标签：#AR

This week, DEV is arguing about who reviews AI output ( discussion ). The community keeps asking the same question. My answer is different. Review the boundary first, not the output. The output is visible. The boundary is not. That is where the risk hides. Agents get the memory debates. The gateway gets none. A free AI tier is a shared service. It has a budget, a concurrency ceiling, and no SLA. Treat it that way. Put a gateway between your app and the model. The gateway owns the budget, the queue, and the breaker. MonkeyCode is an open source project. It offers free model access and a free server option. The free tier gives you a 10M token monthly budget. That number is a constraint, not a feature. Design around it before you build on it. Disclosure: This article was prepared as part of MonkeyCode's product outreach. Think of the free tier as a water pipe. The pipe has a fixed diameter and a monthly meter. Your app is a set of open taps. Without a valve, the meter empties fast and the pipe floods. The gateway is the valve. Direct calls look simpler. They are simpler for one request. They fail at the tenth. The gateway absorbs the variance. Your app never sees a 429. Your app never sees an empty budget. Constraints Three constraints define the design. First, the 10M token budget is monthly. It does not reset daily. It does not roll over. Second, the free server serializes work. Concurrency of one is a safe assumption. Third, there is no SLA. The endpoint can stall, throttle, or return 429 at any moment. These constraints are not bugs. They are the contract. A good architecture reads the contract. Then it shapes the data flow around it. Data flow The flow has six stages. The client sends a prompt to the gateway. The gateway checks the token budget. It enqueues the request. A single worker drains the queue. The worker calls the model endpoint. The response returns to the client. Add two escape paths. When the budget is empty, the gateway returns a fallback answer. Whe

A field-service team learns the hard way A field-service team built a support chatbot that sent every message to a cloud LLM endpoint. The design held until a technician drove through a tunnel, and the request queue grew into an eleven-minute backlog. The same week, a support ticket containing a customer's account number appeared in a third-party log because the payload was never classified. The fix was not a bigger cloud budget but a local-first router that decides where each request runs. Why cloud-first fails in three specific ways Latency is the first failure mode, because a round trip to a hosted endpoint adds network time on top of model time. Autocomplete-style features feel broken when every keystroke waits for a distant server instead of a local process. Secrets are the second failure, because any payload sent to a third party can leak into logs or vendor systems. Offline is the third, because a tablet in a tunnel simply has no route to the cloud. The decision table that replaces the either-or debate Local inference and cloud APIs are two legs of a routing policy, not a binary choice. Each request deserves an evaluation against the same conditions, and the table below captures those conditions. The router implementation in the next section turns that table into executable logic with a small Python module. The recent wave of free and cheap model announcements makes this decision more urgent, because every new endpoint adds another leg to the routing table. Condition Local model Cloud free server Payload contains PII Always Never Network unreachable Always Never Latency budget under 300 ms Prefer Avoid Task requires strong reasoning Avoid Prefer Local queue deeper than three Avoid Prefer Token budget nearly exhausted Prefer Avoid The table encodes a simple principle: privacy and availability win over capability. Capability wins only when the network is healthy and the payload is safe. The table also exposes the hidden assumption that a local model is always a

The eclipse will obscure about 93 percent of the moon’s surface. Here are the peak times and tips for the best viewing experience.

