标签：#AR

When analyzing supply chain data in a production ERP, the idea of sending critical information to a publicly accessible cloud-based LLM always bothered me. Processing sensitive data like proprietary production plans, customer lists, or financial details on third-party servers was an unacceptable risk for me. In such situations, the only way to ensure data security is to run the LLM in a local environment, under our own control. This is where Ollama comes in. Ollama is a tool that allows you to easily run large language models (LLMs) on your local system. This way, you can set up your own AI assistant without an internet connection and without the risk of leaking your data, securely automating your sensitive business processes. In this post, I will step-by-step explore why Ollama is important, how to install and use it, and the data security advantages it offers. Why Ollama is Important: Does it Provide Data Security and Control? The potential of LLMs in modern software development processes and operational workflows is huge, but the privacy and security of corporate data are always a primary concern. Especially in high-security environments like a bank's internal platform or in the financial calculators of my own side product, I need to process user data without sending it externally. In these scenarios, cloud-based LLM services often create a new risk factor rather than a solution. Ollama is designed to close this critical data security gap. By running models on your local machine, it prevents your data from leaving your company network or personal computer. This is a vital advantage, especially for those working in sectors subject to data protection regulations like GDPR and KVKK. Furthermore, because it doesn't require an internet connection, you can continue to benefit from LLM capabilities even in offline environments or during network outages. Since you have full control, you can manage from start to finish which model runs with which data, how much resource t

There's a pattern I see a lot in Angular codebases that adopted Signals early: a developer discovers rxResource , loves that it handles loading and error state automatically, and then immediately reaches for tap() to write a signal inside the stream. private readonly resource = rxResource ({ params : () => this . paramsSignal (), stream : ({ params }) => this . api . fetch ( params ). pipe ( tap ( data => this . sideSignal . set ( data . meta )) // 💥 ) }); This looks harmless. It runs in development without complaint in zone-based Angular. Then you enable zoneless — or Angular tightens its reactive graph enforcement — and you get NG0600: Writing to signals is not allowed in a reactive context . The rxResource stream runs inside Angular's reactive scheduler. Signal writes there aren't just discouraged — they're illegal by design. The scheduler assumes computed signals and reactive contexts are read-only during evaluation. A write mid-computation breaks the glitch-free guarantee Angular's signal graph is built on. The fix I landed on: make the stream return everything it needs to return, as a single typed value. interface ResourceValue { readonly sections : Section []; readonly meta : Meta ; } private readonly resource = rxResource < ResourceValue , Params > ({ stream : ({ params }) => this . api . fetch ( params ). pipe ( map ( data => ({ sections : transform ( data ), meta : data . meta })) ) }); No tap . No side signal. Everything the rest of the store needs lives in resource.value() and can be read via computed . The lesson isn't "don't use tap". The lesson is that rxResource has a contract: it is a read primitive . Its stream is for fetching and transforming. If you're writing signals inside it, you're treating it as a command bus — and that's a different tool. Originally published on ysndmr.com .

Verity Harding tells WIRED that the US government’s nationalistic attitude toward AI is evidence that a worst-case scenario is taking shape.

A key delay from a state agency means robotaxi rides in the company’s new Ojai vehicle might be free for a few more months.

ZML, a hot French AI startup endorsed by Turing Award winner Yann LeCun, has now released ZML/LLMD, software that could make running AI less costly.

AI chip maker SambaNova has raised at an $11B valuation months after Intel was rumored to be trying to buy it for about $1.6 billion.

Is True Database Elasticity Still a Myth? A New Reality Unfolds Introduction For years, the promise of truly elastic, "serverless" databases felt like a mirage in the desert of database management. We were told of systems that could scale to zero during idle periods and burst to handle monumental loads, all while paying only for what we used. The reality, however, often fell short: many solutions were merely cleverly packaged auto-scaling groups, saddling organizations with expensive idle costs and the persistent headache of capacity planning. This bred a healthy skepticism among developers and operations teams alike. Fortunately, that narrative is finally shifting. A new generation of distributed database architectures is emerging, fundamentally redefining what "elasticity" means. These aren't just incremental improvements to connection pooling or replica sets; they represent a paradigm shift towards truly decoupled compute and storage layers, enabling dynamic resource allocation at an unprecedented, granular level – even per query. This tutorial will explore this architectural evolution and demonstrate conceptually how it delivers on the long-awaited promise of genuine pay-as-you-go database services. Understanding the Architecture: A Conceptual Walkthrough The core innovation driving this new wave of elasticity lies in the complete decoupling of compute and storage layers . Traditionally, a database instance (a VM or container) held both its processing power (CPU, RAM) and its local storage. Scaling meant provisioning larger instances or adding more replicas, each with fixed compute and storage capacities, leading to inefficiency. In the modern elastic database, these functions operate independently: Storage Layer: This is a highly distributed, shared storage fabric – often an optimized, resilient object store – that handles data persistence, replication, and durability. It scales automatically based on your data volume, and you typically pay only for the storage

