标签：#AR

Aditya Kumarakrishnan explains how to move past the "amnesia phase" of AI. He shares a blueprint for engineering leaders to build modular agent frameworks using CoALA, leverage decades of process science for scalable workflows, and "terraform" legacy environments into robust, event-sourced artifacts capable of handling unpredictable, cross-functional agent demands. By Aditya Kumarakrishnan

OpenAI and Molecule.one show how a near-autonomous AI chemist using GPT-5.4 improved a key drug-making reaction, advancing medicinal chemistry research.

A founder told me last year: "We need admin features shipped by Friday. Can we just hardcode the roles for now?" That was 7 months ago. They're still paying for that decision today. This article is the breakdown I wish I had given them before that Friday — the patterns that separate a quick MVP version of RBAC from one that won't bite you back in six months. If you're a startup CTO, technical founder, or senior engineer about to ship admin/dashboard features for the first time, this is for you. The 4 signs your RBAC is a time bomb I've reviewed this exact pattern in 5+ early-stage codebases. Every one of them eventually hit the wall. Look for these signs: 1. Roles hardcoded in the JWT { "sub" : "user_123" , "role" : "admin" } Simple. Until you need to: Add a new role → migration + token refresh strategy Give one user a temporary elevated permission → "we'll just reissue tokens" Audit who had admin last month → good luck 2. Permission checks scattered across 40+ controllers // In every single handler: if user . Role != "admin" { return c . Status ( 403 ) . JSON ( ... ) } By the time you have 30 endpoints, you've made the same mistake 30 times. Refactoring is a full sprint. 3. One admin superuser that can do everything Until a sales rep accidentally deletes a customer record because they were elevated to admin "just for that one task last week." 4. Zero audit trail When the data goes missing, your only investigative tool is git blame on the source code and a desperate grep through CloudWatch logs. If you've nodded at any of these — keep reading. The real problem: policies-as-code Most teams treat permissions like business logic. They live in source files, gated by if statements, deployed with the rest of the code. This is the original sin. Code changes need deploys. Permissions change daily. When marketing onboards a new role next quarter, when a customer success rep needs view-only access to billing, when legal asks "who could have read this customer's data on Tuesda

There is now a second free WSL management tool out there called WSL Dashboard , published by a developer who goes by owu on GitHub. It is open source, it has more GitHub stars than WSL UI, and it is clearly the product of real effort. I have no problem with any of that. Competition is good for users, and WSL deserves more than one good GUI. What I do have a problem with is this notice, which appears both on wslui.com and in the WSL Dashboard README: "This software is not distributed through the Microsoft Store. Any application listed there under the same name is unauthorized and may be counterfeit. Please do not download it to avoid potential scams." WSL UI is on the Microsoft Store. It has been since January. So that notice is, in plain terms, telling people that the genuine, certified, earlier WSL tool is a counterfeit scam. It isn't. And the entire claim falls apart the moment you look at the dates — all of which are public, timestamped, and independently verifiable. What this post is, and what it isn't This is not a "my project is better than yours" post. I'm not going to pick apart WSL Dashboard's features or pretend it's a bad piece of software. It isn't. This is a correction of one specific, factual claim: that the version of WSL UI on the Microsoft Store is unauthorized or counterfeit. That claim is demonstrably false, and because it's aimed at a tool people trust, it's worth setting straight properly — with evidence, not adjectives. The timeline Every date below comes from a public record. I've linked the sources so you don't have to take my word for any of it. Date Event How to verify 2008-12-11 octasoft.co.uk registered. Octasoft Ltd has existed for well over a decade. Nominet WHOIS for octasoft.co.uk 2025-12-14 The octasoft-ltd/wsl-ui repository is created. GitHub API ( created_at ) 2026-01-10 WSL UI's first public release, v0.2.0. WSL UI releases 2026-01-13 WSL UI v0.14.0 is published to the Microsoft Store. The announcement post 2026-01-18 The owu/wsl-

