标签：#AR

A CFO will not act on a number an LLM eyeballed. They will not act on a number the model "estimated" by reasoning over a usage dump. And they should not — because the moment a language model emits a dollar figure it computed itself, that figure is a guess wearing the costume of a fact. This is the design constraint behind databricks-cost-leak-hunter , the pilot skill of the databricks-pack v2 rebuild shipped in the claude-code-plugins marketplace ( PR #906 ). Given a live, authenticated Databricks workspace, it surfaces real cost leaks across four named categories, ranks them by monthly dollar impact, and emits a report a finance reader can act on. The marketplace validator graded it B (88/100, zero errors). The SKILL.md is 329 lines. The single most important thing in it is a rule the model is structurally prevented from breaking: the LLM never does the dollar arithmetic. Why not just let the agent read the bill and summarize it? Because that is exactly how you ship a confidently wrong cost report. Hand a model a few thousand rows of system.billing.usage and ask it for the top cost leaks, and it will give you a fluent answer. It will add DBUs. It will multiply by a price it half-remembers. It will round. Every one of those steps is a place the model can be plausibly, invisibly wrong — and the output reads identically whether the math is right or hallucinated. The failure mode of an LLM doing FinOps is not a crash. It is a clean, well-formatted, wrong number. The fix is architectural, not prompt-engineering. The model is allowed to decide what to look for and how to explain it . It is never allowed to be the calculator. The dollar primitive: confirmed, never estimated Every confirmed figure comes from the customer's own billing tables — system.billing.usage joined to system.billing.list_prices . Not a model estimate. Not a public price list. The number Databricks actually billed. That join is defined once, as a priced CTE, and reused by every category query. Usage i

You finally get the response. The CV cleared whatever filter it was up against, and now there is a calendar invite for a thirty or forty five minute call. Most developers treat this as the technical screen and prepare accordingly. They load up on system design questions, leetcode style problems, or deep dives into the stack listed in the job post. What actually happens in that first call is often lighter on code and heavier on whether the person on the other side can picture working with you week after week. The engineering lead or hiring manager is trying to answer a few practical questions the CV could not fully settle. Can this person explain their decisions without needing constant context? Do they push back on unclear requirements in a way that moves the conversation forward instead of creating friction? Do they already understand how remote contractor work tends to flow, or will every interaction need extra translation? The candidates who lose ground here rarely fail on raw technical ability. They lose it on rhythm and assumptions. Some over-prepare the technical side and under-prepare the part where they need to show how they handle ambiguity. Others treat every question as an interview question that demands a polished answer, when what the lead wanted was a working conversation. The call ends with a quiet sense that this person will need more hand-holding than the role allows. Timezone and async signals are another place people slip. When a candidate spends the call reassuring the other person that they can work US hours or that they are always available for meetings, it often lands as uncertainty. The reassurance backfires. Teams that hire contractors remotely have already accepted some timezone spread. What they want to hear is how you have made async work in the past, what you leave behind when you log off, and how you keep momentum without daily syncs. The calls that move forward feel like two people working a problem together. The candidate is not sitti

Flipper Devices, a company that built a banned hacking device, now wants to hack your attention span.

First announced over a year ago in April 2025, the Busy Bar will be available for purchase starting on July 14th when the device also starts shipping. Created by the same team behind the Flipper Zero wireless multitool, the Busy Bar is instead described as a "productivity multitool" that relies on a pixelated LED display […]

Omen AI raised a $31 million Series A to monitor chip coolant and stop bacterial outbreaks in data centers.

Flipper Device's new Busy Bar will retail for $249.

We’ve all been there. You scroll through your feeds, see a flashy ad promising a high-paying tech job in 3 months, and think, “This is it. This is my golden ticket.” You buy the bootcamp, spend sleepless nights watching lectures, stack up a dozen colorful certificates on your LinkedIn, and then... nothing. No callbacks. No interviews. Just a lingering feeling of frustration and the nagging thought: Are bootcamps and online courses just a massive scam? I used to think so. When I was trying to break into tech, I bought courses like crazy. I collected certificates like they were Pokémon cards. Yet, my first real developer job didn't show up until five or six years later. And let me tell you a secret: it wasn’t the certificates that got me the job. It was because I finally figured out how to actually learn. The truth is, almost every bootcamp or course—even the mediocre ones—has something valuable to offer. The problem isn’t always the material; it’s how we interact with it. If you feel stuck in "tutorial hell," here is a positive, practical guide to changing your approach, reclaiming your time, and turning any learning material into real, career-changing expertise. 1. Curate Your Sources (Choose Your Battles Wisely) Before we talk about how to study, we need to talk about what to study. Even though you can extract value from almost any course, your time is highly valuable. Don't waste it on low-quality content. When choosing a course or bootcamp, look for these four green flags: The Instructor Has Real-World Mileage: Is the instructor a practitioner, or are they just reading the official documentation back to you? If they don't work with the technology daily, they won’t be able to explain the nuances, edge cases, and real-world trade-offs. A Project-First Curriculum: Avoid courses that are just endless lectures of "theory first, practice never." Look for curriculums that build actual applications. Good Pacing and Editing: We've all watched those tutorials where the ins

