标签：#RNA

When I first started contributing to open source, GitHub Actions felt like a black box. Seeing a failed workflow on my pull requests was intimidating because I didn't really understand what was happening behind the scenes. Well, this month, I decided to change that. What I Worked On I implemented GitHub Actions across three of my project repos. My main focus was: Adding Markdownlint for Markdown quality Adding Pylint for Python linting. Updating documentation while integrating CI. What I Learned The biggest lesson wasn't technical — it was changing my mindset. A failed workflow isn't something to fear. It's simple feedback. Whether it's markdownlint warning or a pylint error, each failure helps improve the project. Looking Ahead Most of this month was spent improving my own projects, so I didn't contribute much to external repositories. Next month, I want to build on this foundation by contributing to more open source projects and applying what I've learned. Sometimes, learning the tools behind open source is just as valuable as making another pull request. I'm curious What part of GitHub Actions or CI/CD was the most challenging when you first started? Or If you are just getting started, what's the biggest thing that's still a mystery to you? I'd love to hear your experience and tips in the comments. Transparency Note: I used AI as an editor—not as the author. For this article, it helped refine the structure and improve the English grammar. The technical content, experiments, opinions, and conclusions are my own and were reviewed by me before publishing.

"We're feeling pretty good about that," Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg said.

Hey everyone! I bring you my development journey on what I have discovered, accomplishments for this...

By Suvankar Chakraborty | Principal Engineer — IAM, Modern Workplace Management & IT Operations The Collaboration Platform That Became a Governance Nightmare Microsoft Teams was deployed at extraordinary speed across the enterprise world. In most organisations I know, the deployment timeline went something like this: March 2020, global pandemic, remote work mandate, Teams switched on, everyone told to use it, governance deferred because there was no time. Five years later, the governance that was deferred in 2020 has still not been implemented in most of those environments. The result is predictable and consistent across industries: Teams sprawl at industrial scale. Hundreds of Teams that nobody owns. Channels for projects that ended three years ago. Guest users from partnerships that dissolved. Sensitive conversations in channels that include contractors who should not have visibility. Files shared in Teams chat — bypassing SharePoint governance entirely — on devices with no management policy. Meeting recordings stored in OneDrive folders that anyone with a link can access. Bot integrations that have permissions to read your Teams messages and access your calendar, approved by a user who clicked through an OAuth consent screen without reading it. In 13+ years of enterprise IAM and IT operations work, Teams governance has become one of the most consistently mismanaged areas of Microsoft 365. Not because it is technically difficult — the controls Microsoft provides are comprehensive. But because Teams sits at the intersection of IT, security, compliance, and the organisational culture of collaboration, and that intersection is where governance programmes go to die. This article is about why enterprises get Teams governance wrong, and what getting it right actually looks like — in specific, actionable, implementable terms. Why Teams Is a Governance Problem Unlike Any Other M365 Workload To understand the governance challenge, you need to understand what Microsoft Team

Part 1 documented the recurring snapback in practice. This note asks a narrower question: what does the observed pattern support, what remains a working hypothesis, and what changes should follow in the project? Status: Bounded project conclusion. This note separates observed behaviour, working hypothesis, and practical consequence. It is based on current project documents and interactions; it is not external validation or a universal claim about AI systems. What the evidence supports 1. The project already contains a stable relational model The working model is not generic “AI assistance.” It separates reasoning surfaces, uses bounded comparisons, permits two-way cognitive pressure, and keeps final acceptance authority with the human. Reciprocal cognitive contribution, asymmetrical governing authority. 2. Concrete project work preserves the structure better than public abstraction At the concrete level, instructions such as: Review this proposal against that architecture. preserve the distinction between the object being reviewed, the surface applying pressure, the evidence, and the authority that may accept a change. When the same structure was compressed into general prose, generated explanations repeatedly returned to a simpler one-way model of either human control or transferred AI authority. That is an observed pattern in this development process. 3. Public explanation is a separate reasoning surface A README, article, summary, or portfolio page is a projection of the model, not the model itself. It cannot be assumed to reproduce the internal structure faithfully merely because that structure is present in context. The explanation must be reviewed against the model it represents: Does this explanation preserve the actual authority, review, evidence, and state-transition structure? 4. Annoyance was useful boundary data The irritation indicated that the generic rendering was no longer merely an imperfect exploration. It was colliding with an internal frame that

