, they often degrade into something else: services that simply delegate calls repositories that are thin wrappers around an ORM interfaces with no meaningful alternative implementation At that point, the abstraction starts to lose its purpose. Why not use the ORM directly when there is no real complexity to hide? Why do we default to intermediate layers that don’t truly represent either a service or a repository in their original sense? It often feels like they add files, indirection, and noise without improving clarity. I’m not saying these layers are inherently bad. I’m trying to understand why they are so often applied by default, even when they don’t serve their actual purpose. Does this approach really improve clarity, or does it just introduce unnecessary complexity? For example, instead of organizing code around generic services per model, we could structure it around explicit use cases for concrete system actions. These would still live within an application/service layer in the sense described by Fowler, but without forcing a generic ModelService structure for everything. The goal would be to design around intent rather than around structural templates—so the code reflects what the system does , not just how it is layered . submitted by /u/Character-Method-720 [link] [留言]
Unlike with Volvo, there will be no authorization for Polestar to sell its cars here.
The color e-reader that’s most worth your money this Prime Day isn't from Amazon.
Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping retail, but not in the ways consumers might immediately notice. The biggest transformation may not be flashy virtual try-ons or chatbot shopping assistants, but in how decisions are made behind the scenes: how products surface in search results, how inventory moves through supply chains, how engineers ship code faster, and…
From the official information online, joining the e-Residency program and setting up an Estonian company seems relatively straightforward. I'm considering using an Estonian OÜ for a SaaS business and would love to hear from people who have actually gone through the process. What surprised you after becoming an e-resident and establishing your company? Were there recurring costs, compliance requirements, banking/payment issues, tax complications, or other operational challenges you didn't anticip
Some Macs are hundreds of dollars more expensive today than yesterday.