We’ve all been there. You scroll through your feeds, see a flashy ad promising a high-paying tech job in 3 months, and think, “This is it. This is my golden ticket.” You buy the bootcamp, spend sleepless nights watching lectures, stack up a dozen colorful certificates on your LinkedIn, and then... nothing. No callbacks. No interviews. Just a lingering feeling of frustration and the nagging thought: Are bootcamps and online courses just a massive scam? I used to think so. When I was trying to break into tech, I bought courses like crazy. I collected certificates like they were Pokémon cards. Yet, my first real developer job didn't show up until five or six years later. And let me tell you a secret: it wasn’t the certificates that got me the job. It was because I finally figured out how to actually learn. The truth is, almost every bootcamp or course—even the mediocre ones—has something valuable to offer. The problem isn’t always the material; it’s how we interact with it. If you feel stuck in "tutorial hell," here is a positive, practical guide to changing your approach, reclaiming your time, and turning any learning material into real, career-changing expertise. 1. Curate Your Sources (Choose Your Battles Wisely) Before we talk about how to study, we need to talk about what to study. Even though you can extract value from almost any course, your time is highly valuable. Don't waste it on low-quality content. When choosing a course or bootcamp, look for these four green flags: The Instructor Has Real-World Mileage: Is the instructor a practitioner, or are they just reading the official documentation back to you? If they don't work with the technology daily, they won’t be able to explain the nuances, edge cases, and real-world trade-offs. A Project-First Curriculum: Avoid courses that are just endless lectures of "theory first, practice never." Look for curriculums that build actual applications. Good Pacing and Editing: We've all watched those tutorials where the ins

When I write code in unfamiliar territory, I write three lines, then I run it. Then I write three more lines, and I run it again. I've been doing this for twenty-four years. It's the most specific habit I have. I almost didn't write this article, because the habit feels too small to be worth describing — but then I noticed that it's the part of my way of working that I can never seem to explain to someone in real time. It needs writing down. Three principles The discipline rests on three things I believe about writing code. They're not deep. They've just stayed with me. 1. Trust nothing but your own code. If you can't trust the code you wrote yourself, what can you trust? Not a library, not a vendor's documentation, not your own assumption from yesterday. The only thing in the system whose behavior you can fully verify is the code you just typed, by running it. 2. Write in code, not in language. If you're describing what the code should do in Japanese or English, you're spending the same time you could have spent writing the code itself. By the time the code runs, the description is already done — by the code, in a more precise form than any language could give it. 3. Make three lines complete. The three lines you just wrote should be complete. Error handling included. Validation included. Logging included. Not "I'll add validation later." Not "I'll wrap it in a try-catch later." Three lines, complete, then run. (There's a small exception to this. Sometimes you do want to ignore every error and move on — for instance, when you're trying to understand whether the happy path works at all before you care about anything else. That's a different mode, used deliberately. It's not the same as "I'll handle errors later.") Why three lines Three lines is roughly the unit of thought I can hold completely. Five lines, and I start guessing what the third line did. Ten lines, and I'm reading the code as if it were someone else's. Three lines is the size that stays mine. When thre

Oura took its class-leading smart ring, made it 40 percent smaller and made the battery last longer.

In this episode, Heroku co-founder and Ink & Switch founder Adam Wiggins argues for a 'local-first' architecture that reconciles cloud-based collaboration with the performance and data ownership of local software. He explores the role of CRDTs and version control primitives in non-code domains, and examines how a hybrid AI future might leverage local models for core productivity tasks. By Adam Wiggins

This virtual panel brings together AI security experts to examine the evolution of AI-driven threats, from prompt injection and data poisoning to agent abuse and AI-powered social engineering. The discussion explores emerging attack patterns, incident response challenges, and the changes security teams must make as AI systems become more autonomous and integrated into critical workflows. By Claudio Masolo, Elham Arshad, Sabri Allani, Vijay Dilwale, Igor Maljkovic

With AI-powered noise reduction, an automatic speech-focusing system, and a simple, effective hearing test, it’s a shame these aids don't come with a better app.

NASA’s quiet supersonic flight tests could eventually go on a national tour.

The design doc is fourteen pages. Clean service boundaries, thoughtful API contracts, a deployment story that handles rollback without incident. Six months of work. The team is proud of it, and the work is genuinely good. Three questions will tell more about this system than all fourteen pages. Not questions about implementation details or technology choices. Questions about how the system was designed to age, to fail, and to be understood by someone who didn’t build it. Most architecture conversations never reach these questions, which is part of why the gap between a good system and a great one is often invisible until it is suddenly very visible. What does this make hard? Good architecture conversations focus on what a design enables: faster deployments, independent scaling, and clearer ownership. The question that separates architectural thinking from implementation thinking is the inverse . What does this make hard? Every decision forecloses options. The service boundary that gives teams autonomy makes cross-service transactions expensive. The data model that reads cleanly under expected load makes certain write patterns awkward. The abstraction that simplifies onboarding makes some categories of refactoring nearly invisible as possibilities. These are not arguments against the decisions. They are the other side of every decision, and that other side exists whether or not anyone names it. The design doc that holds up over time is not the one where nothing is difficult. It is the one where the difficult things are named. “This approach makes distributed transactions impossible, and here is why we have decided to accept that constraint.” That sentence, or something close to it, belongs in every significant architecture document. Its absence is not a sign that the constraint wasn’t considered. Often it was. But without the name, the constraint becomes invisible to everyone who wasn’t in the room, which eventually includes the original team. When joining a system s

My non-tech friends still don’t get it. Despite what you’d believe from Twitter, most people still...

The AI Engineer World's Fair has attracted a lot of adults, and they brought their kids too, for...

The AI Engineer World’s Fair returns to Moscone West in San Francisco from June 28 through July 2,...

Flexion Robotics, a startup founded by ex-Nvidia engineers, has a clever way of training robots to do useful work.

GitLab's 2026 AI Accountability Report highlights an AI Paradox: although 78% of developers say they code faster, overall software delivery has not accelerated due to downstream testing and review bottlenecks and new challenges for enterprise governance and traceability. By Sergio De Simone