标签：#Go

Chances are there's a connection issue between your phone and car if Android auto isn't working.

I created this article for the purpose of entering the All Things Agentic Hackathon. TL;DR — An ADK output_key writes into the session of the agent that declares it. In-process that session is shared, so it looks like state flows. Across a RemoteA2aAgent hop it is the worker's session, and it never comes back. Nothing raises. Nothing warns. Every local run and every CI job exercises the working topology, so the failure is invisible to an offline test suite by construction — including at 100% coverage. The system that passed Bastion is a three-agent access-governance fleet built with Google ADK and A2A. An Orchestrator owns investigation state, an Access Auditor reads production IAM through a read-only identity, and a model-free Escalation Agent delivers validated count-only reviews. The local graph passed its configured core statement and branch coverage gate. Every branch, every seam. Then the same graph was split across deployed A2A workers, and an assumption that looked natural in-process became false. The boundary we had not modeled In-process, the previous step's result is simply there : # The Auditor declares output_key; the Orchestrator reads it back. report = ctx . session . state . get ( AUDIT_FINDINGS_KEY ) Deploy the same sequence and only the construction changes. The graph is identical: RemoteA2aAgent ( name = " access_auditor " , agent_card = card_url ( auditor , " access_auditor " ), description = " Reads the live IAM policy and flags anomalies. Read-only. " , httpx_client = private_a2a_client ( auditor ), a2a_request_meta_provider = _forward_investigation , ) output_key still writes. It writes into the worker's session, which never crosses back. The deployed Orchestrator saw an empty state key while every local run and every test saw a populated one. Observed 2026-08-22: the Auditor completed a full sub-trail, and the next step then refused with "returned no structured report." No exception at the boundary. No warning at construction. The run still r

One of the most useful questions in network troubleshooting is also one of the simplest: Does it fail from another machine too? If a website will not load on my laptop, trying it from another computer can immediately change the investigation. If it works there, the service probably is not down. Something about my machine, DNS configuration, VPN, firewall, route, or network path is different. If it fails there too, the problem may be farther upstream. I wanted Network Doctor to be able to ask that question directly. So I added remote diagnosis over SSH. netdoc --via ideapad github.com Instead of running the diagnosis locally, Network Doctor connects to ideapad , runs the checks there, and reports the result back on my machine. Why another vantage point matters A network failure is always observed from somewhere. Suppose github.com is unreachable from my workstation. I can test DNS: dig github.com Then TCP: nc -vz github.com 443 Then TLS: openssl s_client -connect github.com:443 Maybe I inspect my routes, VPN, proxy settings, or firewall. Those tests are useful, but they all share one property: they are observing the network from the same machine. Trying the same destination from another machine gives me a new piece of evidence. Imagine this: Thelio: DNS PASS TCP 443 FAIL Ideapad: DNS PASS TCP 443 PASS TLS PASS HTTPS PASS That difference is interesting. GitHub clearly is not universally unreachable. The second machine just reached it. Now I have a much smaller problem to investigate: what is different about the path from Thelio? That is often more useful than running another five commands on Thelio. Turning that into a command Network Doctor already runs network checks as a dependency graph. For an HTTPS target, for example, it can test things such as the local interface, DNS resolution, TCP connectivity, TLS, HTTP, routing, and path MTU. Normally: netdoc github.com means: Diagnose github.com from this machine. With --via : netdoc --via ideapad github.com it becomes:

