标签：#AR

The longtime far-right operator and troll, a UK citizen, is being held in ICE custody pending his removal from the United States.

Leaving a class open to inheritance is a design decision, not a default you can ignore. The core idea An unsealed class is a promise: every virtual member can be overridden without breaking what the class guarantees. Most classes never meant to make that promise. They're just unsealed by default, because that's what class gives you unless you say otherwise. Common mistake: treating sealed as "I don't want to think about subclassing" rather than "this type's invariants would break if someone could." One override breaks the promise Here's the promise, a BankAccount that refuses to go negative: public class BankAccount { public decimal Balance { get ; protected set ; } public virtual void Withdraw ( decimal amount ) { if ( amount > Balance ) throw new InvalidOperationException (); Balance -= amount ; } } And here's the override that breaks it: public class RiskyAccount : BankAccount { public override void Withdraw ( decimal amount ) { Balance -= amount ; // no check } } Nothing here is exotic. It compiles cleanly, and RiskyAccount is a perfectly legal BankAccount as far as the type system is concerned. Open one with a balance of 100 and withdraw 500: BankAccount account = new RiskyAccount ( 100m ); account . Withdraw ( 500m ); Console . WriteLine ( $"Balance: { account . Balance : F2 } " ); Real dotnet run output: Balance: -400.00 The check on the left never ran. virtual was an open invitation, and RiskyAccount took it. Sealing turns a silent bug into a compile error Without sealed , the code above compiles and produces a wrong answer at runtime; nothing points you at the problem until it's already in production. With sealed , the same mistake becomes something the compiler catches before the code ever runs: public sealed class BankAccount { public decimal Balance { get ; protected set ; } public void Withdraw ( decimal amount ) { if ( amount > Balance ) throw new InvalidOperationException (); Balance -= amount ; } } public class RiskyAccount : BankAccount { } // error

Alle paar Jahre verkündet jemand, dass die IT-Jobs verschwinden. Die Cloud ersetzt die Administratoren. Die Automatisierung ersetzt die Operatoren. Jetzt ersetzt die KI, was übrig ist. Und alle paar Jahre verschwinden die Jobs nicht, sie wandern. Sie wandern den Stack hinauf. Als physische Server der Cloud wichen, brauchten wir keine Infrastruktur-Leute weniger, wir brauchten Menschen, die Infrastruktur auf einer höheren Ebene verstehen, die Systeme entwerfen, absichern und kostenbewusst betreiben, statt Hardware in Racks zu schrauben. Als manuelle Deployments der Automatisierung wichen, brauchten wir Menschen, die die Automatisierung selbst bauen konnten. Jede Welle entfernte nicht die Arbeit. Sie hob den Boden und verschob den wertvollen Teil nach oben. Die KI ist die nächste Welle, und ich erwarte, dass sie sich genauso verhält. Sie wird viel Routine aufsaugen: das Skripten, die ersten Config-Entwürfe, die Standard-Fehlersuche. Was sie nicht aufsaugt, ist Urteilsvermögen: zu wissen, was zu bauen ist, zu entscheiden, was das Risiko wert ist, zu verstehen, wie die Teile einer echten Organisation zusammenpassen, und geradezustehen, wenn etwas schiefgeht. Wer in jedem Übergang strauchelt, sind die, die sich über die Aufgabe definieren, die automatisiert wurde. Wer gedeiht, definiert sich über das Problem, das er löst, und lässt die Werkzeuge dafür sich darunter ändern. Verteidige also nicht das eine, das du heute tust. Werde gut in der Schicht darüber. Der IT-Job hat jedes Werkzeug überlebt, das ihn beenden sollte, indem er den Stack hinaufwanderte. Diesen wird er genauso überleben. – Serguey Shinder

Sophia Bendz, general partner at Cherry Ventures, stopped by Equity to break down the latest in the Swedish tech ecosystem.

James Cameron's 1991 sci-fi blockbuster returns to theaters this weekend for its 35th anniversary.

