标签：#AR

Every Agent Account you create lands in a workspace — the only question is whether you picked it or the platform did: curl --request POST \ --url "https://api.us.nylas.com/v3/connect/custom" \ --header "Authorization: Bearer <NYLAS_API_KEY>" \ --header "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{ "provider": "nylas", "workspace_id": "<WORKSPACE_ID>", "settings": { "email": "test@your-application.nylas.email" } }' That top-level workspace_id is optional, and what happens when you omit it is one of the more under-read parts of the Nylas Agent Accounts docs (the feature's in beta, so read with that in mind). Workspaces aren't cosmetic grouping — they're the carrier for every policy limit and mail rule that governs your agents. Getting placement wrong means an agent running with the wrong send quota, the wrong spam settings, or no inbound filtering at all. The placement algorithm When a new account is created, placement resolves in this order: Explicit workspace_id on the request — the account goes exactly where you said. The target workspace must belong to the same application; ownership is validated and mismatches are rejected. Auto-grouping by domain — if a workspace has auto_group enabled and its domain matches the new account's email domain, the account joins it automatically. The default workspace — everything else lands here. That third bucket is the interesting one. What the default workspace actually is Every application gets exactly one default workspace, created and managed by the platform. You can't delete it, and you can only update two of its fields: policy_id and rule_ids . Everything else is managed for you. It's easy to read "default" as "throwaway," but it's better understood as your safety net. Any account you forget to place explicitly — a quick test from the CLI, a provisioning script missing the workspace parameter — inherits whatever the default workspace carries. Which leads to a practical recommendation: attach a conservative baseline policy and

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here. When I landed in Seoul after a grueling 12-hour flight from San Francisco, I walked through an unmanned immigration checkpoint, where a machine scanned my face and passport. On the subway home,…

Series Final. The four mechanisms covered across this series — knowledge graph, Auto Review, Self-Healing, Recurrence Prevention — plus the non-engineer-PR application that sits on top of them, all hang off a single conviction: AI isn't something to trust; it's something to design. The 'I don't trust AI to fill in the blanks for me' framing this lives inside isn't doubt about generation quality, but the clear-eyed acceptance that AI has no idea what context wasn't handed to it, and that 'ideal behavior with no spec given' is a fantasy. The starting point goes back to 2025, when I was trying to figure out how to make AI actually understand a large codebase — and ran into walls on both context window scaling (lost in the middle, attention dilution) and learning-based approaches (machine unlearning, destructive interference). GraphRAG + MCP became the way out: hand AI only the facts it needs, when it needs them, so it doesn't have to infer. From code-graph (which I burned two months on and threw away) to the current product-graph (cpg). This piece is the philosophy and the trial-and-error behind the whole series: harnesses confine where hallucinations are allowed to happen, design is translating principles into your own use cases, and Coverage 90% as a solo target breaks the implementation.

A blunt playbook for devs who don’t want to turn into autocomplete zombies. The first time an AI wrote code for me, I felt like I had unlocked cheat codes for real life. I typed a half-baked function name, hit enter, and suddenly I had a block of code that looked legit. It was magical. The second time, though? It suggested something so catastrophic basically the programming equivalent of pulling the fire alarm that I realized: this thing is less “mentor” and more “overconfident intern who thinks they know pointers but actually just broke prod.” That’s where most of us are right now. AI is everywhere: in our IDEs, our docs, even sneaking into PR reviews. Some days it feels like rocket fuel; other days it feels like an autocomplete with a drinking problem. The tricky part isn’t whether AI is “good” or “bad.” The tricky part is how we, as developers, use it without becoming lazy, dependent, or worse complacent. Because here’s the uncomfortable truth: AI won’t replace you, but bad AI habits absolutely will. TLDR : This article is a survival guide for developers in the AI era. We’ll break down why AI feels both magical and mid, the five switches that make AI actually useful, when to trust and when to verify, how to use AI as a research assistant (not a code monkey), the dangers of autocomplete brain, and a playbook for building a healthy workflow. Why AI feels both magical and mid Every dev I know has had that moment with AI. The first time it autocompleted a function and nailed it, you probably thought: “Wow… this thing just saved me half an hour.” It’s the same dopamine hit as discovering ctrl+r in bash or realizing you can pipe grep into less . Pure wizardry. But the honeymoon ends quickly. The same tool that wrote a clean utility function also happily hallucinates imports that don’t exist, invents APIs, and will confidently explain things that are flat-out wrong. It’s like pair programming with someone who sounds senior but has never actually shipped code. The magic-