As part of the Gen AI Academy APAC , I set out to solve a major pain point for educators: manually sifting through textbooks to create grade-appropriate question papers. I built an automated Question Paper Generator using a Serverless Next.js stack, a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) architecture, and the complete Google Cloud AI suite. Teachers simply upload a textbook chapter (PDF), specify the grade and subject, and let the AI generate a fully formatted assessment quiz. While the architecture sounds straightforward, orchestrating these enterprise-grade APIs in a serverless environment presented several intense technical hurdles. Here is a deep dive into the architecture, the specific roadblocks I hit, and how I ultimately solved them. 🏗️ The RAG Architecture The application is built on Next.js 15 and deployed to Google Cloud Run . The pipeline flows as follows: Document Extraction : The PDF is uploaded and sent to Google Cloud Document AI (Document OCR Processor) to extract the raw text. Chunking & Embeddings : The text is chunked into logical paragraphs and sent to Vertex AI ( text-embedding-004 ) to generate dense vector embeddings. Vector Database : The embeddings and metadata (Grade, Subject) are stored seamlessly in Firestore using native VectorValue support. Retrieval & Generation : When a teacher requests a quiz, the query is embedded, and a findNearest Vector Search runs on Firestore. The retrieved context is passed to Google Gen AI ( gemini-3.5-flash ) to synthesize the structured question paper. 🐛 The Technical Challenges & How I Solved Them Building an end-to-end pipeline using cutting-edge SDKs often means dealing with strict schema validations and opaque error codes. Here are the major technical gotchas I faced. 1. The Document AI Region Endpoint Mismatch The Challenge: I provisioned a Document OCR processor in the asia-south1 region. However, when my Node.js client attempted to send a processing request using the processor's full resource name,

Unless you've put some custom software on your phone, Android Auto will work on nearly all modern phones.

I recently finished building a small suite of puzzle and game solvers that all run entirely in the browser — no backend, no API calls, no machine-learning models. You paste in a Sudoku, a chess position, or a crossword pattern, and the answer comes back instantly, computed on your own device. The fun part wasn't the UI. It was that each puzzle turned out to be a textbook excuse to reach for a different classic algorithm. Nine solvers, and I got to use constraint propagation, adversarial search, heuristic search, brute-force scanning, and plain old pattern matching — the stuff that shows up in an algorithms course and then, in most day jobs, never again. This is a tour of which algorithm fits which puzzle, and a few of the potholes I hit along the way. Everything here is vanilla JavaScript running in a Web Worker. The one design constraint: no server Before the algorithms, the rule that shaped all of them: it has to run client-side. That's a privacy choice (your puzzle never leaves the tab) and a cost choice (no compute bill), but it's also a fun forcing function. You can't lean on a beefy backend or a hosted model — you get one browser thread (well, a Worker thread) and whatever you can compute in a few hundred milliseconds. That budget is exactly why classic algorithms shine here. They're fast, deterministic, and small enough to ship as a script. Let's group the solvers by the technique each one leans on. Family 1: Constraint propagation Sudoku Sudoku is the poster child for constraint propagation. A cell that can only be one value forces that value; that in turn shrinks its neighbours' options, which forces more cells, and so on. Most "easy" and "medium" boards fall over from propagation alone (naked singles + hidden singles), and only the hard ones need a backtracking search on top. The nice property: the same engine that solves the board also powers the hint feature (find the next forced cell and explain why it's forced) and a uniqueness check — count solutions,

What Is Precision Tracking Radar? Precision tracking radar is an active radar sensing system designed to repeatedly measure a selected target and maintain an updated estimate of its state over time. For developers, the important distinction is that precision tracking is not simply repeated target detection. Detection answers: Is there evidence of a target in the current radar measurements? Tracking answers: Does this new measurement belong to an existing target, and how should that target state be updated? A practical precision tracking pipeline can be represented as: RF sensing → target measurement → detection → association → state update → continuous track → mission output That makes precision tracking radar a real-time data-processing system as much as an RF sensing system. A Practical Definition Precision tracking radar is a radar capability that combines repeated target measurements across time to maintain a continuous estimate of target position, motion or other relevant state information. The key word is continuous. A detector can operate independently on each radar update. A tracker has memory. It maintains information from previous measurements and decides how new observations relate to that history. From a software architecture perspective, tracking introduces persistent state into the sensing pipeline. Detection and Tracking Should Be Separate Services A useful radar architecture keeps target detection and target tracking logically separate. The detector processes current radar measurements. The tracker consumes target-related measurements over time. Conceptually: Radar measurement ↓ Detection ↓ Measurement object ↓ Association ↓ Track update ↓ Track state This separation helps developers understand where errors originate. If the detector produces unstable measurements, the tracker cannot fully repair them. If detections are stable but tracks switch between targets, the problem may exist in association. If sensor-relative detections are correct but missio