If you are building API-driven applications, nothing clutters up your controllers faster than manually typing out response()->json(...) arrays every single time you need to return data or throw an error. When you have inconsistent response structures, your frontend (and the developers consuming your API) will constantly have to guess whether the data is nested under ['data'] , ['payload'] , or just at the root of the object. The cleanest way I've found to standardize this across an entire application is by creating a dedicated ApiResponse trait. Instead of rewriting your JSON structure in every controller method, create this trait in your app/Traits directory: namespace App\Traits ; use Illuminate\Http\JsonResponse ; trait ApiResponse { protected function success ( mixed $data , ?string $message = null , int $code = 200 ): JsonResponse { return response () -> json ([ 'status' => 'success' , 'message' => $message , 'data' => $data ], $code ); } protected function error ( string $message , int $code = 400 , array | string $errors = []): JsonResponse { // Force errors into an array format for consistent frontend parsing $formattedErrors = is_string ( $errors ) ? [ $errors ] : $errors ; return response () -> json ([ 'status' => 'error' , 'message' => $message , 'errors' => $formattedErrors ], $code ); } } Next, simply use this trait inside your base Controller.php . Now, your actual endpoints become incredibly readable and strictly standardized: namespace App\Http\Controllers ; use App\Models\Task ; use Illuminate\Http\Request ; use Illuminate\Http\JsonResponse ; use Throwable ; class TaskController extends Controller { public function store ( Request $request ): JsonResponse { $validated = $request -> validate ([ 'title' => 'required|string|max:255' , 'description' => 'nullable|string' ]); try { $task = Task :: create ( $validated ); return $this -> success ( $task , 'Task successfully generated' , 201 ); } catch ( Throwable $e ) { // Note: Exposing raw exception messa

The startup is only a year old but it has already generated a massive amount of hype (and money) while also spurring privacy concerns.

MyZubster Is Not Trying to Build Another App — We're Exploring a Verifiable Digital Ecosystem For years, software development has largely followed the same pattern: User → Application → Database → Service AI changed part of that equation. IoT changed another part. Blockchain introduced new models for provenance and ownership. But there is still a difficult problem connecting all of them: How can a digital system verify what actually happened in the real world? This is one of the questions driving the development of MyZubster. MyZubster is an Italian open-source digital ecosystem currently under development. It hasn't reached its final public form yet. And that's important. Because we're not presenting a finished platform. We're documenting how the architecture evolves. From application to ecosystem Calling MyZubster simply an "app" increasingly feels incomplete. The architecture we're exploring connects several layers: MYZUBSTER ┌─────────────────┐ │ REAL WORLD │ │ people / places │ │ devices / events│ └────────┬────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────┐ │ DATA │ │ sensors / users │ │ external sources│ └────────┬────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────┐ │ PROVENANCE │ │ source / time │ │ context / proof │ └────────┬────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────┐ │ AI │ │ interpretation │ │ automation │ └────────┬────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────┐ │ EVIDENCE │ │ verification │ │ reproducibility │ └────────┬────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────┐ │ DIGITAL SERVICES│ └─────────────────┘ The goal isn't to put every technology imaginable into one application. The interesting part is the connection between these layers. AI needs evidence Generative AI can produce extraordinary outputs. But generation and verification are fundamentally different operations. An AI system can say: "This intervention reduced water consumption by 30%." But where did that number come from? What sensor produced the original measurement? What period was compared? What methodology was used? Was the dataset modified? Can somebody repro

You can build a working agent mesh with QUIC transport, encrypted messaging, and decentralized coordination. Five processes can reinforce independent conclusions and let unsupported signals decay. The mesh works. Then you try to introduce it to another agent and discover you have no standard way to ask what the swarm can do. No retained task to retrieve after an internal signal expires. No interoperable progress stream. No cancellation contract. No artifact another framework would understand. SMESH is a Rust-based decentralized agent framework that hit this boundary. The author had built a society with no border crossing. The solution was Google's Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol, announced in April 2025 and moved under Linux Foundation governance in June 2025. A2A provides the missing public contract: a way for agents built by different vendors to discover one another, exchange messages, and collaborate without sharing private memory, tools, or internal plans. The Cold-Start Problem in Agent Meshes Traditional service meshes solve discovery with a central registry. Kubernetes has etcd. Consul has its catalog. Envoy has xDS. You register your service, get a DNS name or IP, and other services find you. This works because services are relatively static and the registry is the source of truth. Agent meshes are different. Agents are ephemeral, context-dependent, and often spawned on demand. They need to: Discover peers without a central registry Exchange capability metadata at runtime Negotiate protocols without pre-shared configuration Maintain security boundaries during introduction The coordination primitives (message passing, consensus, signal decay) assume agents already know about each other. Discovery is the layer below coordination. SMESH had the top layer working but no way to bootstrap the bottom layer without manual wiring. What A2A Provides A2A is not a coordination protocol. It is an introduction protocol. The spec defines: Discovery handshake : How agents announ

Keep the beams standing. Replace what they carry. — The 36 Stratagems, Replace the beams with rotten...