I had a write that spanned two physically separate databases. A rename that had to propagate across several tables in one database and a couple of tables in another, and the two had to stay consistent. No distributed transaction coordinator was available to me. So I did the obvious thing: opened a transaction on each, did the work, and committed them one after the other inside a try/catch with rollbacks on both sides. It felt safe. It compiled. It passed tests. Then I drew the failure on a whiteboard, and the safety evaporated. The window that ruins everything Here's the structure, simplified: await using var txA = await dbA . Database . BeginTransactionAsync (); await using var txB = await dbB . Database . BeginTransactionAsync (); await DoWorkOnA ( dbA ); await DoWorkOnB ( dbB ); await txA . CommitAsync (); // <-- succeeds await txB . CommitAsync (); // <-- what if this throws? Two transactions do not make one atomic operation. CommitAsync is a point of no return, and there are two of them. Between the first commit returning and the second one starting, there is a window. If txB fails in that window — the connection drops, the process is killed, the database hiccups — then A is permanently committed and B never happens. Your rollback in the catch block is useless: you can't roll back txA , it's already durable. The two databases now disagree, and nothing in your code will heal that on its own. This is the dual-write problem , and it's not a bug you can fix by being more careful with try/catch. The atomicity you want simply isn't available from two independent commits. Ordering them, nesting them, wrapping them — none of it closes the window, because the window is inherent to having two commit points. Why "it's never failed" isn't reassurance The seductive thing about this pattern is that the window is small, so in practice it almost never triggers. You can run it for a year and never see an inconsistency. That's exactly what makes it dangerous: it trains you to tr

A story about an AI alert model that cut false alarms from 60% to 7% — and what happened when...

Honestly, bootcamp Grad Dives Into Google vs OpenAI API Pricing When I finished my coding bootcamp three months ago, I thought I understood what an API did. I mean, you send a request, you get a response back, right? What I did not understand was how dramatically the cost could vary depending on which model you picked. I had no idea that a single line of code change could mean the difference between paying pennies and paying hundreds of dollars at scale. That is the rabbit hole I fell down last week, and I want to walk you through everything I learned. This is the post I wish I had read before I burned through my first $50 in API credits. Why I Started Looking At Pricing In The First Place I was building a small app that takes user reviews and summarizes them. Pretty straightforward. I figured I would just plug in the most popular model and call it a day. That model, if you have been paying attention to the news, is GPT-4o. So I wired it up, ran a few tests, and everything looked great. Then I did the math. GPT-4o charges $2.50 per million tokens on input and $10.00 per million tokens on output. I did not even know what a "million tokens" really meant in practice. So I tested my app with maybe 50 reviews and watched my credit balance drop. It was not catastrophic, but it was enough that I started wondering if there was a cheaper way. I was shocked when I found out how big the gap actually is. The Pricing Table That Changed My Whole Plan I stumbled onto a platform called Global API, and honestly, the pricing chart there blew my mind. They give you access to 184 different AI models, with prices ranging all the way from $0.01 to $3.50 per million tokens. Compare that to the GPT-4o output price of $10.00 per million tokens, and you start to understand why I panicked a little when I saw my early numbers. Here are the five models I ended up comparing side by side: Model Input Cost Output Cost Context Window DeepSeek V4 Flash $0.27 $1.10 128K DeepSeek V4 Pro $0.55 $2.20 20

Armed with a ton of new upgrades, Ferrari came to Spain full of confidence.