I created this content for the purposes of entering the All Things Agentic Hackathon. The problem that started it A doctor gets about eight minutes with a patient and, for anyone with a real history, forty pages of scattered records — lab reports, discharge notes, and pharmacy bills from three different clinics. So the history is effectively invisible at the exact moment it matters most. And when the visit ends, nothing follows up: the six-month course lapses at week five, the recheck never gets booked. I wanted to build an agent that closes that loop — one that reads the mess, decides urgency in a way a clinician can actually trust, and handles the follow-up on its own. That became CareLoop , my entry for the All Things Agentic Hackathon (Taskmaster track), built on Gemini, the Google Agent Development Kit (ADK), Cloud Run, and Firestore. The one principle I wouldn't compromise on Rules decide, AI explains. The temptation with an LLM is to let it do everything — including deciding whether a chest-pain patient is urgent. I refused to do that. In CareLoop, a deterministic engine owns every clinical decision: a weighted symptom score plus a red-flag override sets the triage level and routing. It is fully auditable, and it returns byte-identical output on the same input every single time. The LLM's job is strictly language: Reading unstructured documents into a fixed schema — I call it "Gemini extracts, rules merge." Writing the structured result into a plain-language brief a clinician can skim in ten seconds. No language model is ever in the decision path. When a judge asks "why was this Critical?", the answer is a score breakdown they can inspect — not a model's say-so. That single decision shaped the whole architecture. What it actually does CareLoop runs the full loop end to end: Ingest & compact — it reads a patient's documents and merges them into one structured ledger: allergies, chronic conditions, active medications, and lab trends over time. Instead of pushin

This article is about running a hand-written Gemma 4 port in pure JAX on three different accelerators, and about the two places the abstraction leaks. The code is here: github.com/xbill9/gemma4-dev What is this project trying to Do? This project aims to serve one Gemma 4 checkpoint from one JAX port across every accelerator I can rent, and to find out — by measurement, not by reading docs — which parts of "it's just JAX" are true. The port lives in ports/gemma4/ and is driven by a generation loop behind an OpenAI-compatible server. No PyTorch, no vLLM, no torch_xla . The same code runs on Cloud TPU v5e and v6e, and on an NVIDIA T4G attached to an AWS Graviton2 host. "Pure JAX" is the whole experiment. If the port is really portable, the only thing that should change between those rigs is a config file. It mostly is. Two things are not, and they are the interesting part. Gemma 4 E2B is not a stock transformer Any port has to carry four irregularities, and none of them are optional: Two attention geometries. Sliding layers use head_dim=256 , global layers use 512 . Most inference stacks assume one head dimension per model. 8:1 MQA , so the KV budget is nothing like the parameter count would suggest. A KV-share map that collapses 35 layers onto 15 caches . A 512-slot sliding ring , plus per-layer embeddings (PLE) held in a 4.70 GB table that gets quantized to 4 bits on load. That first one is worth dwelling on, because it is what breaks other stacks. On the vLLM path, the heterogeneous head dims force the Triton attention backend: Gemma4 model has heterogeneous head dimensions {'sliding_attention': 256, 'full_attention': 512}. FA4 not available, forcing TRITON_ATTN backend. And on a Turing GPU that backend then asks for shared memory the hardware does not have: triton.runtime.errors.OutOfResources: out of resource: shared memory, Required: 98304, Hardware limit: 65536 JAX never enters that conversation. Attention is ordinary XLA rather than a hand-tiled kernel, so ther

If your Wi-Fi signal is patchy at the far reaches of your house, this simple solution might be worth a try. Even better? It's completely free.

