标签：#Ring

The era of passive data analytics is over. Today, the most forward-thinking data teams aren't just...

In this article, the author examines how AI is transforming phishing from a manual, targeted activity into an automated and scalable attack model. The article breaks down each stage of the phishing lifecycle, showing how AI improves reconnaissance, profiling, content generation, delivery, and interaction, while outlining layered defenses that combine controls, processes, and user awareness. By Marco Rizzi

As an Engineering Manager in a Platform team, I manage 10 engineers. I'm hiring more. I run weekly 1:1s, facilitate technical decision meetings, screen candidates, moderate retrospectives, and still need to keep up with the delivery of a platform spanning dozens of AWS accounts. Besides the lack of time to focus on technical problems, the technical part is not even the real challenge. The less obvious problem becoming an Engineering Manager is: the skills you need as an engineering manager are fundamentally different from those that made you a great engineer , and there's no compiler or unit test to tell you when you're doing them wrong. The feedback loop is absent or very slow (and when you realise that, your team has already gone silent or become dependent on you because you are the main input and the main bottleneck). Skills That Don't Come From Code As a senior or staff engineer, you develop communication skills gradually. You present ideas, challenge others respectfully, summarise outcomes, and identify owners. You participate in technical deep dives and put candidates at ease while probing technical depth. These are valuable skills, and a good IC develops them over the years. But unless you start behaving like a brilliant jerk , they're secondary - your technical depth is still what defines you. But as an EM, the game changes. You're not "the smartest person in the room" anymore, and increasingly, you shouldn't be. You still have a broad context from all those alignment meetings and roadmap syncs, but you lose contact with the codebase week by week. If your organisation has principals or staff engineers, you're not even close technically anymore. Your job is to give direction, create space for others to solve problems, and facilitate decisions, not to be the one with the answer. This is hard. Especially when you used to be the one with the answer. The urge to jump in doesn't disappear just because your title changed. And interviewing? Facilitation? Giving feed

CSV files are one of the most common formats for storing and exchanging data. Whether you’re working with logs, analytics data, application exports, or reports, there will likely come a time when you need to load CSV data into ClickHouse®. The good news is that ClickHouse® makes CSV ingestion straightforward and efficient. In this guide, you’ll learn how to create a table, prepare a CSV file, load CSV data into ClickHouse®, and verify that the data has been imported successfully. Why Use CSV Files with ClickHouse®? CSV (Comma-Separated Values) files are simple, portable, and supported by virtually every data platform. Common use cases include: Importing exported application data Loading historical datasets Migrating data from other databases Testing analytics workloads Sharing data between systems Because ClickHouse® is designed for high-performance analytics, it can efficiently process and query large CSV datasets once they are loaded into a table. Sample CSV File Let’s assume we have a file named employees.csv with the following contents: id,name,department,salary 1,Alice,Engineering,75000 2,Bob,Marketing,60000 3,Charlie,Finance,70000 This simple dataset will help demonstrate how to load CSV data into ClickHouse®. Step 1: Create a Table in ClickHouse® Before importing data, create a table that matches the structure of the CSV file. CREATE TABLE employees ( id UInt32, name String, department String, salary UInt32 ) ENGINE = MergeTree() ORDER BY id; This table contains four columns that correspond directly to the columns in our CSV file. Step 2: Load CSV Data into ClickHouse® There are several ways to import CSV data, but one of the most common methods is using the ClickHouse® client. Run the following command: clickhouse-client --query=" INSERT INTO employees FORMAT CSVWithNames" < employees.csv The CSVWithNames format tells ClickHouse® that the first row contains column headers. After executing the command, ClickHouse® will read the CSV file and insert the records