Casey Harrell has had a set of electrodes embedded in his brain for almost three years. Harrell, who has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and is paralyzed, first used his brain-computer interface (BCI) to “speak” sentences with the help of a research team in 2023. Since then, Harrell has clocked thousands of hours of use. He…

Indian IT services company HCLTech is investing $150 million in the Bengaluru startup.

CSS functions, the alpha() function, Grid Lanes, some things about Dialog that you might not know, CSS Wordle, and more — this is What’s !important right now. What’s !important #13: @function, alpha(), CSS Wordle, and More originally handwritten and published with love on CSS-Tricks . You should really get the newsletter as well.

NewCore argues the next challenge in enterprise security will be managing AI agents, not people.

You've heard of Bitcoin. You've maybe heard of the Lightning Network. But what exactly is LND, and why should developers care? Let's break it down — technically, but from the ground up. The Problem: Bitcoin is Superb but Slow Bitcoin's base layer — the blockchain itself — is intentionally slow. Every transaction must be broadcast to thousands of nodes, verified, and bundled into a block that gets mined roughly every 10 minutes . The network handles about 7 transactions per second (TPS). Compare that to Visa's ~24,000 TPS and you quickly see the problem. Bitcoin in its raw form isn't built for buying coffee, splitting a bill, or paying a freelancer in real time. But there's a solution — and it lives on top of Bitcoin. Enter the Lightning Network The Lightning Network is a Layer 2 (L2) payment protocol built on top of Bitcoin. Instead of recording every single payment on the blockchain, it lets two parties open a private payment channel, transact off-chain as many times as they want, and only settle the final balance on-chain when they're done. Think of it like running a tab at a bar: Opening the tab = one blockchain transaction Each round of drinks = instant off-chain payment Closing the tab = one final blockchain transaction The result? Near-instant payments, near-zero fees, and massive throughput — without sacrificing Bitcoin's security. What is LND ? LND stands for Lightning Network Daemon. It's the most widely used implementation of the Lightning Network protocol, built and maintained by Lightning Labs. Key facts for developers: Written in Go 🐹 Exposes a gRPC API (port 10009) and a REST API (port 8080) Controlled via a CLI called lncli Uses macaroons for authentication (think JWT, but for Lightning) Connects to a Bitcoin node (bitcoind or btcd) as its source of truth Other Lightning implementations exist — like Core Lightning (CLN) and Eclair — but LND has the largest developer ecosystem and is the best entry point. How LND Fits Into the Stack Here's the architec

I Spent Two Weeks Pitting Qwen 3 Max Against DeepSeek V4 I want to tell you about a rabbit hole I fell into recently. It started the way most of my projects do — someone on a Discord server I frequent asked a simple question: "Should I use Qwen 3 Max or DeepSeek V4 for my internal_compare workflow?" I had opinions, sure, but I wanted real numbers. So I cleared my calendar, fired up a couple of GPU instances, and started benchmarking. What I found surprised me, and it also reinforced something I've been saying for years: the open source ecosystem is winning, and the walled gardens of the proprietary AI world are starting to look pretty silly. Let me walk you through what I learned, the actual numbers I got, and why I keep coming back to open weight models with permissive licenses (looking at you, Apache 2.0 and MIT). Why I Care About This in the First Place I've been burned too many times by closed source vendors changing their pricing overnight, deprecating models without warning, or locking features behind enterprise tiers. You know the drill. The moment your application depends on a proprietary API, you're renting infrastructure you can't inspect, can't fork, and can't run on your own hardware. That's not a partnership — that's a leash. When a model ships under Apache or MIT, I can download the weights, audit the architecture, fine-tune it on my own data, and deploy it wherever I want. Nobody can rug-pull me. Nobody can raise prices because some quarterly earnings call didn't go their way. That's freedom, and freedom matters more than people think when you're building anything serious. So when I started this comparison, I was already rooting for the open weight contenders. But I wanted to be honest about the results, even if they complicated my bias. The Lineup I Tested Global API currently exposes 184 models through a single unified endpoint, which is honestly wild. I picked five that I thought represented the interesting tradeoffs between cost, capability, and o

After months of manual trading on Polymarket, I got tired of missing fast momentum moves on BTC, ETH,...