Ask a language model to score a developer portfolio out of 100 and you get a confident number back. Hand it a near-empty page with a name and a broken avatar, and it will often still tell you something like 92. Nice layout. Strong personal branding. The model is being polite, not accurate. That was the first wall I hit building Leon, the reviewer inside getfolio. If the score is not trustworthy, nothing downstream matters: the critique, the suggestions, and the fix button all hang off a number the model invented to sound encouraging. This is the build log of how I stopped letting the model hold the pen. Short version: a deterministic rules engine owns the score, and the language model only owns the words around it. The failure mode: an LLM judge wants to be liked If you have shipped anything with an LLM evaluator you have probably seen this. You hand it a rubric, a JSON schema, even worked examples, and it still drifts upward. Empty inputs get encouraging scores. Weak inputs get the benefit of the doubt. Strong inputs land in the same band as the weak ones, just with longer praise. A few reasons, roughly in order of how much they hurt: Tuning rewards a helpful, encouraging tone. Harsh scoring reads as unhelpful, so the model softens it. The model has no ground truth for what a 70 versus an 85 looks like in your specific domain. It is scoring on vibes. Scoring and explaining are entangled. The model writes the kind explanation first, then picks a number to match the nice things it just said. Run it twice on the same input and you get two different numbers. There is no anchor. For a portfolio reviewer that real recruiters and developers would act on, that was a non-starter. If Leon says 64, an empty page should not be able to reach 64 by accident, and a strong portfolio should not get talked down to it either. The number has to mean something. The fix: rules engine owns the score, model owns the language The architecture splits responsibilities hard. A deterministic e

If you have spent any time on SY0-701 practice questions, you have hit at least one that looks trivial and then quietly fails you. Authentication factor questions are a favorite for this. The scenario sounds secure, the answer feels obvious, and the obvious answer is wrong. Here is the version that catches people. A login asks for your password, then a PIN, then your mother's maiden name. Three prompts, three steps. Is that multifactor authentication? No. It is single-factor wearing a costume. Factors are categories, not steps The exam wants you thinking about authentication in terms of categories , not how many boxes you fill in. There are three classic factors: Something you know (knowledge): a password, a PIN, a security question, a passphrase. Something you have (possession): a phone running an authenticator app, a hardware token, a smart card, a code texted to a device you are holding. Something you are (inherence): a fingerprint, a face scan, an iris pattern, a voiceprint. Multifactor authentication means pulling from different categories. A password (know) plus a code from your authenticator app (have) is two factors. A password plus a PIN plus a security question is still one factor, because all three are things you know. Stacking more knowledge on top of knowledge never changes the category. That is the entire trick. The question piles on prompts so it feels layered, and the count baits you into answering "three things, must be multifactor." Read for the category, not the quantity. The two factors people forget SY0-701 also expects you to recognize two more that sit just outside the classic three: Somewhere you are (location): access is allowed or blocked based on geolocation or which network you are on. A login permitted only from inside the corporate IP range leans on this. Something you do (behavioral): how you type, your gait, the rhythm of your swipe. This is the fuzziest one, and the exam treats it as a real but supporting signal. You will not see the

During my first week at Zone01 Kisumu, I worked on a project called go-reloaded . It was my first real hands-on experience using Go, and it helped me understand not just the language, but also how to think like a developer. In this article, I’ll share what I learned, the challenges I faced, and the key concepts that made everything click. What the Project Was About The goal of the project was to build a small Go program that works with command-line arguments and processes input using Go’s standard libraries. This was my first time interacting deeply with: os package command-line arguments (os.Args) basic Go program structure At first, it felt confusing, but step by step, things started to make sense. What I Learned How command-line arguments work in Go I learned that Go provides access to raw input from the terminal using: os.Args This returns a slice of strings where: os.Args[0] is the program name os.Args[1:] are the actual inputs Working with the os package The os package became one of the most important parts of the project. I used it to: Read input arguments Handle program execution flow Understand how programs interact with the system This helped me realize that Go is very close to the system level compared to JavaScript. Breaking problems into smaller steps One of the biggest lessons wasn’t about code—it was about thinking. Instead of trying to solve everything at once, I learned to: Understand the problem first Break it into smaller tasks Solve each part step by step This made debugging much easier. Challenges I Faced At the beginning, I struggled with: Understanding how os.Args works Knowing where to start in the code Handling errors when inputs were missing Sometimes I would get stuck just trying to figure out what the program was actually receiving. But debugging helped me a lot. Printing values at each step made things clearer. Key Takeaways Go is very explicit compared to JavaScript The os package is powerful for system-level interaction Command-line ar

