标签：#Go

Submission for DEV's Summer Bug Smash — Clear the Lineup track. The codebase a2a-benchmark is my multi-language A2A (Agent-to-Agent) performance suite: four agents — Python and Go behind Gemini tool-calling via ADK, Node.js and Rust as direct handlers — each compute Mersenne primes with the Lucas–Lehmer test, while a harness sweeps N=1–24 and charts calculation time and round-trip time. The committed results stopped at N=22. I never questioned that. I should have. The headline bug: a whole column of data didn't exist CPython 3.11+ limits int→str conversion to 4,300 digits by default (a DoS mitigation). My Python agent stringified each prime it found: mersenne_primes . append ( str (( 1 << p ) - 1 )) The 24th Mersenne exponent is p=19937, and 2^19937−1 has 6,002 digits . So for any request of 24+ primes, the tool raised ValueError — and the A2A response dutifully delivered the stack-trace text instead of a result: "text": "Exceeds the limit (4300 digits) for integer string conversion; use sys.set_int_max_str_digits() to increase the limit" The benchmark's Python column was structurally incapable of producing data at N≥24. The kicker: the stringified list was never used . The tool returns only elapsed_time . The fix is deleting the str() — which also removes formatting work from the timed region that the Node and Rust agents never paid (Go had the same dead val.String() call). Fix: PR #1 — plus a switch from time.time() (wall clock, non-monotonic) to time.perf_counter() , and a regression test at count=24. Before/after, N=24 row: Node.js Rust Go Python before 1633.01 ms 812.57 ms 1451.49 ms N/A (crash) after 1616.13 ms 824.10 ms 1531.10 ms 2425.9 ms The harness was reading its data from LLM prose The Python agent's timing came back in two places: a structured elapsed_time in the tool artifact, and the model's prose. The harness regexed the prose first : m = re . search ( r " It took ([\d\.\-e]+) seconds " , text ) In live runs, Gemini said "Calculating the first 5 Mer

Intuition Manacher's Algorithm leverages the symmetry of palindromes to avoid redundant comparisons. Instead of treating odd- and even-length palindromes separately, the input string is transformed by inserting a special character (#) between every character and adding sentinel characters (^ and $) at both ends. This allows every palindrome to be treated as an odd-length palindrome. While traversing the transformed string, the algorithm maintains the center and right boundary of the rightmost palindrome found so far. For each position, it uses the palindrome information from its mirror position (with respect to the current center) to initialize the palindrome radius, significantly reducing unnecessary expansions. Only when the palindrome reaches beyond the current right boundary is additional expansion performed. This optimization ensures that every character is expanded at most a constant number of times, resulting in linear time complexity. Approach Handle the edge case by returning an empty string if the input string is empty. Transform the input string by inserting # between every character and adding sentinel characters (^ and $) at both ends to treat odd- and even-length palindromes uniformly. Create a palindrome radius array p, where p[i] stores the radius of the palindrome centered at index i in the transformed string. Initialize the variables center and right to represent the center and right boundary of the current rightmost palindrome. Initialize max_len and center_index to keep track of the longest palindrome found during traversal. Traverse the transformed string from left to right, ignoring the sentinel characters. Compute the mirror index of the current position using the current palindrome's center. If the current index lies within the current right boundary, initialize its palindrome radius using the previously computed mirror information. Expand around the current center while the characters on both sides are equal, increasing the palindrome radius

A new teaser for Google's upcoming Pixel 11 lineup reveals that the phones will feature some kind of glowing orb on the camera bar, as reported by 9to5Google. Google's store page for the Pixel 11 has a short video that shows the glowing, color-shifting orb to the one side of the camera bar. The store […]

Google's biggest solar and battery project stands in sharp contrast with xAI's nearby unpermitted power plant.

Eco-friendly routes on Google Maps are worth checking out, but there are a few things to know before you do.

Amazing : Researchers from ETH Zurich in Switzerland, however, managed to create a new type of pixel that can simultaneously do both. This hypercharged pixel, called a Fourier pixel, can generate and sense arbitrary light fields and tap into a pixel’s full potential for carrying information by manipulating light’s intensity, oscillation phases, and polarization. The team reported its findings in a paper published yesterday in Nature. We are one step closer to 1984 technology: The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment...

Third-party app stores are coming to Android on July 22.

There’s now only one worth buying—but you can still access new features on older models you might already own.