Previously I have a macOS App I use myself, gemini-live-translate-macos . It uses ScreenCaptureKit to directly capture audio from a specified App, eliminating the need for virtual sound cards like BlackHole. It then sends the audio to the Gemini Live API for real-time translation, outputting Traditional Chinese subtitles while playing Chinese audio. I've written two posts about the development process: the first one was about building it from scratch using AGY CLI, and the second one was about using Claude Code to take it from "functional" to "user-friendly." The starting point for this new addition was simple: I saw a document for "Real-time Transcription" added to the Live API. Since I was already connected to the Live API, I thought adding a pure transcription mode would just be a matter of changing a few parameters. However, after checking the documentation, I realized that Google released two models with very similar names but very different capabilities at once. The specific feature I actually wanted (speaker diarization) wasn't available at all on the model I originally thought it was. Two Models with Names Differing by Only Two Words Let's lay out the differences first; this is the part I spent the most time figuring out: gemini-3.5-transcribe-live gemini-3.5-transcribe API Used Live API (WebSocket streaming) Interactions API (Standard HTTP request) Usage Scenario Transcribe while speaking Upload the whole file after recording Speaker Diarization Not supported Up to 8 speakers Word-level Timestamps Not supported Supported Audio Length 10 minutes per session 1 hour (30 mins with diarization) Smart Mode SMART available smart is mutually exclusive with diarization Interim Subtitles Has interimInputTranscription Not applicable The official documentation on the Live page's limitations section is very blunt: Speaker diarization is not supported in live streaming sessions. For speaker diarization, use the non-streaming Audio transcription endpoint. So, "seeing who

Cloud spending is on track to pass a trillion dollars a year, and most of it is wasted. Industry data puts idle resources, over-provisioned instances, and missed commitment discounts at 25 to 35% of the average cloud bill. For an early-stage company where hosting can eat 6 to 12% of revenue, that waste is not a rounding error. It is runway. The good news is that cloud cost optimization rarely requires a painful re-architecture. The biggest wins come from a few low-risk moves: switching off what nobody is using, rightsizing what is over-provisioned, and buying commitments for the baseline you will run anyway. The discipline that ties these together is called FinOps, and you do not need a dedicated team to practise it. You need visibility into where the money goes, a short list of high-leverage actions, and the habit of reviewing the bill before it reviews you. This playbook walks through exactly that, in the order we apply it for the startups we work with. Find the waste before you cut it You cannot optimize what you cannot see. Before touching a single instance, make your spend legible. That starts with cost allocation tags, a small enforced set like env , team , service , and customer , applied to every resource. Untagged spend is where waste hides, so treat an untagged resource as a bug to be fixed, not a footnote. With tags in place, the native tools do most of the heavy lifting. AWS Cost Explorer (and its equivalents on GCP and Azure) will show you the trend line, the biggest line items, and the resources sitting idle. Set budget alerts at the account and per-environment level so a runaway job pings you on day two, not on the invoice. The most important shift is what you measure. Don't stop at "we spent $14k on EC2." Tie cost to a unit of business value: cost per customer, per active user, or per thousand requests. That single number turns an abstract bill into a metric you can defend in a board meeting and optimize against deliberately. The number that matters

For a decade the advice was simple: put everything in the cloud and never look back. In 2026 that consensus is cracking. A Barclays survey found 83% of enterprises plan to repatriate at least some workloads from public cloud to private infrastructure, and IDC puts the share expecting to move compute or storage within the year near 80%. The most-cited example is still 37signals, the team behind Basecamp, who left the public cloud and reported saving roughly $7 million over five years. It is tempting to read those numbers as "cloud was a mistake." It was not. The cloud is still the right home for spiky, unpredictable, early-stage workloads where you are buying speed and optionality. What changed is that a lot of companies have now run the same steady, predictable workload on rented hardware for years, paying a premium for flexibility they stopped using. Repatriation is not a reversal of cloud strategy. It is the correction that comes after the bill gets big enough to read carefully. The question worth answering is not "should we leave the cloud" but "which specific workloads no longer earn their cloud premium," and that is a question you can answer with numbers. What is actually driving the move Cost is the headline, and it is real. Organizations that repatriate the right workloads commonly report 30 to 60% lower infrastructure spend for those workloads, because on-demand cloud pricing carries a large convenience margin that only makes sense when your usage is genuinely variable. Run a database at a steady 60% utilization every day for three years and you are paying a premium for elasticity you never touch. But cost is not the only force. Just over half of organizations name data security and privacy as a top driver, and in Europe the regulatory pressure is sharper than the cost case. Frameworks like DORA are already enforceable, and regulators increasingly want evidence of control over where data physically lives, not just a contractual promise from a hyperscaler. Fo