Let me start with a confession: I have been writing concurrent code since the only tool in the box was a mutex and a prayer. After a decade of Swift I feel suspicion of any code that touches two threads and claims to be fine. So when Swift 6 showed up promising to prove my concurrency correct at compile time, I had two reactions at once. The grizzled half of me said "sure, kid." The other half — the half that has spent actual weekends chasing a heisenbug that only reproduced on a customer's M1 under sync load — said "...please. Please be real." This is the story of moving Ditto Edge Studio — a SwiftUI debug-and-query tool for the Ditto edge database — to Swift 6's strict concurrency mode. It's a real app: SQLCipher persistence, an embedded MCP server, a SpriteKit presence graph, live sync over Bluetooth and WebSocket. Not a to-do list. The kind of app where concurrency bugs hide in the cracks and wait for a demo. Spoiler: it was worth it. It was also more work than the WWDC talk implied, and the most valuable thing the compiler did happened in the one place I told it to stop looking. Let me show you. First, the Wall: A Dependency That Wasn't Coming to Swift 6 Here's the thing nobody warns you about. Swift 6 language mode isn't really a per-file setting. Your code can be immaculate — every actor isolated, every Sendable accounted for — and you'll still be stuck, because one dependency that isn't Swift 6-ready can hold your entire module hostage. Mine was a code editor. I'd been using a popular SwiftUI editor package for the DQL query editor, and it transitively pulled in a syntax-highlighting library. Both were lovely. Both were also written for a more innocent time, and neither was going to compile under Swift 6 strict concurrency without upstream changes that weren't happening on my timeline. I had the usual three options, and I want to be honest about how tempting the cowardly ones were: Pin the dependency and leave the whole app at Swift 5. Free today, expensive

Whenever I heard about harmonics, I thought they were only related to large substations, transmission systems, and industrial facilities. I assumed harmonics were something utility engineers dealt with and not something connected to everyday devices. Phone chargers can create harmonics. Laptop chargers can create harmonics. LED lights can create harmonics. Even a UPS sitting under a desk can create harmonics. Today, modern power systems use many power electronic devices such as EV chargers, solar inverters, battery energy storage systems (BESS), UPS systems, data centers, and Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs). While these technologies bring many benefits, they can also introduce harmonic distortion. The more power electronic devices we connect to the grid, the more important harmonic analysis becomes. In this article, I will explain what harmonics are, what causes them, how they affect power quality, how they can be analyzed using PSCAD, and why they are becoming more important in modern power systems. Before we talk about harmonics, let's first understand electrical loads, because this is where harmonics usually begin. What Is an Electrical Load? An electrical load is any device that uses electrical energy to perform useful work. For example, think about a typical evening at home. You turn on a ceiling fan, LED light, laptop, air conditioner, and phone charger. All of these devices use electricity, so they are called electrical loads. Examples of electrical loads include motors, heaters, fans, computers, air conditioners, lighting systems, and EV chargers. However, not all electrical loads use electricity in the same way. Some draw current smoothly, while others draw current in short pulses. This small difference is actually where the story of harmonics begins. Linear vs Non-Linear Loads To understand harmonics, we first need to understand the difference between linear and non-linear loads. Although both types of loads consume electricity, they draw current from the

Over the past few months I built an AI-assisted delivery framework — not to write code faster, but to eliminate ambiguity across the entire software development lifecycle. The result completely changed how I think about AI in engineering. The problem I kept hitting Every time I used AI to generate architecture docs, API contracts, or implementation plans across separate sessions, the outputs looked great in isolation. But viewed together? They were broken. A pivot in the system architecture was never reflected in the API contracts. Frontend assumptions silently diverged from backend data models. AI wasn't the problem. Treating it as a collection of disconnected prompt sessions was. What I built instead A governance-driven framework built on three layers: Prompt → Agent → Skill The Prompt captures intent only — lightweight, declarative The Agent orchestrates execution and decides which capabilities to invoke The Skill is a reusable, schema-validated execution block with hardcoded governance rules This connects every delivery artifact into a sequential dependency chain: Business Requirements ↓ System Architecture ↓ Data Architecture ↓ Event Architecture ↓ API Contracts ↓ Implementation Plans ↓ Backend / Frontend Implementation Each artifact consumes the one before it. Upstream changes automatically propagate downstream. Governance is enforced at the Skill layer — not buried in fragile prompts. The finding that surprised me most The highest-leverage use of AI wasn't code generation. It was context generation . When engineers — or downstream agentic workflows — were given a governed, unambiguous spec, implementation quality was consistently higher than any raw AI-generated code output. The context was the unlock, not the syntax. What failed I'm including this because most write-ups skip it: Over-orchestrating everything (not every workflow needs an agent loop) Prompt bloat as a substitute for real architecture Severely underestimating token costs at scale Believing full