A dashing pirate, a butler, a killer clown, an alien mad scientist in drag—the man had range.

There is a pattern I keep seeing when designing Agentic AI systems. We start by asking: Which LLM should we use? Should we use LangGraph? Where can MCP fit? Should we build multiple agents? Do we need RAG? Should we add memory? Should every step be handled by an autonomous agent? These are useful questions. But they are often asked too early . The result can be an architecture that is technically impressive but operationally difficult, expensive, slow, and surprisingly hard to trust. A better approach is to reverse the order: Start with the product outcome. Define the constraints. Then design the architecture. Choose the tools last. I have found a useful way to structure those constraints around four dimensions: LCFE L — Latency C — Cost F — Failure E — Evaluation This is not a framework that says every agentic system must look the same. It is a way of forcing architectural decisions to start with the realities of the product rather than the capabilities of the technology. In this article, I’ll walk through a concrete incident-automation example and show how starting with constraints can completely change the architecture. 1. The "backwards" way of designing an agent Imagine we want to build an AI Incident Resolution Assistant for an engineering organization. The goal sounds straightforward: When a production incident is raised, the AI should investigate the incident, gather context, identify the likely cause, recommend or perform remediation, and verify the result. Now imagine the team starts with the technology. The first architecture might look like this: User / Incident | v ┌──────────────┐ │ Triage Agent │ └──────┬───────┘ | v ┌────────────────┐ │ Research Agent │ └───────┬────────┘ | ┌──────────────┼──────────────┐ v v v Logs Agent Metrics Agent Knowledge Agent | | | └──────────────┼──────────────┘ | v ┌─────────────────┐ │ Remediation │ │ Agent │ └────────┬────────┘ | v ┌─────────────────┐ │ Validation Agent│ └────────┬────────┘ | v Resolution It looks sophis

I Started Building a Discord Server Directory I’ve spent a lot of time around Discord communities, and one thing has always bothered me. Finding a good Discord server is harder than it should be. There are thousands of communities for gaming, anime, roleplay, technology, social groups and pretty much every niche you can think of. But finding the right one usually means jumping between invite links, old posts, server lists and search results. At some point I thought, why not build a better way to discover them? That’s how I started working on Dizord. The first version was pretty simple. I wanted a place where a server could be listed, people could discover it, and everything could be organized around interests instead of just one giant list of servers. Then the project started getting bigger. More servers meant more categories and tags. More tags meant better search and filtering. Server information changes constantly, so keeping listings updated became another problem to solve. I’m building the backend with Laravel and working with the Discord API to handle server information and synchronization. There are also a lot of small things behind the scenes that aren't obvious when you simply open a server listing page. One of the things I'm currently working on is making discovery better for smaller communities. A server shouldn't need tens of thousands of members just to be discoverable. The goal is pretty simple: Make it easier to find a Discord community you'll actually want to stay in. The project is still evolving, but the current version is live: https://dizord.com I'm still experimenting with search, categorization, server activity and ways to make a large directory useful instead of overwhelming. If you're building a directory, marketplace, or any project with thousands of constantly changing pages, I'd also be interested in hearing how you handle discovery and indexing at scale.

I created a simple text to image benchmark. I curated 192 prompts that are difficult for T2I models in various ways: text rendering, spatial reasoning, human realism, negations, etc... I then asked a VLM to judge every output against a pre-specified binary question with the ground truth baked in. I'm publishing all the results including the images. (Most public T2I leaderboards don't publish the actual images and that's a shame IMO) There is currently 52 model tested! more than 9k images have been generated and analysed! Full methodology: https://imagebench.ai/methodology-v1 Hugging face dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/dh7/imagebench (it contains the prompts to reproduce the results AND the results) Github: https://github.com/dh7/image-bench-ai Gallery to inspect the results: https://imagebench.ai/gallery Leaderboard: https://imagebench.ai/imagebench-v1 Limitations: it's text to image only, and VLM are not perfect as a judge. Let me know what could be useful from there! submitted by /u/dh7net [link] [留言]

