标签：#AR

Existe um desconforto generalizado na área de desenvolvimento. Uma sensação de que o chão mudou, mas ninguém deu o mapa novo. A IA generativa entrou no dia a dia, e de repente aquilo que antes levava horas: escrever funções, montar queries, criar componentes, resolver bugs triviais. Agora passou a levar minutos. Às vezes, segundos. A reação mais comum é: ou "a IA vai substituir todo mundo", ou "não muda nada, é só mais uma ferramenta". As duas posições estão erradas. A primeira é alarmismo. A segunda é negação. O que aconteceu foi uma mudança de papel . O desenvolvedor não deixou de ser necessário. O tipo de contribuição que se espera de um desenvolvedor mudou. E entender essa mudança cedo, especialmente para quem está no início da carreira, é a diferença entre se tornar um profissional de pouco impacto e um profissional indispensável. O modelo que conhecíamos Durante muito tempo, a indústria funcionou com uma divisão razoavelmente clara de responsabilidades: O ciclo tradicional de uma demanda: Alguém identifica um problema → alguém de produto investiga e define o escopo → um arquiteto ou pleno projeta a solução → um desenvolvedor implementa. Cada etapa tinha suas pessoas, suas cerimônias, seus rituais. Refinamento, sprint planning, design review, code review. Não que isso fosse ruim, só era uma estrutura que fazia sentido quando cada etapa era custosa. Dentro desse modelo, a progressão de carreira era mais ou menos assim: Junior recebia tarefas pequenas e bem definidas. Codificava, testava, corrigia. A maior parte do tempo era gasto na execução: a parte braçal . Pleno pegava demandas mais complexas, começava a pensar em como o código se encaixa no sistema. Refatorava, participava de decisões técnicas . Senior definia arquitetura, avaliava trade-offs, mentorava. Codava menos, pensava mais . A IA comprimiu isso. Muito do trabalho braçal que servia como treinamento para o junior agora é automatizado. E isso gerou a pergunta que paira no ar: "Se a IA faz o que eu fazia

Originally published on hexisteme notes . Make every skill, hook, and scheduled job declare four invariants before it ships — Locality (where it can run), Source-of-truth (which facts it owns or borrows), Cross-ref (what depends on it and what it depends on), and Trigger-measurability (whether its trigger is observable at runtime or hidden in external state) — and refuse to hand off any component that leaves one undeclared, because an undeclared assumption is exactly the seam where two components silently disagree. Two separate runtime leaks surfaced in a single audit session, and both traced back to the same root cause: a component that never declared its assumptions. One read configuration from a file that had stopped being the source of truth (so it always returned a stale default); the other was a scheduled job pointed at a remote sandbox while its prompt referenced local-only paths — caught minutes before registration, where any later and it would have billed compute and produced nothing. Neither was a coding bug. Both were missing declarations. The failure mode: components that work alone but leak when combined When you build an AI agent system out of small parts — skills the model loads on demand, hooks that fire on lifecycle events, cron jobs and scheduled routines that run unattended, helper scripts, config profiles — each part usually gets tested in isolation. It works. You move on. The trouble is that "it works" only proves single-shot correctness; it says nothing about whether the part's assumptions agree with the rest of the system. Every component carries hidden assumptions: where it runs (local machine vs. a remote sandbox), which facts it treats as authoritative, what other components it silently depends on, and what its trigger actually measures. When those assumptions go undeclared, conflicts stay invisible until they surface to the user as a flaky, hard-to-trace symptom — the kind that feels like a vicious cycle because every fix in one place re-o

A year ago today, I started at Approov. A hundred days in, I wrote about the transition: leaving management, the refreshing day-to-day feedback loop, the strange experience of relearning a craft I thought I'd lost. I stand by most of it. But a hundred days is enough to notice a change; it takes a year to understand it. So here is what a year taught me that a hundred days couldn't. The rust that mattered At a hundred days I called myself rusty. I was. I reached for patterns that no longer fit and looked up syntax I once knew by heart. I expected that to be the hard part. It wasn't. The rust came off faster than I feared, and somewhere along the way I realised I'd been worried about the wrong thing entirely. The agentic era arrived in earnest this year, and it quietly rewrote the job description. The premium skill is no longer how fast you can produce code from memory. It's whether you can write a precise specification and make a strong architectural decision, then judge honestly whether what comes back is any good. Those are not new skills for me. They are the exact skills that years of reviewing architecture and mentoring engineers had been sharpening the whole time. The craft I sat down to relearn was not the craft that turned out to matter. I spent years assuming management had pulled me away from engineering. It hadn't. It had been quietly preparing me for the version of engineering that was coming. Charity Majors has a name for the shape of this: the engineer/manager pendulum. The idea that a healthy career swings between the two, rather than treating management as a one-way door you walk through once and never come back. I didn't choose when mine swung back. But it swung the right way, and the years spent on the other side weren't lost. They were compounding. A secure transaction is a secure transaction The work itself has been a homecoming of a different kind. I spent years in payments. Now I work in mobile and API security. On paper those are different worlds

The White House is easing restrictions on Anthropic’s most advanced AI models weeks after ordering the company to suspend access for foreign nationals.