The monorepo vs polyrepo argument is old enough that Buildkite was comparing it to the Vim and Emacs wars back in 2024. It should have been settled, or at least gone quiet. Instead, in the space of six months, an AI coding vendor re-litigated it for the agent era, a benchmark firm published PR cycle-time data across hundreds of organisations, and half the platform engineering threads I read found their way back to it. Something pulled the question out of retirement. I think the something is worth naming, because it is not really about repositories at all. I maintain a product whose entire reason to exist is that most organisations run polyrepos, so I want to be upfront about where I sit before arguing anything. Riftmap parses cross-repo dependencies. If everyone migrated to a monorepo tomorrow, a good part of my roadmap would evaporate. Read what follows with that in mind, and check the sources, all of which are linked. With that declared: I think both camps in this debate are arguing about a proxy. The real variable underneath, the one that decides whether your team ships confidently or plays dependency archaeology at 2am, is something the standard pros-and-cons lists never name. This post walks the honest trade-offs first, because they are real and you deserve a straight answer to the question you searched for. Then it gets to the variable. What each side buys you A monorepo is one repository holding many projects. A polyrepo (or multi-repo) setup gives each project, service, or module its own repository. Both are proven at every scale that matters: Google and Meta run famous monorepos, Amazon and Netflix run famous polyrepos, and none of them are wrong. The monorepo's case The strongest monorepo argument has always been atomic cross-project change. Uber's iOS team moved to a monorepo largely for this: when an API contract and all of its clients live in one repo, a breaking change is one commit, one review, one revert path. No choreographed pull requests across si

Nobody wants to hear this. But the reason your software is hard to change, hard to test, and hard to explain to a new engineer isn't your tech stack. It's that your code doesn't reflect how your business actually works. Your engineers are using one word — "customer," "order," "student," "subscriber" — and meaning six different things depending on which part of the system they're touching. Your domain expert says "order" and means something completely different from what your database schema says "order" is. That gap? That's where complexity lives. That's where bugs are born. That's where senior engineers spend their Fridays. Domain-Driven Design is the discipline of closing that gap. Here's what it actually means, practically, without the academic noise. The Core Problem: One Model Trying to Mean Everything Imagine a map that tried to show subway routes, underwater hazards, hiking trails, and flight paths — all at once. It would be useless. A subway map works because it only shows what matters for navigating trains. A nautical chart works because it only shows what matters for sailing. Each map is an abstraction built for a specific purpose, valid within a specific context. Your software models need to work the same way. The moment you build a single "Customer" class that has to satisfy your billing team, your marketing team, your support team, and your logistics team simultaneously — that class becomes a bloated, ambiguous disaster. Everyone adds their fields. Nobody removes anything. The model stops meaning anything specific to anyone. This is the monolithic model trap. And most large codebases are sitting right inside it. Strategic Design: Understand the Problem Before You Touch Code DDD separates design into two layers. Strategic design comes first — it's the work you do before writing a single line of code. Step 1: Find Your Subdomains A subdomain is a slice of the business problem. Ordering. Shipping. Notifications. Payments. Inventory. These aren't your micro

Plug an oscilloscope probe into almost any real circuit and the trace will be fuzzy. Riding on top of the signal you actually want is a haze of higher-frequency noise — switching hash, radio pickup, digital crosstalk. The signal and the noise occupy different parts of the frequency spectrum, and that separation is an opportunity. If you can build something that passes the low frequencies and quietly turns down the high ones, the fuzz disappears and the signal stays. That something is a low-pass filter, and in its simplest form it is just a resistor and a capacitor. This article explains where the cut-off frequency comes from, works a concrete RC example, and clears up the misunderstandings that most often trip up a first filter design. Why this calculation matters Low-pass filters are everywhere a clean signal is needed. They sit in front of analog-to-digital converters as anti-aliasing filters, smooth the ripple out of power supplies, condition sensor outputs, and recover audio from a noisy line. Even an averaging operation in software is a low-pass filter wearing different clothes. The calculation matters because the cut-off frequency is a design decision with real consequences in both directions. Set it too low and you blur the signal you were trying to protect — its fast edges and genuine high-frequency content vanish along with the noise. Set it too high and the noise sails straight through. The cut-off is a deliberate line drawn through the frequency spectrum, and a passive RC filter places it with just two component values. The core formula A first-order RC low-pass filter is a resistor in series with the signal and a capacitor from the output node to ground. At low frequencies the capacitor is effectively an open circuit, so the output simply follows the input. At high frequencies the capacitor's impedance becomes small, shorting the high-frequency content to ground. The crossover between those two regimes is the cut-off frequency: f_c = 1 / ( 2 * pi * R * C