Cartography is all about taking the real world and turning it into a picture that people can understand. It’s the process of deciding: what places to show, what details to keep or remove, what colors and symbols to use, how to draw the round Earth on a flat screen or paper Cartography mixes geography (knowing where things are), design (making the map clear and beautiful), and math (flattening the Earth using projections). Every map you see—Google Maps, airport maps, weather maps, D3.js visualizations—is a result of cartography. Line simplification alogorithms are tools used in cartography to reduce the number of points in a geographic shape while keeping the shape recognizable. 🌍 Why do we need line simplification? Real geographic shapes—coastlines, borders, rivers, airport boundaries—are extremely detailed. If you zoom in enough, you can always find more bumps, curves, and tiny wiggles. This is what Lewis Fry Richardson discovered: The more precisely you measure a coastline, the longer it becomes.Because coastlines have infinite detail.But your computer screen does not have infinite detail. It has pixels. If you try to draw a super-detailed coastline - the file becomes huge > the map loads slowly > D3.js rendering becomes slow > zooming becomes laggy > the map looks messy when zoomed out. This is why we need line simplification algorithms. 🎯 What do line simplification algorithms do? They remove unnecessary points from a shape while keeping the overall form. Think of it like: drawing a coastline with fewer squiggles. smoothing a jagged boundary reducing a 10,000‑point shape to 1,000 points. making the map faster and cleaner. The goal is: Keep the important shape, remove the tiny details. 🧩 Why this matters for zoomable maps Zoomable maps (like D3 zoom or Leaflet zoom) need multiple resolutions: When zoomed out → simple shapes When zoomed in → detailed shapes If you use only high‑resolution data: the map becomes slow, too many points are drawn, the user sees clutter

Epic Games and Google have just jointly withdrawn their attempt to retroactively settle the lawsuit that's changing how Android app stores work in the United States - and that means Google will be forced to carry rival app stores inside of its own. In fact, Google tells the court, it's ready to begin carrying third-party […]

The Google Cloud Workbench Notebooks extension for VS Code is a new tool that enables developers to connect their local IDE directly to managed Jupyter notebook environments on Google Cloud. By Sergio De Simone

SPOILER: De 1 à 2000 Durante minha jornada como jogador , existiu uma coisa que me despertou muita curiosidade: os créditos. Quando eu jogava coisas como Final Fantasy, ficava completamente arrepiado quando via aquelas cenas antes do menu inicial, com CGIs bem bonitões e um monte de nomes em japonês — muitos deles que, honestamente, até hoje não sei quem são. Esse arrepio também acontecia quando eu chegava ao final de algum jogo e começavam a aparecer nomes e mais nomes. Quando eu entendi o que eram aqueles nomes, a primeira coisa que me veio à mente foi: peraí, precisa de tudo isso de gente pra fazer um jogo? Too long, didn't read : Sim e não. Skyrim levou aproximadamente 6 anos com uma equipe de 100 pessoas (e ainda é dito que é uma equipe enxuta), enquanto Stardew Valley levou 4,5 anos com uma "equipe" de apenas 1 pessoa. Eles têm quase o mesmo tamanho em horas jogadas na campanha principal. Not too long, I'll read it : É um pensamento lógico que trabalhos maiores no mundo da tecnologia envolvam uma quantidade maior de pessoas trabalhando E tempo. Dessa forma, seria correto assumir que um trabalho menor exige menos tempo e menos pessoas trabalhando. Mas o que os dados dizem? King of Fighters 94: 2 anos, começou com 6 pessoas, aumentou para 60. Clair Obscure - Expedition 33: aproximadamente 6 anos, 30 pessoas. TES V - Skyrim: 6 anos, 100 pessoas. Super Mario Bros: 2 anos, 7 pessoas na equipe principal. Stardew Valley: 4,5 anos, 1 pessoa. Kenshi: 12 anos, 1 pessoa por 6 anos (trabalhando meio período), aproximadamente 8 pessoas por mais 6 anos (tempo integral). Final Fantasy VII (PS1): aproximadamente 2 anos, de 100 a 150 pessoas (uma das maiores equipes da indústria na época). Final Fantasy VII Remake: Cerca de 5 anos, e não se tem números exatos, mas os créditos citam mais de 2000 pessoas, incluindo muitos -istas e -ores (vou tentar confirmar esse número depois). É claro que existem muitos fatores envolvidos aí, como época, demandas de mercado, prazos, tecnologia