Most agent platforms give you one configuration file and hope. When you are running agents for more than one team — or more than one customer — a single config breaks down fast. Each workspace needs its own model, its own service access, its own secrets, but someone has to guarantee that no workspace can spend more than its budget or reach a service it was never authorized to use. The answer is a policy cascade. Every setting — model, temperature, allowed services, API keys, skill availability, TTL defaults — resolves through three ordered tiers: company, repo, and workspace. A lower tier can narrow an upstream ceiling but never widen it. That single rule is what makes it safe to hand a workspace to a team without handing them the keys. How the cascade resolves Three tiers, bottom-up. The company tier sets the floor. The repo tier overrides it. The workspace tier overrides both. The resolution order is fixed for every kind of setting: Kind Company tier Repo tier Workspace tier Policy fields defaults override override Variables floor override override Skills floor override override Secrets last-resort fallback override first-resolved Notice that secrets run in reverse. A workspace-tier credential wins over the repo and company defaults, and an empty value at the workspace tier falls through to the repo. This means you set a per-customer token where it is used and fall back up the chain only when it is absent. You are never forced to duplicate credentials across every workspace. Narrow-only: the safety property The cascade is not a free-for-all override. For service access, budgets, quotas, and TTL defaults, a lower tier can only narrow what the tier above it allows. If the company grants a repo [github, slack, search] , a workspace under that repo can select a subset — [github, search] — but it cannot add linkedin . The resolve-time intersection is enforced, not advisory. This extends to per-service API surface control. Granting access to GitHub does not mean grantin

When a new platform team set out on implementing their roadmap through forced workflows with poor documentation, developer experience declined. Success came from simplifying governance, prioritizing what matters, and rolling out compliance incrementally through prevention, detection, and communication. Empathy, focus, and shared purpose drove successful adoption. By Ben Linders

Shipped this week Workflows are now a first-class Bizbox primitive — PR #86 · v2026.603.0 The biggest drop this week. @DennisDenuto landed Workflows as a company-scoped concept that sits alongside issues and routines — not shoehorned into either. What that means in practice: Google ADK-backed execution — workflow pipelines run as ADK agents, with phase state persisted as run records. Human handoffs baked in — pipelines can pause and wait for a human before resuming. Deliverables that survive — artefacts from each run are persisted and surfaced in the UI. A pipeline graph in the UI — topologically ordered, showing live phase state and console output. This is the foundation. More on what we can build on top of it below. Workflow human-handoffs now route through ClickUp — PR #91 · v2026.605.0 The day after Workflows landed, @angelofallars wired up the last kilometre: when ADK Python code calls input() inside a pipeline, Bizbox now intercepts that call and sends a ClickUp message to collect the human reply — instead of blocking the process forever. A few things that were fixed along the way: input() monkey-patching now works consistently across Python environments (was silently failing in some setups). Failed workflow runs no longer submit deliverables. You only see artefacts from runs that actually completed. ClickUp awaiting-human bridge adapter ships as a pure plugin — PR #78 · v2026.601.0 This one technically crossed the line on the last day of May (23:56 UTC, 31 May), so it's in scope. @ralphbibera ported the ClickUp transport and adapter as a genuine plugin — implementing the AwaitingHumanBridgeAdapter registry interface — without touching bridge core at all. What that gives you: ClickUp works through the same provider-agnostic layer as any future provider (Slack, Discord, whatever comes next). The core doesn't know ClickUp exists. Included: send/poll/reaction transport, message templates for request_confirmation and ask_user_questions interactions, brain_is_think

The new leasing program is a big change for the hardware company, and comes as it looks to raise prices on many of its products.

We’ve all been there: you are busy coding, and suddenly you get a scary error saying your code conflicts with a teammate's work. Git won't let you pull their changes because it's afraid of overwriting your unsaved files. Instead of panicking, I used git stash. This command acts like a temporary clipboard—it safely hides your current work away so your workspace becomes completely clean. With a clean screen, I was able to safely update the project, fix the conflicting lines of code by hand, and make sure everything compiled perfectly. Once the team's updates were safely pushed, I ran git stash pop to bring my hidden work right back. Git wasn't trying to break my project; it was just protecting my code. Next time you get stuck, remember the golden rule: Stash your work, fix the conflict, and pop it back!

I’ve been out of context with my computer science degree for years, and honestly, it feels overwhelming. I want to change that, so I'm starting this log to document my comeback story, my failures, and my progress. What I did today: Acknowledged the starting line. Took 10 minutes to think about where I left off and what I need to tackle first. Decided to write daily logs. This is not my first attempt to finish the degree, but hopefully with some public eyes on it, it will be the last. 10 subject left. Starting with Mathematical analysis. The biggest challenge right now: Feeling completely out of context and fighting the urge to get distracted by everything else. Many things have changed since i was actively going to classes. My generation graduated many years ago and i feel like getting all the information I need will be extremely difficult since i don't know anyone. Getting information from the university websites and emailing professors will be slow. Next steps: Tomorrow, I'm going to try to overcome my overdramatic anxiety and post in the student groups I was in, in hope that somebody might have new information about the subjects. I will go start lesson #1. Goal is to ease into the material and start a habit, rather than pressuring myself to do everything at once. Come back tomorrow.