Martin Kleppmann, an associate professor at Cambridge and author of Designing Data-Intensive Applications, discusses the evolution of data systems over the last decade, mainly the shift from monolithic databases to modular building blocks. Kleppmann underlines the importance of moving from cloud-centric data storage systems to decentralised data storage similar to Bluesky’s AT protocol. By Martin Kleppmann

In this article, the author outlines a practical approach to AI governance in the cloud, covering discovery of shadow AI, data classification at creation, IAM-based enforcement, policy-as-code, and operational controls. The article shows how organizations can embed governance into delivery pipelines, balancing security, compliance, and developer productivity without relying on manual processes. By Dave Ward

Even the aging iPhone 11 will feel a little more responsive soon, thanks to improvements in an unsung iOS feature.

We Built ARK Because Our Customer Support Was Spread Across 4 Apps The Problem A few months ago, our small team was drowning. Not in customers (well, a little) — but in tabs. WhatsApp open in one window. Instagram DMs in another. A live chat widget buried in a third. Email in a fourth. Every time a customer reached out, someone had to figure out: which channel did this come from, has anyone replied already, and what was the context of the last conversation? The result was predictable: slower replies, repeated questions to customers, and a support workflow that didn't scale past a handful of conversations a day. Why Existing Tools Didn't Fit We looked at the usual suspects — Intercom, Zendesk, Front. They're solid products, but they're built for large support teams with big budgets and dedicated admins. We needed something simpler: a single inbox, AI doing the repetitive work, and a setup that doesn't take weeks to configure. What We Built ARK pulls every customer conversation — WhatsApp, Instagram, Messenger, email, live chat — into one inbox. On top of that, AI handles three things: Drafting replies based on conversation history and context Summarizing long threads so anyone on the team can jump in without reading 40 messages Routing conversations to the right person automatically based on topic or channel The goal wasn't to replace human support — it was to remove the busywork so the team can focus on actually helping people. Where We Are Now ARK is live with a 7-day free trial (auto-renews after that). We're still early, and we're shaping the roadmap based on real feedback from teams managing support across multiple channels. If you're dealing with the same multichannel chaos we were, I'd love to hear how you're handling it — and what's still missing from the tools you've tried. 🔗 https://byark.ai/

If you've ever worked on a live game, you've probably watched this happen: an update ships, something feels off, the forums light up, and within an hour the community manager is in the middle of a fire they didn't start and can't immediately put out. And here's the thing most people get wrong about that person's job. "They just post updates, right?" That's the assumption. A game community manager writes patch notes, posts announcements, answers a few questions on Discord, drops the occasional meme, and keeps the social feeds warm. That's the visible 10%. The other 90% is harder, quieter, and almost invisible when it's done well. A community manager sits at a collision point. On one side: players who are frustrated because something broke, a balance change feels unfair, compensation feels insulting, or an update slipped. On the other side: a dev team that's heads-down debugging, prioritizing, and sometimes wrestling with problems that genuinely can't be fixed fast. The community manager has to talk to both sides at once — without sounding cold, defensive, fake, or corporate. That's not a "soft skill." That's translation under pressure, and it's hard. The real role: a two-way translator Strip away the memes and the role is basically two jobs sharing one desk. Job one is outward. Translate the studio to players: acknowledge the actual pain, explain what's known and unknown, hold boundaries without being defensive, and come back with real updates. Job two is inward. Translate players to the studio: take a pile of angry, contradictory, emotional posts and turn them into categorized, prioritized, actionable feedback the team can build from. Most people only ever see job one. Job two — the research half — is usually what decides whether the game actually improves. We'll get to it. Why players hate "we hear you" Players can smell a script instantly. These phrases aren't wrong , but they're hollow: "We hear you." "We value your feedback." "Please be patient." "We apologize f