What if one pitch changed everything? The next company nobody has heard of yet is building something that will matter. It could be yours.

Also, the science of poop's distinctive shape, boron buckyballs, and the secret to a soccer feint.

Un fondateur technique doit arrêter de coder le jour où son code freine plus son entreprise qu'il ne l'aide. Concrètement, trois signaux ne trompent pas : vous ralentissez votre propre équipe, vous ne managez plus, vous perdez la vue d'ensemble. Lâcher le code ne veut pas dire renoncer au produit ni à la technique : c'est passer de 90 % de code à 10 % de prototypage, pour récupérer le levier bien plus puissant d'un rôle de CPO, CTO stratégique ou CEO. Voici comment reconnaître le moment et organiser la transition. Vous avez fondé votre startup, écrit les premières lignes de code, recruté vos premiers développeurs. Et maintenant vous êtes toujours là, à relire chaque pull request, à refactorer du code le week-end, à être le seul à savoir déployer en prod. Vous savez que ce n'est plus tenable, mais vous n'arrivez pas à lâcher. Parce que lâcher le code, pour un fondateur technique, c'est renoncer à ce qui vous a défini depuis le premier jour. De fondateur à C-Level Cette transition est souvent l'occasion de clarifier le rôle que vous voulez jouer. Si le produit vous passionne, le rôle de CPO est une évolution naturelle. Si c'est la vision business, vous devenez CEO. Ni l'un ni l'autre ne nécessite de coder 8 heures par jour. Les trois signaux qu'il est temps d'arrêter Avant de les détailler, voici les trois signaux en un coup d'œil, avec ce qu'on observe sur le terrain et le risque sous-jacent. Si vous vous reconnaissez dans ne serait-ce qu'un seul, il est temps d'agir. Signal Ce qu'on observe Le risque pour l'entreprise Vous ralentissez l'équipe Tout passe par votre validation, vous réécrivez le code Goulot d'étranglement, équipe qui n'ose plus proposer Vous ne managez plus Recrutement, 1-1, vision à 12 mois passent à la trappe Démotivation et départs silencieux des seniors Vous perdez la vue d'ensemble Vous confondez intéressant techniquement et utile au client Mauvaises décisions stratégiques, dérive produit Vous ralentissez votre propre équipe C'est le signal le pl

AWS ECR Guide for ECS Fargate Teams Originally published at https://fortem.dev/blog/aws-ecr-guide AWS ECR from the ECS Fargate operator's seat: how pulls work, the execution-role IAM, why private-subnet tasks fail, real pricing, and the lifecycle policy that cuts the bill. Every ECS Fargate deploy pulls an image from ECR — and ECR is the part nobody owns until it breaks. A task in a private subnet throws ResourceInitializationError , or five years of untagged images quietly push the bill to $400/month. This is ECR from the ECS operator's seat: how pulls actually work, the IAM the execution role needs, what it costs at fleet scale, and the lifecycle, scanning, and replication settings that matter at 10+ environments — with the AWS-verified pricing nobody else itemizes. TL;DR ECR is AWS's managed container registry — the default image store for ECS and EKS. Registry → repository → image, with IAM-based access and a short-lived auth token per pull. The #1 ECR failure on Fargate is a private-subnet task that can't pull: it needs either a NAT gateway or three ECR VPC endpoints, plus AmazonECSTaskExecutionRolePolicy on the execution role. ECR storage is $0.10/GB-month; same-region pulls to Fargate are free. The hidden bill is old images — one team went from $400/mo to ~$15/mo with a 30-day lifecycle policy. At fleet scale three settings matter: lifecycle policies (cost), scan-on-push (security), and cross-account replication (multi-account image distribution). For ECR-heavy fleets in private subnets, VPC interface endpoints are often cheaper than routing every pull through a NAT gateway. Ready to use — copy this today Push an image, then a lifecycle policy that keeps the bill flat, then the exact networking + IAM a private-subnet Fargate task needs to pull: # 1. Authenticate Docker to your private ECR registry, then push aws ecr get-login-password --region us-east-1 \ | docker login --username AWS --password-stdin \ 123456789012.dkr.ecr.us-east-1.amazonaws.com docker tag

At an event for pharmaceutical executives, biotech founders, and researchers on Tuesday, Anthropic announced Claude Science, a major new product intended to support scientific research in the same way that Claude Code supports software engineering. Like Claude Code, Claude Science can autonomously carry out meaningful work when given concise, high-level instructions, and it has access…