Google is now automatically expanding its AI search summaries at the top of the results page for some searches, as reported by Search Engine Roundtable. The change, when it kicks in, pushes the typical list of links from a search much farther down Google's results page; instead of seeing part of an AI Overview with […]

Ugh : A tractor-trailer rollover sent a truckload of squid spilling into a Rhode Island roadway, leaving a stench as they sat in the road for hours in the summer heat. Local authorities have dubbed it the “Squidpocalypse of ’26.” That would be twenty tons of squid. As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered. Blog moderation policy.

“Do we need to look at the ceiling before going to the bathroom? Can we actually trust the water is safe to drink?” asks one GSA worker.

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 federal judge ruled the Trump administration illegally labeled Anthropic a supply chain risk, handing the AI company a victory as its second Pentagon lawsuit continues in Washington.

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is free and source-available on Github. Star git-lrc to help devs discover the project. Do give it a try and share your feedback. A couple of posts back we spent a while inside XOR distance , then used it to build Kademlia , the DHT algorithm that lets a network find anything without a directory. Kademlia: Algo That Turned XOR Distance Into a Network Athreya aka Maneshwar Athreya aka Maneshwar Athreya aka Maneshwar Follow Aug 26 Kademlia: Algo That Turned XOR Distance Into a Network # webdev # programming # beginners # algorithms 20 reactions Add Comment 6 min read I promised that algorithm shows up "under BitTorrent, IPFS, Ethereum." Today we cash that check. We're taking BitTorrent apart, piece by piece, and Kademlia is going to walk right back in through the side door. Also, fun fact before we start: a suspicious number of people on Reddit think Bram Cohen, the guy who wrote BitTorrent alone in Python in 2001, is secretly Satoshi Nakamoto. I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying that by the end of this post you'll understand why people keep saying it. The number that should not have been possible In 2004, a measurement firm called CacheLogic reported that BitTorrent alone was responsible for roughly 35% of all internet traffic. More than every other peer to peer network combined. More than the entire web. One protocol. Written by one guy. No company. No datacenter. No servers anywhere with "BitTorrent Inc" on the rack. That last part is the whole story. Every "normal" system you've ever worked on scales by throwing money at it: bigger box, more replicas, a CDN in front. BitTorrent had nobody to throw money at anything, so every hard problem, capacity, trust, scheduling, incentives, discovery, had to get solved inside the protocol itself . Problem 1: the client-server ceiling has a name Distributing a file in 2001 meant one server, one uplink, and every download eating

This essay was written with Kasra Rafi, and originally appeared in The Guardian. Earlier this month, about 40 top mathematicians gathered at OpenAI’s offices to discuss the future of their profession. The meeting was off-the-record, but if recent articles by mathematicians are any guide, it was mostly pretty glum. People fear for their jobs, their careers and the work they love. We think the contrary view is more likely, at least in the short-term. AI models are nowhere near as capable as experienced academic mathematicians. This isn’t to say that AIs aren’t producing stunning mathematical results at the level of PhD researchers. In mid-May, OpenAI ...

The criticism of this is everywhere. Open any Go thread long enough and someone will show up to perform the same ritual: "Go projects become messy. There's no framework to guide you. Nest, Django, Spring, they all tell you exactly where to put things. Go? It just says 'organize it somehow.'" It's a fair criticism. Go is unusually permissive about structure. I just think blaming Go for a messy codebase is like blaming the empty document for the bad essay. I don't think Go encourages bad architecture but rather it exposes it. The Hell Is A Perfect Folder Structure?? Ask a hundred Go developers where to put business logic and you'll get a hundred answers (and 200 opinions). "Should I use internal/ ?" "Is everything supposed to live under pkg/ ?" "Should I follow Clean Architecture?" "What about the cmd/ directory?" We spend so much time debating folder structures as if the arrangement of directories somehow determines code quality. As if renaming utils/ to pkg/shared/ is going to save us. God. folders don't create architecture. Dependencies do. You can meticulously organize your project like this: my-app/ cmd/main.go internal/ handler/ service/ repository/ pkg/domain/ pkg/utils/ And still write tightly coupled garbage. Handlers calling repositories directly. Services importing database drivers. Business logic mixed with HTTP concerns. Everything circular. Beautiful folders, though. Very organized looking on GitHub. There are better projects I've seen with just 5 packages, they just don't screenshot as well. Architecture Is About Dependency Direction The architecture is about making intentional decisions about how code depends on other code. Have a look at this: HTTP Handler ↓ Business Service ↓ Data Repository This isn't sacred because of folder names. It's valuable because of what it represents: The handler only knows how to translate HTTP The service only knows business rules The repository only knows how to fetch data Each layer depends on the layer below, never upw