id CTI-2026-0708-KAKAO title "KakaoTalk Source Code for Sale" — Anatomy of a Dark-Web Claim, the Real Target, and the Blast Radius If It's True subtitle Not a data breach but a leak of intellectual property and infrastructure. Title says KakaoTalk, repo names say ZigZag — an extortion pitch built on a misattributed target author Dennis Kim / HoKwang Kim email gameworker@gmail.com github gameworkerkim date 2026-07-08 classification TLP:GREEN severity HIGH (conditional — CRITICAL if verified) lang en tags Source-Code-Sale · Dark-Web · Extortion · Target-Misattribution · Kakao-Style · ZigZag · Supply-Chain · LLM-Weaponization · DPRK-APT · Secret-Sprawl threat_actors ExtortionLord (unidentified dark-web forum seller) frameworks MITRE ATT&CK · NIST SP 800-207 (Zero Trust) · SLSA / SSDF (SP 800-218) · PIPA Art. 34 (Korea) license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 "KakaoTalk Source Code for Sale" — Anatomy of a Dark-Web Claim, the Real Target, and the Blast Radius If It's True Report ID CTI-2026-0708-KAKAO · Published 2026-07-08 · Classification TLP:GREEN · Severity 🔴 HIGH (conditional) Author Dennis Kim / HoKwang Kim · gameworker@gmail.com · @gameworkerkim 🌐 한국어 · English (this document) Not a data breach but a leak of intellectual property and infrastructure. The title says KakaoTalk, the repository names say ZigZag — an extortion pitch built on a misattributed target. Table of Contents Executive Summary (TL;DR) Framing — Not "What's Being Sold" but "What's at Stake" The Claim — Anatomy of the Listing The Real Target — Title Says KakaoTalk, Fingerprints Say ZigZag Credibility Assessment — Why We Can't Trust It Yet Blast Radius If True — Why It Exceeds TVING and CU Three-Breach Severity Comparison — Data Leak vs. Code/Infra Leak Korean Context — The Next Stage of the B2C Breach Chain Detection, Mitigation, and Response Recommendations Conclusion References 1. Executive Summary (TL;DR) In early July 2026, a threat actor calling itself "ExtortionLord" posted a dark-web forum listing offering

Software architecture debates have a problem that most other engineering disciplines don't: the alternative was never built. When a bridge fails, the failure is physical, attributable, and measurable against every other bridge that didn't. The engineering decisions that caused it can be isolated, traced, and corrected — not just in theory, but in the next bridge, because the material itself produces feedback that no amount of professional opinion can override. Steel deflects. Concrete cracks. Physics doesn't care what the architect believed. Software produces no equivalent feedback. A system built around the wrong abstractions compiles, runs, ships, and passes its tests just as readily as one built around the right ones. A bug introduced by a misaligned domain model looks identical, from the outside, to a bug introduced by a typo. A feature that took three times longer than it should have, because the structure made it harder than the business logic warranted, produces no artifact that distinguishes it from a feature that was simply difficult. The cost is real. The cause is invisible. This is the unfalsifiability problem, and it runs deeper than "we can't measure everything." It means that when a system becomes expensive to change, the diagnosis almost always lands on the wrong variable. The domain is complex. The requirements changed. The previous team was careless. Almost never: the structure was wrong, and the structure was wrong because nobody ever built the other version of it to compare against. That version doesn't exist, it never will, and every architectural argument in the industry is conducted in its absence. This would be a purely philosophical problem if there were nothing to do about it. There is something to do about it — but it requires accepting that the standard metric for software quality, whether it works, is measuring the wrong thing entirely. The Metric That Hides the Problem The natural substitute for "is this good engineering" is "does it wor

Meta answers people's privacy concerns about its smart glasses in an FAQ.