The Quest Begins (The "Why") I still remember the first time I stared at a LeetCode problem that asked me to count the number of islands in a grid. My initial instinct? Run a BFS/DFS from every unvisited land cell, mark everything reachable, and repeat. It worked, but each query felt like I was re‑exploring the same territory over and over again—like walking the same hallway in a dungeon every time I wanted to open a new door. Then a friend tossed me another problem: “Given a list of friendships, tell me if two people are in the same social circle.” Again, the naive solution was to rebuild the whole graph for every query. I felt like I was stuck in a grind‑fest, repeating the same low‑level work while the real challenge—understanding the structure of the connections—remain. That frustration sparked a question: Is there a way to remember what we’ve already discovered about connectivity, so future queries are instant? The answer, as many of you have guessed, lives in a humble but mighty data structure called Union‑Find (also known as Disjoint Set Union, DSU). The Revelation (The Insight) At its core, Union‑Find is about two simple ideas : Each element starts in its own set – think of every person as a lone adventurer. When we learn that two elements belong together, we merge their sets – we call that a union . The magic isn’t just in merging; it’s in how we find the representative (or “root”) of a set later on. If we naïvely walked up a chain of parents every time, we could end up with O(n) per find—still a grind. Two optimizations turn this into near‑constant time: Union by rank (or size) – always attach the smaller tree under the root of the larger one. This keeps the overall tree shallow, guaranteeing that the height never exceeds log n. Path compression – during a find operation, we make every node we pass point directly to the root. It’s like handing every traveler a map that instantly shows the shortest route to the campfire, so next time they don’t need to trek

Hachette, Cengage, Elsevier, and other publishers allege that Google trained its AI on copyrighted works without the necessary permissions.

Most AI incident diagnosis tools will happily produce a root cause even when the evidence is weak. Argus takes a different approach. When an anomaly fires, Argus runs five independent diagnoses against the same incident window. If they converge on the same root cause, it returns a confident diagnosis. If they don't, it returns novel instead of pretending it knows the answer. It's a single Go binary. The first version had Kafka, microservices, and two databases. It looked impressive on paper, but nobody would actually run it. I tore it down into a single process and replaced Kafka with an in-process event bus. Run it with docker run, bring your own Anthropic API key, and your telemetry never leaves the box. It ingests OTLP or Prometheus remote_write; point your telemetry to a single endpoint. I've validated it on synthetic cases, reconstructed real postmortems (Cloudflare 2019/2022), and my own distributed system. It hasn't yet been tested against messy real-world production telemetry, which is exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for. GitHub: https://github.com/k1ngalph0x/argus I'd genuinely appreciate people trying it out and telling me where the design falls apart, what feels over-engineered, or what you'd change.

When I first heard the term backtracking , it sounded like a complicated algorithm reserved for computer scientists. After spending the last couple of weeks learning it and implementing it in a Tetris Optimizer project, I realized something surprising: Backtracking is simply the art of making a decision, checking whether it works, and if it doesn't, undoing it and trying something else. This article explains backtracking using a practical project instead of abstract examples. The Problem Imagine you have several Tetris pieces (tetrominoes), and your goal is to fit all of them into the smallest possible square . It might look something like this: A A A A B B B B C C C C D D D D The challenge is to arrange every piece so that: No pieces overlap. No piece extends outside the board. Every piece is used exactly once. The board is as small as possible. This is much harder than it looks. My First Thought Initially, I thought I could simply place one piece after another. Place A Place B Place C Place D Done! Unfortunately, programming isn't always that kind. Sometimes the first position you choose for piece A makes it impossible to place D later. The mistake wasn't with D . The mistake happened much earlier. Enter Backtracking Backtracking works like this: Place a piece. Try placing the next one. If you get stuck... Remove the last piece. Try a different position. Repeat until every piece fits. It's essentially saying: "If this path doesn't work, let's go back and explore another one." Visualizing the Search Suppose we have four tetrominoes. Start ├── Put A at (0,0) │ ├── Put B │ │ ├── Put C │ │ │ ├── D fits ✅ │ │ │ └── D fails ❌ │ │ └── Try another position │ └── Move A elsewhere └── Try another position for A Every branch represents another possibility. Backtracking explores these branches until it finds one that works. How It Looks in Go The heart of the algorithm is surprisingly small. func solve ( index int ) bool { if index == len ( pieces ) { return true } for every

The new Google image search will use your "unique interests" to create an always-updated gallery.

This is a current list of where and when I am scheduled to speak: I’m speaking (virtually) at the Policy-Relevant Privacy Research Workshop in Calgary, Canada, on Monday, July 20, 2026. I’m speaking at Boston Leadership Exchange in Boston, Massachusetts, USA, on Wednesday, July 22, 2026. I’m speaking at Cognitive Security Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. The conference runs August 6-7, 2026; my speaking time is TBD. I’m speaking at DEF CON 34 in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. The conventions runs August 6-9, 2026; my speaking time is TBD...

Now, when users navigate to Google Images, they'll see a "For You" gallery of images tailored to their interests and browsing history.