Data Modeling, Relationships, and Schemas in Data Analytics In the fields of data analytics, data warehousing, and database management, modeling and schema design are the fundamental pillars used to organize and query information efficiently. This article provides a comprehensive guide to these core concepts. 1. Data Modeling Data modeling is the architectural process of designing how data is stored, interconnected, and accessed within a system. Core Questions Addressed: Storage: What specific data points need to be captured? Structure: How should individual tables be organized? Connectivity: How do these tables interact with one another? Levels of Data Models: Conceptual Model: A high-level business perspective focusing on entities and their relationships, devoid of technical specifications. Logical Model: Defines specific attributes, keys, and relationships. It is independent of the Database Management System (DBMS). Physical Model: The actual implementation within a database, including technical details like indexes, partitions, and storage requirements. 2. Relationships Relationships define the logic of how data in one table corresponds to data in another. One-to-One (1:1): A single record in Table A relates to exactly one record in Table B. One-to-Many (1:M): The most common relationship; for example, one Customer can place many Orders . Many-to-Many (M:M): Multiple records in one table relate to multiple records in another. This requires a Junction Table (Bridge Table) to function. Example: One Student can enroll in many Courses, and one Course contains many Students. 3. SQL Joins Joins are used to combine rows from two or more tables based on a related column. Join Type Description Inner Join Returns only the records that have matching values in both tables. Left Join Returns all records from the left table and the matched records from the right. Right Join Returns all records from the right table and the matched records from the left. Full Outer Join Returns

TL;DR — A Kafka + Flink + OTel ingestion pipeline cost us ~$700–800/month at 10 MB/s. We rebuilt it as a single binary where the data, the write-ahead log, and the Iceberg catalog all live in S3 alone — no Kafka, no local disks, no coordination service — for ~$100/month . Here's the design. Self-hosted observability sooner or later runs into the problem of storing state. Query load, CPU, and data volume can all be handled by scaling out, but the stateful layer is something you have to operate by hand. At first it's almost unnoticeable: a disk degrades here, replication falls behind there, a recovery hangs somewhere else. As the data grows, incidents stop being one-offs and start to recur. At some point your observability stack - whether it's Grafana Loki, Elastic, or ClickHouse - starts demanding the same attention as a full-blown database that you're on the hook for. Kubernetes operators cover some of these cases, but operating the state is still on you. Managed solutions take that burden away and bring their own: rising costs, ingestion-pipeline constraints, and limits on retention and cardinality. But if you'd rather not sign up for the constant operational grind - or live with the constraints of managed solutions - it's worth asking: can we take the stateful part out of operations entirely? Storage and format The first candidate for offloading storage responsibility is Amazon S3. S3 gives you what local disks can't: fault tolerance and practically unlimited scale, with no storage to manage yourself. It isn't free, though: data-access latency goes up, and you pick up separate costs for API operations. For OLTP workloads that's a dealbreaker. For observability workloads - which are dominated by sequential writes and analytical reads - these trade-offs are often acceptable. At first glance, this problem is already solved. Loki , for example, uses S3 as its primary storage. But according to Loki's public documentation (v3.6.x) at the time of writing, Loki doesn't re

If you have ever opened a system design article, seen a diagram with twelve boxes, three databases, a message queue, and the words "eventually consistent," and quietly closed the tab, this post is for you. There is a myth that you need years of experience running large systems before you can learn system design. You don't. Plenty of engineers learn it before they have ever deployed anything bigger than a side project. What you actually need is the right starting point and a way to build intuition without access to production-scale traffic. That is exactly what this guide gives you. "But I've never built anything at scale" Good news: neither had most people the first time they learned this. System design is not a memory test about how Uber works. It is a thinking skill: given a vague problem and some constraints, make a sequence of reasonable trade-offs and explain them clearly. That skill does not require having operated a system serving millions of users. It requires understanding what the moving parts do and practicing the reasoning. The experience helps later, but it is not the price of entry. So drop the idea that you are "not ready." You are ready to start today. The honest minimum prerequisites You do not need much, but you do need these four things. If any feels shaky, spend a few days here first; it will save you weeks of confusion later. What happens when you load a web page. Client sends a request, DNS resolves a name to an address, a server responds. If you can sketch that, you're fine. The two kinds of databases. Relational (tables, rows, SQL) versus non-relational (documents, key-value). You don't need to be an expert, just know they exist and roughly when each fits. What an index is. A way to find data fast without scanning everything. That one sentence is enough to begin. Basic estimation. If something gets a million requests a day, roughly how many is that per second? (About 12, for the record.) The ability to do rough math out loud matters more than