The first time I encountered an EIA-96 resistor , I assumed the marking would tell me the resistance value directly. I was troubleshooting a PCB and found a resistor marked 24C . Naturally, I expected some relationship between "24" and the actual resistance. After measuring and checking the datasheet, I discovered the resistor was 17.4 kΩ . That raised an obvious question: Why doesn't the code match the resistance value? The Problem With Traditional SMD Codes Most electronics enthusiasts learn resistor markings through familiar examples: 103 = 10 kΩ 472 = 4.7 kΩ 681 = 680 Ω These markings are straightforward. The first digits are significant figures and the last digit is a multiplier. The system works well for common resistor values, especially 5% tolerance components. However, things become complicated when manufacturers need to identify large numbers of precision resistor values on extremely small packages. Enter the EIA-96 Series Precision resistors often use the E96 preferred value series. Instead of having only a handful of values per decade, the E96 series contains 96 standardized resistance values between powers of ten. Some examples include: 100 Ω 102 Ω 105 Ω 107 Ω 110 Ω 113 Ω Notice how closely spaced these values are. Trying to represent all of them with traditional three-digit markings would quickly become messy and inconsistent. A Different Approach Rather than printing the resistance value directly, EIA-96 uses an index system. Each number from 01 to 96 corresponds to one of the standard E96 values. For example: Code Base Value 01 100 24 174 68 499 96 976 A letter is then added to indicate the multiplier. So the resistor marking becomes: Number + Letter Instead of: Resistance Value Example: Decoding 24C Let's break down 24C. First, look up the base value: 24 → 174 Next, decode the multiplier letter: C → ×100 Now calculate: 174 × 100 = 17,400 Ω Final resistance: 17.4 kΩ At first glance, nothing about "24C" resembles 17.4 kΩ, but that's because the code i

If you are a Software Developer of some form or another, chances are that you follow what are considered best practices for "Clean Code"or "Clean Architecture". It's considered generally best practice according to these books to keep functions down to a few lines, ensure classes have exactly one reason to change, and wrap implementation details behind abstract interfaces. It’s an approach designed to isolate responsibilities and keep the long-term cost of software modifications flat. Yet, as codebases grow under this paradigm, engineers frequently encounter a subtle friction. In the drive to decouple every moving part, applications often accumulate a massive web of boilerplate and multi-layered abstractions. This raises a fundamental question: does hyper-decomposing code actually reduce complexity, or does it simply scatter it across dozens of shallow files, making a single linear operation difficult to follow? This article revisits the baseline assumptions of Clean Architecture by examining a growing yet subtly different software design philosophy championed by systems engineers and computer science pragmatists. We will explore how different software environments define code quality, look at actual case studies of algorithmic decomposition, and map out alternative patterns like John Ousterhout's "Deep Modules." Along the way, we will examine how our design choices interact with mathematical correctness proofs, functional programming paradigms, and a modern toolchain increasingly driven by automated AI agents. The bubbles that shape your opinions The frameworks championed by the "Clean" movement were largely forged in the world of large-scale corporate IT consulting. They were explicitly designed to manage risk in massive organizations where hundreds of engineers with varying levels of experience write code against a single, shared repository. In a setting like a sprawling insurance platform or a legacy banking app with shifting corporate rules, Clean Architecture s