Why HDI PCB Manufacturing Starts Long Before the First Hole Is Drilled When people think about PCB manufacturing, they usually imagine drilling, plating, imaging, etching, solder mask, and surface finishing. For conventional PCBs, that assumption isn't too far from reality. For HDI (High Density Interconnect) PCBs, however, manufacturing actually begins long before any physical production starts. The success of an HDI project is often determined during engineering review rather than on the factory floor. Manufacturing Starts with Design Decisions A PCB layout may pass every design rule check inside CAD software while still being difficult to manufacture efficiently. Typical examples include: unnecessary stacked microvias excessive sequential lamination extremely aggressive trace and space dimensions unrealistic copper balancing inefficient stack-up planning None of these issues are fabrication defects. They are engineering decisions. The earlier they are identified, the lower the overall project cost becomes. The Stack-Up Is More Important Than Many Engineers Expect One of the biggest misconceptions is that increasing the layer count automatically solves routing problems. In reality, a carefully planned stack-up usually provides greater benefits than simply adding more copper layers. A good stack-up improves: signal integrity impedance consistency EMI performance power distribution thermal behavior More importantly, it creates a PCB that is easier to manufacture repeatedly with stable quality. HDI Is a Balance Between Performance and Manufacturability Many first-time HDI designs focus only on routing density. Experienced engineers usually focus on manufacturability. For example: Should this microvia really be stacked? Can staggered vias achieve the same result? Is another lamination cycle actually necessary? Can the BGA fan-out be optimized differently? Each decision influences fabrication complexity, yield, lead time, and production cost. Why DFM Matters More for H

While working on the GitHub adapter, a gateway that lets AI agents create pull requests on GitHub, the source_state field first looked like a small technical detail. It was not the operation itself, or the target. It was only a reference to the state the agent had seen before proposing a change. But after working through the write path, this field started to look less like metadata and more like part of the safety model. A proposed change is not only defined by what it wants to do. It is also defined by the state in which that proposal made sense. This is easy to miss. An agent can read a repository, produce a reasonable change, and submit a clean intent. Nothing about that has to be wrong. But while the agent is planning, the repository can move. A human can push a fix. Another workflow can update the same file. A branch can advance. In that case, the agent may still be reasoning correctly over the state it saw. The problem is that this state no longer exists. The reasoning was right, but the world shifted. That is the stale state problem in agent workflows. And it is why I think agent workflows need state-bound intent. The illusion of a static world From the outside, even from the boundary's point of view, a stale request can look just like any other: the operation has the same name, the target path is still allowed, the input is still well formed. But it is not. The proposal belonged to an older state of the repository, formed before the branch moved, before the file changed, before another workflow created a related result. This is why stale state is not only a data freshness problem. For agent workflows, it becomes an admission problem: a decision about whether a proposed change is allowed to become a real effect. We call that decision point an MCP Boundary: the same pattern behind the GitHub adapter and the wider work we do on MCP gateways. The boundary should not only ask whether the operation is allowed on the target. It should also know whether the target i

Reading Lilian Weng's harness engineering survey as a reliability engineer — what self-improving harness papers actually show, and the three invariants every working loop converges on.

Last week I sat in my parked car for fifteen minutes before going inside. Not because of...

Most web applications contain at least one vulnerability from the OWASP Top 10. A typical security audit takes 2-3 weeks and costs upward of $10,000. An LLM can compress the initial audit down to a few hours because it scans code for patterns rather than specific CVEs. Below are 15 vulnerabilities found while auditing production code with Claude. Each includes the vulnerable code, the fixed version, and a prompt to reproduce the finding. Classification follows OWASP Top 10 (2021). Order reflects frequency of occurrence: most common first. Methodology: how to run an AI security audit The audit consists of three passes. First, a broad scan: the LLM receives the entire project and looks for vulnerability patterns. Second, deep analysis: each identified pattern is verified in context (middleware, ORM, framework). Third, verification: manual review of every finding, because LLMs produce false positives. Prompt for the broad scan: Perform a security audit of this code. For each finding, include: 1. CWE ID and name 2. OWASP Top 10 category 3. Severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low) 4. The vulnerable code snippet 5. Attack vector -- exactly how an attacker would exploit this 6. Fixed code Ignore stylistic comments. Focus on security only. Start with injection attacks, then broken access control, then the rest. This prompt works because it defines the output structure and prioritizes categories. Without explicit instructions, the LLM mixes critical vulnerabilities with remarks about email validation. More on structured AI code review: AI Code Review Checklist . A03:2021 -- Injection 1. SQL Injection via string concatenation The most common finding. Shows up even in projects using an ORM, because developers switch to raw queries for complex filters. Vulnerable code: // API endpoint for user search app . get ( ' /api/users ' , async ( req , res ) => { const { search , sortBy } = req . query ; const query = ` SELECT id, name, email FROM users WHERE name LIKE '% ${ search } %' ORDER

We stopped measuring retrieval quality by how many tokens we could fit into the prompt. When...