In 2020, I discovered the idea that people could make money online by building things. Since then, I've tried almost everything. I started websites. I learned design. I learned marketing. I built digital products. I launched projects that nobody used. I launched projects that got almost no traffic. Every year I thought: "Maybe this is the year it finally works." But somehow I always ended up back at zero. The frustrating part is that I didn't quit. For 5 years I've been consistently learning new skills: Graphic design Website building Digital products Content marketing SEO Social media Yet I still haven't reached the point where I can say: "Yes, this business is working." Recently I spent weeks building a library of 500+ Notion templates. I launched it. The result? Almost nothing. No viral launch. No overnight success. Just another reminder that building is easier than distribution. That's the lesson that keeps hitting me: Building isn't my problem anymore. Getting attention is. I can create products. I can design landing pages. I can write content. But distribution still feels like a puzzle I'm trying to solve. So I'm asking developers, founders, and creators who are further ahead: If you were starting again today with no audience and no reputation, what would you focus on? Would you: Double down on content? Build more products? Focus entirely on one distribution channel? Spend more time networking? I'm genuinely curious because after 5 years of trying different things, I'm convinced the answer isn't "work harder." It's probably "work differently." I'd love to hear your advice.

You run a Telegram bot through OpenClaw on your own Linux server. One day it goes quiet. The bot can't send or receive. But the server itself is fine — SSH works, apt works, other sites load. The reason: your server can't reach api.telegram.org . Some networks block or throttle it, so every call times out while everything else is fine. The clean fix: route only OpenClaw's Telegram traffic through Cloudflare WARP (1.1.1.1) . Everything else on the box stays direct and fast — including your SSH login. Here is the full setup, step by step. First, confirm it's a Telegram-only problem curl --max-time 8 https://api.telegram.org/ # hangs / times out curl --max-time 8 https://www.google.com/ # works instantly If Telegram times out but other sites are quick, this guide is for you. How it works We chain three small tools: OpenClaw ──▶ iptables ──▶ redsocks ──▶ WARP (SOCKS5) ──▶ Cloudflare ──▶ api.telegram.org WARP gives us a local proxy that exits through Cloudflare's network (which can reach Telegram). redsocks turns normal connections into proxy connections (so the app needs no proxy support — OpenClaw has none). iptables picks only OpenClaw's Telegram traffic and sends it to redsocks. The trick is in that last step. We match by the app's user and Telegram's IP ranges, so nothing else is touched. Step 1: Install WARP in proxy mode # Add Cloudflare's package repo curl -fsSL https://pkg.cloudflareclient.com/pubkey.gpg \ | gpg --yes --dearmor -o /usr/share/keyrings/cloudflare-warp-archive-keyring.gpg echo "deb [signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/cloudflare-warp-archive-keyring.gpg] \ https://pkg.cloudflareclient.com/ $( lsb_release -cs ) main" \ > /etc/apt/sources.list.d/cloudflare-client.list apt-get update && apt-get install -y cloudflare-warp # Sign up (free) and switch to proxy mode warp-cli --accept-tos registration new warp-cli --accept-tos mode proxy # opens a SOCKS5 proxy on 127.0.0.1:40000 warp-cli --accept-tos connect Now check that WARP can reach Telegram: curl --socks5-

"An AI agent just built a production landing page, with GDPR audit logs and encryption baked in. I wasn't even at my desk." That is not a lucky one-shot. It is a repeatable workflow. Piotr Karwatka recorded a full tutorial showing how to go from idea to a production-ready app on Open Mercato - the AI-Engineering Foundation Framework for CRM/ERP - with no babysitting and no ping-pong prompting. This is the technical version: what the loop actually looks like, why it doesn't fall apart, and which patterns you can lift into your own stack. The problem with conversational coding The default AI coding loop is single-threaded and human-bound: prompt -> generate -> you spot a bug -> correct -> re-prompt -> repeat It holds for snippets. It collapses the moment the task touches real architecture - multi-tenancy, RBAC, event flow, encryption, audit logging. Corrections pile up in the context window, the agent loses the thread, and you are back to typing. You are the bottleneck, sitting in the inner loop. The workflow in the tutorial moves you to the outer loop : you review a finished, tested PR instead of every keystroke. goal -> agent: branch + implement + test + open PR -> you: review PR The reason this is even possible on Open Mercato is that the hard architectural decisions are already encoded as conventions, specs and agent-readable skills ( AGENTS.md , task routing, spec skills). The agent is not inventing how RBAC or GDPR logging should work - it reads the foundation and follows it. 1. Fire-and-forget: the autonomous PR loop The execution agent owns the full unit of work: 1. git checkout -b feat/lead-capture-landing 2. implement against framework conventions 3. run the test suite (Playwright integration tests included) 4. open a structured PR: what changed, why, how it was verified You are no longer correcting tokens. The deliverable is a reviewable artifact. In the tutorial the output is concrete: a live site capturing leads straight into the Open Mercato CRM, with GD

Gear up for your next adventure with these Coleman coupons and discount codes to save on camping essentials and outdoor gear.