A scraper can pass every check you wrote and still be wrong about the one thing you actually care about: how much it collected. No exception. No 500. No broken row. Exit code 0, logs green, every field valid. And the set on disk is a quarter of what the site actually has. I have run scrapers in production enough times to stop trusting a green run on its own, and this is the failure that taught me to count. TL;DR A paginated source can serve fewer rows than it claims and never throw — page caps, hidden offset limits, infinite scroll that "ends" early. Your status check (200), schema check (valid row), and byte check (you got data) all pass. None of them counts records. The tell: declared total vs unique ids collected. Or, when there's no declared total, the page that quietly repeats an earlier page. Below is a 40-line probe you can run right now. On a source that caps at 1,500 of a declared 4,000, it returned VERDICT: INCOMPLETE (missing 2500 rows) . This is a completeness check, not a correctness check. Different layer, different bug. What actually goes wrong You write the loop everyone writes. Walk ?page=1 , ?page=2 , keep going until a page comes back empty. Stop. Save. Done. The source has other plans. It says it has 4,000 records — the count is right there in the envelope, or in a "Showing 4,000 results" line in the HTML. But it only ever hands out real data for the first 30 pages. Page 31 doesn't error. It doesn't return empty either. It returns page 1 again. Still HTTP 200. Still 50 valid rows. Your loop has no reason to stop, so it grinds on until its own page budget runs out, collects a pile of rows, and exits clean. You now have 5,000 rows in hand and feel great about it. Looks like plenty. The catch: only 1,500 are unique. The page cap fed you the same first page over and over, and those duplicates hid the shortfall behind a big-looking row count. That is the exact shape of "50 rows passed every check while 4,000 existed" — the scraper saw a lot of rows an

Most AI products today are wrappers. Different interfaces. Different branding. Different marketing. But underneath many of them is the same pattern: centralized models, rented intelligence, recurring dependence, and cloud-first control. The user doesn’t own the intelligence. They lease access to it. I think that creates a dangerous future. AI Is Quietly Becoming Infrastructure We’re moving toward a world where AI won’t just help write emails or generate images. It will: operate businesses, manage workflows, coordinate logistics, assist with infrastructure, analyze systems, monitor environments, and increasingly act as operational infrastructure. That changes the stakes dramatically. If AI becomes operational infrastructure, then ownership matters. Control matters. Resilience matters. And right now, most users have very little of any of those things. The Problem With Generalized Intelligence One of the biggest issues I see in modern GenAI is overgeneralization. We’re trying to build one giant intelligence that does everything: coding, marketing, legal reasoning, architecture, writing, support, psychology, operations, and research. The results can be impressive. But also unreliable. Hallucinations happen because the systems are stretched across too many domains simultaneously. The broader the intelligence becomes, the harder consistency becomes. That’s why I’ve become increasingly interested in specialized AI systems. AI Should Work Like A Workforce Instead of one giant model pretending to know everything, I believe AI should operate more like a coordinated workforce. Specialized agents. Focused responsibilities. Defined operational boundaries. For example: a development agent, an infrastructure agent, a security agent, a documentation agent, a research agent, a support agent, a creative writing agent. Each one optimized for a specific domain. Each one independently updateable. Independently replaceable. Independently trainable. Not one brain. Many experts. Local-Firs

While designing the database and Product Requirements Document (PRD) for an online school project, I ran into a problem I was not expecting. The school had multiple subscription plans. For simplicity, imagine: Live Class Plan:₦50,000 per term Video On Demand Plan: ₦30,000 per term Hybrid Plan (Live Classes + Video On Demand):₦70,000 per term. Initially this looked simple. Students subscribe. System charges them. Done. Then I asked: What happens if somebody changes plans halfway through the term? Suppose: A student already paid: Live Class Plan ₦50,000 Two months later: They decide: Upgrade to Hybrid Plan Do we charge: ₦70,000 again? That would be unfair. Do we charge: ₦20,000 difference? Maybe. But what if they already used most of their subscription period? This question led me to something called: Proration What Is Proration? Proration simply means: Charging customers only for the portion they actually use. Instead of pretending subscriptions always begin and end perfectly. Proration tries to answer: "How much value remains in the current subscription?" and "How much should the customer pay for the new one?" Simple Example Assume: Term Length: 100 Days Student buys: Live Plan ₦50,000 After: 40 Days they upgrade. This means: Used: 40 Days Remaining: 60 Days Value remaining: Remaining Value = Remaining Days / Total Days = 60 / 100 = 60% Remaining credit: 60% × ₦50,000 = ₦30,000 Hybrid costs: ₦70,000 Therefore: Amount to bill = New Plan Price − Remaining Credit = ₦70,000 − ₦30,000 = ₦40,000 Student pays: ₦40,000 instead of: ₦70,000 This feels fairer. Downgrades Are More Complicated What if: Hybrid user: ₦70,000 moves to: ₦30,000 plan Should the system: Refund money? Create account credits? Apply discount later? Ignore downgrades until renewal? This is where: Proration Rules become important. What Are Proration Rules? Proration calculations are useless without rules. The business must decide: Rule 1: How Is Remaining Value Calculated? Options: Daily basis Weekly basis