Why this series I love writing clean architecture . Not because it looks nice in a diagram, but because it survives change — new requirements, new team members, and now, AI-assisted development , where you want boundaries an AI can respect and tests that catch it when it wanders. The problem in most Flutter stacks is the seam between app and backend. You write Dart on the client, then switch to a different language, a hand-written REST layer, DTOs that drift out of sync, and serialization bugs nobody notices until production. Serverpod removes that seam. You write Dart on the server too, and the client-server communication code is generated for you — type-safe, end to end. What is Serverpod? Serverpod is an open-source backend framework that lets you build the entire stack in Dart. Instead of context-switching between languages, your models, your API, and your database logic all live in one language. What you get out of the box: Endpoints — server methods your Flutter client calls directly. The communication code is generated, so there's no hand-written REST/JSON glue. An ORM — type-safe, statically analyzed database access with migrations and relationships. No raw SQL required. Code generation — define a model once; get serialization and client bindings on both sides automatically. Real-time data — streaming over WebSockets, managed for you. Auth — integrations for Google, Apple, and Firebase. The extras enterprises actually need — file uploads, task scheduling, caching, logging, and error monitoring. And on the "is this serious enough for production?" question: Serverpod says it's battle-tested in real-world apps and secured by over 5,000 automated tests, scaling from hobby projects to millions of users without code changes. That's exactly the property you want in an enterprise foundation. The architecture at a glance Here's how the pieces fit. A Serverpod project is generated as three packages: myapp_server → your backend: endpoints, models, business logic, DB my

A lot of AI memory systems start with the same temptation: "Just save the useful thing." That sounds harmless until the knowledge base becomes a junk drawer. Half the notes are too specific, a few are duplicates, some are obsolete, and nobody knows which ones the agent should trust. In ai-assistant-dot-files , the memory system is deliberately slower. It uses a promotion lifecycle: Capture -> Candidate -> Audit -> Approve -> Index -> Retrieve -> Expire That lifecycle is documented in docs/runbooks/memory-engineering.md , and the important word is not "capture." It is "candidate." Nothing writes directly to memory The framework has a durable memory layer: Knowledge Items in shared/knowledge/ , ADRs in docs/adrs/ , the domain dictionary, team topology, a feature archive, and a registry at shared/memory-registry.json . But a lesson from a delivery does not jump straight into shared/knowledge/ . It first becomes a Candidate Record. That record has required fields: Source Type Evidence Tags Expiration condition Then memory-engineer audits it: Is it reusable? Is it already covered? Is it too speculative? Does it belong as a Knowledge Item, or should it become a rule change, prompt edit, or ADR instead? Only after that does a human approve the destination. The design is intentionally similar to code review. Durable memory changes future behavior, so they deserve a paper trail. Rejection is a feature One of my favorite parts of the memory runbook is that it has explicit rejection rules. Do not promote a memory when it is: a one-off already covered too speculative That makes "zero candidates promoted this cycle" a healthy result, not a failure. This is where memory engineering starts to look less like note-taking and more like gardening. The point is not to preserve every leaf. The point is to keep the soil useful. Expiration matters The lifecycle also includes expiration. A Knowledge Item can become stale when the underlying code, agent, or pattern changes. It can be supers

We deployed a coding agent that hit 94% on the industry benchmark. It failed in production on the first real edge case because the benchmark measured single-turn success and our actual work was multi-turn refinement. The model could not update its beliefs correctly when new evidence arrived, something no single-turn eval would catch. This is not a hypothetical. I have watched agents shine in demo and disintegrate on the messy input that production actually serves. The gap between what we measure and what ships is real, and it is where reliability lives or dies. The benchmark misses the point FutureBench evaluates agents by asking them to predict events that occurred after their training cutoff. This removes the possibility of correct answers coming from memorized training data rather than genuine reasoning. The design matters because it tests whether an agent can reason, not whether it can recall. BayesBench showed that standard LLM evaluations score only final-turn answers in single-turn format, leaving multi-turn belief updating entirely unexamined. Across seven models, scaling improves latent inference and evidence accumulation but LLMs do not match rational Bayesian updating. In production, your agent runs many turns. The benchmark that stops at turn one is not measuring the thing that actually breaks. KINA identified three systematic flaws in knowledge benchmarks: scaling-driven designs that ignore disciplinary representativeness, flat-payment annotation that permits lazy consensus among annotators, and unaudited ranking instability under bounded test budgets. The top model reached 53.17% on an 899-item benchmark across 261 disciplines. That is not saturation. That is headroom. The demo lied I worked with a team that deployed an agentic document processing system. The demo on ten handpicked cases was flawless. The first week of production, it hit an input format the training data never saw, and the system failed silently. No error was raised. The output looked

Amid public backlash over its smart glasses, Meta announced that it will be updating its glasses with a new feature that will disable the camera when it detects that someone has tampered with or destroyed the glasses' privacy LED light. The update is meant to address modders who have taken actions such as physically drilling […]