Discover the best Stearns and Foster promo codes, discounts, and deals to elevate your sleep experience with premium comfort and quality.

Whether you’re looking to upgrade your mattress or swap out your bedding, browse our Tempur-Pedic coupons for up to $300 off and the best sleep of your life.

Save on Barkbox subscriptions, including monthly themed collections of plush toys, tough chews, and healthy snacks designed to keep your pup’s tail wagging.

Save on iRobot products, including robot vacuums and mops designed to handle pet hair, daily messes, and hands-free cleaning with smart home integration.

Upgrade your meal prep with these Tempo discount codes and offers. Save on high-protein, ready-to-heat meals delivered to your door.

Stream your favorite shows and save up to 50% today with HBO Max discount codes and subscription deals.

Whether you’re looking to protect your small business or your personal computer, we have the top coupons and deals to help you save at Norton.

Coding agents draft specs, architecture docs, changelogs, and README updates in seconds — but a human still has to judge the quality of all that output. The bottleneck shift A year ago, the typical workflow was: you write a spec, you get comments, you revise, then you implement and get code review. Humans did most of the writing and coding. Now, agents produce first drafts of design docs, API references, runbooks, and onboarding guides — and they do it in seconds. Code implementation and code review can now be handled by agents, so those are no longer the bottleneck. What surfaced instead is the step right before: document review. A human has to read 2,000 lines of generated markdown and decide what's wrong. The writing part got dramatically faster. LLMs can assist with document review too, but compared to code implementation and code review, the human judgment required is still larger. This asymmetry compounds fast. Every agent-assisted project now has a stack of "needs human review" documents growing in a shared folder. If you're running multiple agent loops in parallel — one for the spec, one for the implementation plan, one for the test strategy — review becomes a pipeline stall. GitHub PRs remain the right tool when you need third-party review. But the step before that — the fast local self-review loop where you and your agent iterate on a draft — doesn't belong in a PR. Branching, diffing, and assigning reviewers is a lot of process for a first draft the agent wrote in seconds. Why prose feedback is lossy The most common workaround today is to have the agent read the document and then fix things based on natural-language feedback: "The error handling in section 3.2 is too vague — be specific about what happens on timeout." This looks reasonable. The agent reads it, searches for something about error handling, and makes a change. But several things go wrong: Position is ambiguous. If section 3.2 has three paragraphs about error handling, which one did the revie

vibe citing: how KPMG used AI to write a report about AI and AI made them look like fools by t474-r0b07 There are companies that charge you to tell you how to use AI responsibly. KPMG is one of them. 250,000 employees. 138 countries. Decades advising governments and corporations on how to avoid costly mistakes. In October 2025 they published a report titled "Total Experience: Redefining Excellence in the Age of Agentic AI" . They wrote it with AI. The AI invented 88% of the sources. Nobody verified anything. They published it anyway. // what is "agentic AI" — because the title matters An agentic AI is not a chatbot. Not the assistant that answers your questions. It's a system that makes decisions and executes actions on its own, without a human approving each step. You give it an objective and it acts, corrects, moves forward. It's the product everyone in the tech sector was selling in 2025. KPMG was selling it too. That's why they needed a report proving their clients were already using it. Spoiler: they weren't. And the report invented it anyway. // the forensic analysis GPTZero — a company specialized in detecting AI-generated content — ran a full audit on the report. First: what is an AI hallucination, because the term is going to come up a lot. When a language model doesn't have the information you ask for, it doesn't say "I don't know." It generates a response that sounds correct. It invents with the same confidence it would use if it actually knew the truth. Perfect format. False content. No warning. That's a hallucination. Now the numbers from the KPMG report: TOTAL CITATIONS: 45 REAL CITATIONS: 5 INVENTED CITATIONS: 40 ACCURACY RATE: 11.1% 40 of 45 citations have invented titles, authors that don't exist, or sources that don't say what KPMG claimed they said. Half of the factual claims in the report are false or misattributed. A firm that charges for intellectual rigor published a document with 11% accuracy. // the organizations that read the report and sai