Your phone should be able to still sound your morning alarm when it's in silent mode. If it's not, here are some settings to check.

A recent paper argues that AI is often better at doctoring than doctors. Guess who isn't thrilled.

Nuance is the thing that gets you levelled up, and hedging is the thing that gets you levelled down. They sound almost identical from the outside, and the difference is entirely structural. Ask a junior engineer whether to use SQL or NoSQL and you get an answer. Ask a senior engineer and you often get "well, it depends", which is correct, and delivered badly it costs them the round. The problem is not the nuance. It is the order. Hedging leads with the uncertainty and never arrives at a decision. Judgement leads with the decision and then shows the uncertainty around it. Same knowledge, opposite impression. Why hedging reads badly An interviewer is trying to answer one question: would I trust this person to make a call without me in the room. A candidate who lists options without choosing has actively failed to demonstrate the thing being assessed, no matter how well they understand the options. There is a second, less obvious cost. Refusing to commit removes the interviewer's ability to go deeper. They cannot probe a decision you did not make, so the conversation stays shallow, and shallow conversations produce mid-level scores by default. A candidate who says it depends and stops has told the interviewer nothing except that they know it is complicated. Everyone at this level knows it is complicated. The four-part structure This works for almost any technical choice you will be asked about, and it takes about twenty seconds to deliver. Commit. Name what you would actually ship. One sentence, no preamble. Justify. Give the specific reason, tied to the constraints in the question rather than to general virtue. Cost. Say what you are giving up. Every choice loses something and naming it is the seniority signal. Trigger. State the condition that would change your mind, and ideally what you would watch for it. Notice that all the nuance from "it depends" is present. It is simply arranged behind a decision instead of in place of one. Would you use a relational database o

Hello! I'm a beginner developer with my sights set on backend development and data modeling. Like a lot of people starting out, I didn't come in with a computer science degree or years of professional experience — just curiosity about how applications actually store, organize, and make sense of data behind the scenes. Backend work has always felt like the "engine room" of software to me. While frontend gets the visual credit, it's the data layer that quietly decides whether an application is fast, reliable, and able to grow. That's what pulled me toward backend and database design in the first place. My biggest challenge so far has been learning SQL and data modeling from scratch. It sounds simple on paper — write some queries, design some tables — but in practice it meant rewiring how I think. I had to move from "how do I make this work right now" to "how do I structure this so it still works when the data grows, the requirements change, or someone else has to read my schema six months from now." Concepts like primary keys, foreign keys, relationships between tables, and eventually normalization weren't hard to memorize, but they were hard to internalize — to actually reach for instinctively when designing something from a blank page. A few things clicked for me along the way: A good schema is a form of communication. Table and column names, relationships, and constraints tell a story about the business logic, not just the data. Getting it "perfectly right" on the first try isn't the goal. Iterating on a design after seeing how data actually flows through it taught me more than any tutorial did. SQL rewards precision. Small differences — a missing JOIN condition, the wrong key, an unindexed column — can quietly break correctness or performance, so being deliberate matters. Constraints are a beginner's best friend. Things like NOT NULL, UNIQUE, and foreign key constraints catch mistakes early instead of letting bad data pile up silently. This foundation in SQL and d