The EU-funded XAIDA project is using artificial intelligence to help researchers detect, analyze and attribute extreme weather events, including heatwaves, in a changing climate. Its work matters because better understanding of the link between climate change and individual extremes can support more informed decisions over time. But XAIDA is not launching a consumer weather app, a commercial forecasting service, or a ready-to-integrate API for businesses. XAIDA, short for eXtreme events: Artificial Intelligence for Detection and Attribution , began in 2021 under the EU's Horizon 2020 programme. The project brings together European research groups working on data-driven methods for extreme-weather science. Its official tools overview describes a collection of AI-enabled capabilities designed to support science, policy and decision-making. That distinction is important. A weather forecast estimates likely conditions at a particular place and time. XAIDA's work is focused more broadly on detecting extreme phenomena, examining their characteristics and quantifying the influence of climate change. These are related to prediction, but they are not the same as publishing a daily operational forecast for a business location. What XAIDA is building XAIDA's public materials describe the Artificial Intelligence for Disentangling Extremes , or AIDE, toolbox alongside related AI-based methods. The project also refers to stochastic weather generation and other analytical approaches. Together, these tools are intended to help researchers investigate complex extreme events and their climate context. The project has used AI techniques, including variational autoencoders, in case studies and research outputs concerning heatwaves and other extremes. A variational autoencoder is a machine-learning approach that can learn patterns in complex data and generate statistically plausible variations. In this context, such methods can help researchers examine how extreme events relate to under

Il rischio reale dell'AI enterprise non sono gli agenti autonomi. È la complessità tra di loro. Executive Briefing — Settembre 2026 Quando le aziende deployano fleet di agenti AI invece di sistemi singoli, il pericolo vero non è un agente che si mette a fare il matto da solo. È la complessità emergente delle loro interazioni: una ragnatela di chiamate a cascata, permessi dimenticati e gap di accountability che nessuna checklist può chiudere. 1. Il problema che nessuno vede arrivare Le aziende non deployano un agente e lo guardano girare. Deployano fleet: bot di supporto, agenti di retrieval, layer di orchestrazione, ognuno che chiama API, delega ad altri agenti, si infila in sistemi che non erano stati progettati per decisioni automatiche. Lo scenario che dovrebbe farvi perdere il sonno non è un singolo agente che combina un guaio. È cento agenti che fanno esattamente quello per cui sono stati costruiti, tutti insieme, in combinazioni che nessuno ha disegnato. La complessità non cresce linearmente col numero di agenti. Aggiungi un secondo agente e aggiungi una connessione. Aggiungi il decimo e potenzialmente aggiungi decine di connessioni, perché ora qualsiasi agente può chiamarne un altro, e ogni chiamata può scatenarne una terza altrove. Un ticket di supporto che prima toccava un solo sistema oggi può passare attraverso quattro agenti prima che un essere umano lo veda. E ogni passaggio è un punto decisionale non approvato. La maggior parte dei programmi AI enterprise si blocca quando gli umani responsabili perdono il filo. Chiedete a un team security quali agenti possono raggiungere quali sistemi, e otterrete silenzio. Chiedete quale agente ha triggered quale downstream action tre salti fa. Ancora silenzio. 2. Perché le checklist non funzionano L'istinto è trattarlo come compliance: approva l'agente, registralo, passa oltre. Ma una checklist valuta un singolo punto nel tempo. La complessità corre lungo una catena, e non puoi governare una catena con una pila di ap