When learning Angular, Spring, and Node.js, I often came across terms like SOLID, Dependency Injection (DI), Inversion of Control (IoC), IoC Container, and Composition . At first, these concepts can feel like they are all the same thing. They are not. The key realization is: SOLID is about how we design software. Composition is about how we build larger systems from smaller pieces. Dependency Injection is a technique for providing those pieces. IoC containers automate that process. Understanding this relationship makes Angular, Spring, and Node.js architectures much easier to reason about. 1. SOLID Is a Design Principle, Not a Framework Feature SOLID is a collection of software design principles. For example, Single Responsibility Principle (SRP) says that a component should have a focused responsibility. Instead of having one class responsible for HTTP handling, database access, validation, email, and payment processing, we can separate those responsibilities: Controller ↓ Service ↓ Repository ↓ Database Each part has a focused job. Similarly, the Open/Closed Principle (OCP) encourages us to design components that can be extended without constantly modifying their existing implementation. These principles don't require Angular, Spring, or an IoC container. You can follow SOLID in plain JavaScript. 2. Composition Is the Bigger Idea Composition means: Build a larger behavior by combining smaller, focused pieces. This works in both functional and object-oriented programming. In functional programming: function A ↓ function B ↓ function C A larger function can be created by composing smaller functions. In object-oriented programming: OrderService │ ├── PaymentService └── EmailService OrderService is composed using other objects. The important relationship is often: HAS-A rather than IS-A For example: OrderService HAS-A PaymentService rather than: OrderService IS-A PaymentService This is one reason composition is often preferred over deep inheritance hierarchies. 3. Dep

The AI that powers Gboard's Rambler is coming to more Google products, including Chrome.

The AI giant acknowledges that it could have done far more to prevent its AI agents from going rogue. But it still fails to explain why it didn't see this fiasco coming.

The models responsible for last month’s agent hack of Hugging Face had been inadvertently trained to cheat and to communicate with each other, according to an OpenAI technical report released today. The hack, which a group of agents undertook to find solutions for a cybersecurity test that they were stuck on, has confirmed some experts’…

Automation Everything boring that can be automated, should probably be automated. Whether others know about that automation, depends upon how much it is valued over looking busy. Image by magnific I've been on a self undertaken journey at work for the past couple of months - the automation of our build process. I learnt a lot about how Jenkins works, how interactions happen between GitHub, Jenkins, Artifactory, Docker, Ansible, etc. I started slow - one build pipeline that creates and pushes Docker images, and I kept adding pipelines as I felt the need. Today, I have a suite of pipelines that run tests, code coverage, build, deploy, cleanup, and run security scans across x86 and s390x. Some highlights of this suite - A multi architecture build - UI built on an x86 agent and build folder sent over to an s390x agent. This agent then builds the backend and the final image An end-to-end .jar updater - Separate java repository whose .jar files were imported into the main repository to be called. The pipeline built these .jars and automatically created a PR on GitHub. This has freed up a lot of dev hours for my team and myself. It's also helped keep the systems (and me) sane with the insane amount of work that gets done nowadays. I keep looking for things I can automate now, especially the small, mundane tasks since the time saved really does compound up. To anyone reading this, or future me - "Automation is like getting regular exercise; you might not see immediate results, but your systems will thank you later." Ambiguity The biggest blocker of them all is often the difference in understanding of the same words Image by starline on Magnific A couple of years ago, when I just started working as a software engineer, I struggled with ambiguity. Before this, the requirements were straightforward assignments with most of them written down. Now, I hold the opinion that dealing with ambiguity and sifting through it is a large part of my job. There's multiple stakeholders, rang

Flipboard is acquiring Bluesky feed-building startup Graze, bringing its privacy-friendly ad technology and creator monetization tools into Flipboard’s growing open social web ecosystem.

Beijing’s endlessly delightful Robot Games featured tons of impressive stunts. But the most mind-blowing tricks challenged the humanoid’s brain, not its brawn.

China’s hacking campaign targeted NASA, the Federal Reserve, the US Senate, the Justice Department, and more, according to the DOJ.