This is the eighth and final post in a series on the false assumptions teams make when building with generative AI. The series began with the observation that the trough of disillusionment for AI-assisted development has arrived — not because AI is useless, but because eight false assumptions made the trough inevitable. This post covers the last assumption and closes the series. The Fallacy "If one AI agent gives us a 10x boost, ten agents will give us 100x." Why it's tempting The arithmetic feels irresistible. One agent generates code for the backend. Another generates the frontend. A third writes tests. A fourth handles database migrations. A fifth generates documentation. Each agent works in parallel. No meetings, waiting or coordination overhead. Pure throughput. Leadership sees the potential: a five-person team with fifty agents has the output of a fifty-person team at the cost of a five-person team plus API credits. The scaling is linear. The economics are transformational. And the early results confirm it. Each agent, working on its own, produces impressive output. The backend agent generates Go code. The frontend agent generates React components. The test agent generates test suites. Each agent, in isolation, looks like a 10x developer. Why it's wrong You've seen this problem before. It has a name. It's called distributed systems. A distributed system is a collection of independent actors that must coordinate to produce a coherent result. Each actor makes decisions locally. The system's correctness depends on those local decisions being compatible globally. When they aren't, you get inconsistency, conflicts, data corruption, and cascading failures. AI agents working on the same codebase are a distributed system. Each agent makes decisions — variable names, error handling strategies, retry policies, data formats, abstraction levels, dependency choices. Each decision is made locally, in the context of one prompt, one file, one task. No agent sees the full pict

It's important to monitor Dataform - jobs executed by Dataform can be the primary source of BigQuery costs in a modern data platform. Forgetting to incrementalise a table, using a table instead of a view in the wrong place or performing complex window functions on a large table can all incur large costs and long run times. Using the WorkflowInvocationAction for each job we can extract its BigQuery Job ID, then extract key metadata for each BigQuery job by querying INFORMATION_SCHEMA.JOBS_BY_PROJECT , before writing the output back to BigQuery so that it can be analysed (maybe even by transforming it in Dataform). from google.cloud import dataform_v1 from google.cloud import bigquery from datetime import datetime # ------------------------------------------------------------ # CONFIG # ------------------------------------------------------------ PROJECT_ID = " my-project " REGION = " europe-west2 " REPOSITORY_ID = " analytics " WORKFLOW_INVOCATION_ID = " 123456789 " BQ_REGION = " region-europe-west2 " OUTPUT_TABLE = " my-project.raw_dataform_monitoring.raw_dataform_bigquery_metrics " # ------------------------------------------------------------ # CLIENTS # ------------------------------------------------------------ dataform = dataform_v1 . DataformClient () bq = bigquery . Client ( project = PROJECT_ID ) repository = dataform . repository_path ( PROJECT_ID , REGION , REPOSITORY_ID ) invocation_name = f " { repository } /workflowInvocations/ { WORKFLOW_INVOCATION_ID } " # ------------------------------------------------------------ # 1. GET WORKFLOW INVOCATION ACTIONS → EXTRACT JOB IDS # ------------------------------------------------------------ job_ids = set () actions = dataform . list_workflow_invocation_actions ( parent = invocation_name ) for action in actions : # only BigQuery actions contain job metadata if hasattr ( action , " bigquery_action " ) and action . bigquery_action : if action . bigquery_action . job_id : job_ids . add ( action . bigquery_action

5 Principles of Survival for Software Engineers Adapted from Leon Business School's "5 Principles of Survival" Your stack won’t save you. Your principles will. In the wild, survival isn’t about having the best gear. In software, survival isn’t about having the absolute best framework. It’s about how you operate when production is on fire, the roadmap shifts overnight, and AI just turned your "moat" into a weekend hobby project. Here are 5 core principles that keep you alive in modern software engineering. 1. 🔥 Adapt or Perish Change is not optional; it is the price of survival. In the wild: The species that cannot adapt to winter dies. In software: The team that cannot adapt to change dies slowly at first, then all at once. "Localhost is for amateurs" used to be a strongly held belief. Now, Claude writes a full CRUD API in 30 seconds on localhost . "We’re a React shop" was a proud identity. Now, HTMX ships the same feature before your Webpack build even finishes. Your identity as an engineer cannot be tied to a specific tool. Your identity is solving problems . The syntax is temporary. Agreement on what to build is what actually matters. 🛠️ Survival Action Every quarter, deliberately kill one "we’ve always done it this way" rule in your workflow. 2. 🧭 Stay Calm Under Pressure Panic is the first casualty of poor preparation. In the wild: Panic burns critical calories and gets you lost. In software: Panic causes a git push --force to main on a Friday at 4:59 PM. Outages don’t kill companies. Panicked responses do. The team that has clear runbooks, relies on feature flags, and can execute a rollback in under 90 seconds stays calm. Why? Because they prepared when it was quiet. If your first step in incident response is opening X (Twitter) or complaining in a public Slack channel, you have already lost. 🛠️ Survival Action If you don't have a tested rollback plan, you don't have a deployment plan. Write it down before your next release. 3. 💡 Resourcefulness Over Resources