The finding EventCatalog exposes a common monorepo failure mode: generated code may exist, its producer may be green, and the real downstream consumer can still fail. Its Langium language server generates AST, grammar, module, and syntax files; a sibling VS Code extension consumes that output alongside the workspace SDK and visualiser. The useful question is therefore not "did generation finish?" It is whether the repository can execute the complete consumer closure from declared dependency hydration through the package that needs the generated result. The contract boundary Ota models the generated output separately from the tasks that establish and consume it: artifacts : language-server-ast : kind : generated_source producer : language-server:generate paths : - packages/language-server/src/generated/ast.ts - packages/language-server/src/generated/grammar.ts - packages/language-server/src/generated/module.ts - packages/language-server/syntaxes/ec.tmLanguage.json - packages/vscode-extension/syntaxes/ec.tmLanguage.json inputs : - packages/language-server/src/ec.langium - packages/language-server/langium-config.json tasks : vscode-extension:build : depends_on : - language-server:generate - language-server:build - sdk:build - visualiser:build requires_artifacts : - language-server-ast The setup task owns typed, frozen-lockfile pnpm hydration with the language-server package filter. That removes bespoke install shell glue without pretending the dependency path is harmless: it reaches the package registry, so the selected closure is intentionally not routine agent-safe execution. Humans and CI can run the declared verification workflow; unattended agents cannot silently acquire that networked setup authority. What Ota had to learn This pressure case made two platform requirements concrete. Generated-source lineage had to remain visible at consumer admission and in execution evidence, rather than surfacing only after a build failure. And pnpm dependency hydration needed a

A ideia de um sebo que não perde estoque: No primeiro período, nosso grupo desenvolveu um Sebo Virtual. O objetivo era resolver a dificuldade de sebos tradicionais em conciliar estoque físico e virtual, com pagamento via PIX e envio de recibo por e-mail. Minha responsabilidade foi a engenharia de prompt utilizando o Lovable. Quando a IA não entendia o que eu queria: Os primeiros prompts retornaram resultados incompletos. Ao solicitar "explique o código por trás da aplicação", a resposta foi genérica e não detalhou a integração com o banco de dados. Também houve dificuldade em fazer a ferramenta compreender fluxos específicos, como leilão de itens, validação de cupons e cálculo de frete por CEP. O que mudou quando usei diagrama e contexto: O resultado melhorou quando passei a incluir contexto e artefatos. Três prompts funcionaram bem: para wireframe, enviei o diagrama e solicitei o protótipo das telas; para o leilão, pedi quatro telas com checkout e histórico de transações; para o back-end, solicitei as linguagens utilizadas e o fluxo de integração ao banco preservando as informações da documentação. Com isso, identifiquei a stack gerada: React com TypeScript no frontend e Supabase no backend, com consultas como from('pedidos').select('*').eq('usuario_id', id) . Do sebo para qualquer loja online: As regras implementadas, como cupons LIVRO10 e SEBO20, frete proporcional ao peso e checkout via PIX para o endereço base na Rua dos Livros, 707, João Pessoa, são aplicáveis a qualquer e-commerce de pequeno porte. O método permite transformar uma ideia em protótipo navegável em poucas horas. O que levo disso para a carreira? O projeto mostrou que, além do código, a capacidade de formular perguntas claras e organizar a documentação em fluxograma e diagrama de classes é fundamental. Foi meu primeiro case prático e base para portfólio na área de dados e produto. EN Summary: As a first-semester student, our team built a Virtual Bookstore to manage physical and online inventory w

Labor Day already? Say it ain’t so. You can still chase summer a while longer with these great deals on outdoor gear at the REI Labor Day Sale.

The art portfolio platform Cara, designed for creators who don’t want their work used to train AI, has been under assault by trolls seizing and publishing its data.

The company is testing robots that can swap cables, reset servers, and take on other tasks performed by technicians, fueling concerns among some workers that their jobs could be at risk.

Transferring files and data across platforms is more straightforward than ever.

With the curtains closed and the power cable nearby, this affordable Full HD smart projector is a compact delight.

California residents have a legal right to access the data that companies collect about them. Actually exercising that right is a burdensome nightmare.