**🙄 فى كتاب chapter الصدمة دي هي بالظبط اللي حسيت بيها وأنا بقرأ أول “operating system: three easy Pieces “ ‘OSTEP’. 🖤اهلا بيكم ! يارب تكونوا بخير 💯 حابه اشارك معاكم رحلتى مع قراءة الكتاب ونستفيد منه سوا قبل ما نعرف هو !!!! ولا لا OS is virtual machine 🤔 !!!!دا يعنى ايه ووظيفته ايه OS تعالوا الاول نعرف ال موجودة فى الكمبيوتر ولا لا ؟؟؟؟ RAM وال CPUزى ال HARDWARE وهل هو قطعة ::هنبدأ من الاخر موجود على الكمبيوتر SW هو عبارة عن HW يسيدى مش قطعة OSال .على الجهازINSTALL ولازم يبقى ووظيفته ايه؟؟؟ OS طب يعنى ايه ‘OS’ اختصار “OPERATING SYSTEM”. .“يعنى نظام تشغيل “ .👁‍🗨👁‍🗨 تعالوا نعرف معنى ” نظام تشغيل” ونفسرها نظام تشغيل يعنى مسئول عن 1_ “HWالنظام “من غيره مش هيبقى فيه نظام خصوصا لقطع ال . يعنى بناخد منه الاذن للعمليات HW ببعضه وكمان بيدير ال HWيعنى هو بيربط ال 👏 . (Order)من الاخر بيخلق “النظام” 2_.”التشغيل “هو المسئول عن تشغيل البرامج Learn about Medium’s values هو اللي بيتحكم في دورة حياة البرنامج بالكامل؛هو اللي بيبدأ تشغيله في الذاكرة،OSيعني الـ وبيحدد هو محتاج إيه من إمكانيات الجهاز عشان يشتغل بكفاءة وبيفضل مراقبه ويحميه طول ما هوشغال ، ولحد ما تقفليه بنفسك 🌹 .ويقوم هو بتنظيف الذاكرة وتوفير المساحة لغيره 🧐::وظيفته بقا بيخلي البرنامج يشتغل بسهولة:1️⃣ لأنه بيخلق للبرنامج بيئة وهمية مريحة، وبيخفي عنه كل التعقيدات والأسلاك بتاعة الهاردوير عشان يشتغل بسلاسة 2️⃣: بيسمح للبرامج إنها تشارك الذاكرة بين كل البرامج بالعدل RAM بيشتغل كعسكري مرور بيوزع مساحة الـ . وبيحمي كل برنامج في مساحته الخاصة 3️⃣: بيمكن البرامج إنها تتعامل مع الأجهزة بيعمل كـ “وسيط” أو مترجم بيوصل كود البرنامج بالقطع الحقيقية (زي الشاشة أو الهارد) .عشان ينفذ أوامره فوراً بيعمل التلات حاجات دول إزاي في نفس الوقت وبمنتهى السلاسة؟ ؟؟؟OS طب الـ بيعملهم يسيدى عن طريق أكبر خدعة سحرية في عالم الكمبيوتروهي الـ Virtualization👌 كنت حابة جداً أكلمكم المرة دي عن خدعة الـ “Virtualization” 💎 😌👁👁اللي اتكلمنا عليها في العنوان، بس لقيت البوست هيبقى طويل أوي عليكم ✔🔥!!وعشان متعبكمش معايا.. هنخليها للبوست الجاي إن شاء الله 💯✅!!بيعمل الخدعة دي إزاي OSاستنوا البوست الجاى عشان نعرف الـ 💋.دمتم بخير **

Every team doc tool promises "search everything." Ours did too — and it still didn't answer the question new hires actually ask: not "where is this doc," but "why does this decision look the way it does, and what else does it touch?" We spent the last few months trying to solve that by treating team docs less like a filing cabinet and more like a graph. Here's what we tried, what broke, and what we'd do differently.