Inspired by Nir Eyal's "beliefs are tools" framework Beliefs are tools, not truths. Tech stacks are too. Pick the ones that work for you. Most "tech debt" is actually "belief debt". We hold onto frameworks, patterns, and processes long after they stop serving the product. To build great software, we need to introduce a core rule: If a tech belief or "best practice" doesn’t solve a real problem for you right now, it must be treated as false. Here is how to audit your tech beliefs using 5 filters. 1. ARE THEY USEFUL? The real question isn’t "Is this the best tech?" It’s "Does this serve the user?" Tools are tools. Keep the ones that ship. Bad belief (Treat as False): "We need Kubernetes because it’s the industry standard." Useful belief (True for Now): "A $5 VPS serves 10k users. We’ll use K8s when we have a scaling problem, not a resume problem." If your architecture choice doesn’t make the core loop faster, cheaper, or simpler for users, it’s not serving you. Delete it. 2. ARE THEY TESTED? A useful stack holds up when the world pushes back. Pay attention to production, not the trending blog posts. Bad belief (Treat as False): "Microservices are inherently more scalable"—said before you even have 2 concurrent users. Tested belief (True for Now): "Our monolith handles 50 req/s perfectly. We’ll split services only when latency exceeds 300ms in prod." Load test it. Dogfood it. If it only works in a conference slide deck, it’s a story, not a tool. 3. ARE THEY OPEN? A tech choice you can’t change has stopped being a tool and has become a cage. Hold opinions firmly, but hold implementations loosely. Bad belief (Treat as False): "We’re a React shop forever." Open belief (True for Now): "React serves us today. If HTMX lets us ship this feature in 2 days instead of 2 weeks, we’ll use HTMX." In a famous study on hope, Curt Richter’s rats swam for 60 hours when they believed rescue was coming. Your team will grind for years on a legacy stack if they believe it can actually be r

Key Use Cases Power BI Visual Monitoring can be used for: power bi visual monitoring power bi report visual monitoring visual regression testing for Power BI power bi screenshot monitoring monitoring Power BI visuals visual monitoring for Power BI Report Server automated Power BI dashboard validation visual correctness control for BI reports Power BI Visual Monitoring: Automatically Detecting Broken Visuals in Power BI Reports In large Power BI environments, analytics teams often face the problem of silent regressions : even minor changes in data or models can break individual visuals without any obvious errors. Report owners frequently don’t notice that a visual has stopped rendering or is showing incorrect data — this can happen due to changes in data source structure, access rights, deleted fields, broken measures, or refresh failures. Manually checking hundreds of report pages across multiple dashboards in such conditions is extremely inefficient and nearly impossible. We, a team of BI developers and analysts, encountered this pain point during a large analytics implementation project and decided to create a solution for automated Power BI visual monitoring . Project Source Code: GitHub: https://github.com/svergio/Power-bi-report-visual-monitoring Documentation: https://svergio.github.io/Power-bi-report-visual-monitoring/ Wiki: https://github.com/svergio/Power-bi-report-visual-monitoring/wiki Why Standard Power BI Tools Don’t Solve the Problem Standard Power BI tools such as Usage Metrics and Performance Analyzer help analyze report usage and performance but do not detect visual issues. For example, built-in usage metrics show “how those dashboards and reports are being used” — number of views, popular reports, and who is viewing them. These metrics are important for assessing analytics adoption, but they say nothing about whether the visuals themselves are displaying correctly. Similarly, Performance Analyzer shows load times for each visual, helping identify s