I've been building on DynamoDB since around 2015, and these days I build tools for it: dynoxide , a DynamoDB engine, and Nubo , a native client. So I'm not neutral about it. It's the first database I reach for, and with reason - the operational overhead is close to nil, no connections to pool or instances to size, and it holds the same single-digit-millisecond reads whether the table has a thousand items or a billion. The data modelling is a craft, and a satisfying one. It's also one of the harder databases to learn, and that's the part I keep coming back to. DynamoDB punishes the instincts you bring from SQL. You don't normalise and join at read time; you work out the questions your app will ask first, and shape the data around those access patterns, until one table answers all of them. It's a real shift in how you think, and it's where a lot of people bounce off - it feels backwards right up until it clicks. The people who teach it best all teach it the same way. Alex DeBrie's The DynamoDB Book , the arc.codes team's examples, Rick Houlihan's re:Invent talks - the legendary ones, where he models half a dozen access patterns onto a single table at a hundred miles an hour - none of them hand you rules to memorise. They show you patterns and make you run them. I learned a lot of my DynamoDB from all three, and it stuck because I was building as I went. That last part is the bit that's hard to come by on your own. Reading about an access pattern and having it in your fingers are different things, and to run one - build the table, write the items, fire the query and see what comes back - you need an AWS account, or a local emulator installed and seeded. Enough friction that plenty of people read about single-table design without ever building one. There was a second thing pulling the same way. dynoxide had learned to run in the browser only last month, compiled to WebAssembly with no server behind it, and it was a preview I didn't fully trust. What it needed was a real

The California-based startup enters a crowded headphone market with a $399 chiseled-aluminum gamble.

"That would be an awesome capability."

EquiLibre Technologies, a Prague-based AI lab founded by three ex-DeepMind researchers, is now valued at more than $500 million.

“We can take power from a plasma,” Kieran Furlong, co-founder and CEO of Realta Fusion, told TechCrunch. The milestone shows “what’s possible,” he added.

Security Team: “I have a major Grype...with what I Syfted out of your provided image." Developer: “Well your Grype is slowing me down...let’s tone it down a notch.” While deploying bookstack into my local environment, this issue surfaced. It is true for many organizations today deploying images and packages in their environment. How can this noise fatigue in the software supply chain be remedied? Add a .gype.yaml file to the root directory of your project. This will allow grype to ignore certain CVE's that do not execute or pose a threat in your environment. The yaml config can be as simple as below: Linux Environment # grype.yaml ignore : - vulnerability : CVE-2026-32631 reason : " Platform-specific false positive. Git for Windows only; not applicable to this Linux-based image." - vulnerability : CVE-2016-2781 reason : " Chroot escape via ioctl. Containers rely on namespaces/cgroups, not chroot, so this path isn't exploitable here." OR # grype.yaml ignore : - vulnerability : CVE-2026-32631 - vulnerability : CVE-2016-2781 This will help developers and security engineers get along better. 😃 Grype config reference: https://oss.anchore.com/docs/reference/grype/configuration/

Originally published on PrepStack . Everyone's first RAG pipeline is the same four boxes: documents, chunk, vector DB, LLM. It demos in an afternoon and then quietly betrays you in production — stale answers, no relationships, no governance, and a model guessing from fragments. The fix is not a bigger vector index. It is to stop storing documents and start storing knowledge . That is Open Knowledge Format (OKF). To be clear up front, because the title is deliberately provocative: OKF does not kill embeddings. Vectors still do the recall. What OKF kills is blind chunking — slicing opaque documents into context-free fragments and hoping cosine similarity reassembles meaning. On Mattrx , a multi-tenant marketing-analytics SaaS (.NET 9 + Azure SQL + a Python FastAPI AI service), replacing blind chunking with OKF + a Context Engine took the assistant's hallucination rate from 18% to 3% and stale-answer rate from 11% to 1.5% . TL;DR Dimension Documents → chunk → vector DB (before) OKF + Context Engine (after) Unit of knowledge Opaque chunk of text Typed, governed knowledge unit Structure None — chunks are islands Metadata + relationships + schemas Freshness Snapshot, rots silently valid_until + live API refs Rules Buried in prose, ignorable First-class data the engine enforces Retrieval Top-k cosine Hybrid + vector + graph Multi-hop questions Unanswerable Answered via relationships Results after the rebuild: Knowledge base restructured into ~11,000 OKF units (Markdown + metadata + relationships + APIs + schemas + business rules). Hallucination 18% -> 3% ; faithfulness 0.96 ; answer-relevance 0.91 . Context tokens/call 14k -> 3.5k — structure lets the engine attach the right thing, not everything. Outdated-answer rate 11% -> 1.5% ( valid_until + metadata freshness). Multi-hop questions unanswerable -> answered via graph retrieval. Deprecated-plan recommendations recurring -> 0 (business rules enforced as data). The one mental shift: a chunk is a fragment of text with no id

They may not look as good, but Nano Banana 2 Lite images only take a few seconds to create.