Big Howdy, I'm so tired of hearing all the hype about AI. Don't get me wrong, I think AI is pretty cool and I use it all the time for various tasks throughout the day, but I hate AI marketing. What do I mean by that? Whenever there is any hype, advertising, or corporate shilling about AI, it's always vague. Talks about agents, multi-agent systems, RAG pipelines, etc. are everywhere, and yet the specifics are always just out of reach. Even when I try to dig into deeper technical articles, the handwaving usually begins almost immediately. Several architecture diagrams and acronyms later, I still do not have a much better idea of what is actually happening (although I'm not really looking hard enough). I’m going to fix that. For myself, at least. First Stop: RAG My first target is RAG. It's been out for quite a while now and I've been hearing about it for forever. It also sounds like enough progress has been made that the problem has effectively been solved. Best practices have been established and it's pretty commonplace now, so it's a great place to start. But what is RAG? RAG stands for Retrieval-Augmented Generation , which is... not a helpful name if you are just learning about this for the first time like I am. However, if you use AI at all, you've already been using a form of it without even knowing it. RAG is simply a pattern: Retrieve relevant external information. Add that information to the AI model’s working context. Generate an answer grounded in it. That's it. When you use an AI assistant and it goes and searches the internet for relevant information to give you an answer, that's a form of RAG. That doesn't mean your AI assistant is a RAG system, but it can perform RAG functions. But this STILL sounds a bit hand-wavy to me. How does this work in real life? The Part I Kept Missing Context windows are massive these days, but I have seen technical documents that are literally more than 3,000 pages long and full of dense technical information. Even if one tec

Creator says he will "very loudly ignore" those arguing for a ban on AI tools.

Many enterprise AI governance discussions start with frameworks. Frameworks are useful. They help organizations define principles, roles, controls and accountability. But when an enterprise starts using generative AI in real workflows, the practical governance problem often appears somewhere much more specific: the AI access path. That is the moment when an employee, application, copilot, agent or API workflow sends a request to an AI model. At that point, governance becomes operational. The practical governance questions Before an AI request reaches a model, an enterprise may need to answer several concrete questions: Who is sending the request? What business use case is involved? What data is being sent? Which AI model is being used? Is the model approved for this use case? Should sensitive data be masked or blocked? Was the access decision recorded? Can the activity be reviewed later? Can AI usage and token cost be explained by user, department, model and use case? These questions are not only policy questions. They are architecture questions. If the enterprise cannot answer them at the access path, AI governance may remain too far away from the real system behavior. Why the access path matters Many organizations already have AI policies. But policies are often written before or after the actual AI interaction. The access path is where policy meets execution. For example, a team may approve the use of generative AI for internal productivity. But the organization still needs to understand: whether customer data is being included in prompts; whether employees are using approved or unapproved models; whether sensitive content is being sent to external services; whether different departments are using AI in very different ways; whether audit evidence exists when an incident or review happens. This is why AI governance should not only be treated as a document, committee or training program. It also needs a technical control point. A simple access governance pattern A

AI makes the first 80% of development feel fast, but hides architectural complexity until it's too late. To prevent system instability, engineering leaders must shift from raw throughput to systemic comprehension. By unifying spec-anchored SDD, TDD, and automated fitness functions into a repo-bound "Context Store," teams can ensure AI agents and human reviewers evolve code safely. By Stella Berhe, Stephan Bragner, Vikram Maran, Anand Jayaraman

A panel on data ownership challenged the definition of "ownership," arguing it must extend beyond simple account control to include structural independence, interoperability, and community governance. Speakers like Zenna Fiscella, Paul Frazee, Boris Mann, and Robin Berjon emphasised the need for shared standards, unbundled platforms, and better tools to support user sovereignty. By Olimpiu Pop

Introduction I've spent way too much time trying to come up with some generic introduction for this story, but then I realized none of you probably want to read that anyway. So instead, I'll just jump straight into the story—which is why you're here in the first place. The day I received the requirements The story begins when I received the requirements for a new feature that allows Teachers to share their presentation to review slides before the Lecture begins, so we would have teachers aids using the web version and seeing a screenshare from the main pc powerpoint, at first I thought maybe we can use HLS or RTMP for this and be okay with the 3 seconds delay that it has, but then I continued reading the ticket, we also needed the user to move to the next and previous slides via the web application, which immediately threw my initial idea out of the window. This is because if the user needs to interact with the application there is no way it will be usable without almost immediate feedback. Since we needed to show this to the client quickly we had 2 weeks to implement this feature, so before I did anything, I stopped and started drafting a simple design doc, which besides the fancy name was really just a document with my raw notes taken from research and comparisons between different solutions. After spending some time doing research and looking into different architectures and engineering blogs from companies like Twitch, Slack and Discord, I narrowed the possibilities down to four common architectures used for this type of use case. Architecture Options P2P Mesh This approach revolved around a user establishing WebRTC connections with every other user in the room. Besides being difficult to manage in terms of connections and sessions, it had one fatal flaw: network and CPU overhead. If we had twenty users in the room, every participant would maintain nineteen separate peer connections while sending nineteen streams, quickly consuming both CPU and bandwidth. MCU (M

This week's Java roundup for July 6th, 2026, features news highlighting: the GA release of TornadoVM 5.0; point releases of JHipster, Keycloak and Google ADK; maintenance releases of GraalVM Native Build Tools and Micronaut; the OmniFish Build of Payara and introducing Vidocq, a new implementation of the Jakarta EE 11 Core Profile and MicroProfile 7.1. By Michael Redlich