标签：#ai

Over the last year or so, I've noticed more developers talking about open source API tools. Not just...

I'm Dr. Mohammad Reza Beheshti, Founder of CyberSiARA. I hold a PhD in Electronic Engineering and Artificial Intelligence and have over 15 years of experience in cybersecurity research and innovation. My passion has always been solving complex security challenges through technology. This journey led me to found CyberSiARA, where we're developing AI-powered bot protection and human verification solutions to help organizations defend against increasingly sophisticated cyber threats. I enjoy combining academic research with practical engineering to create technologies that are both innovative and effective in the real world. Through this blog, I share insights from my research, product development, and experiences building a cybersecurity company, with the aim of helping developers and security professionals stay ahead of emerging threats. I'm always keen to learn, collaborate, and contribute to the global developer and cybersecurity communities.

The boat-agent stack here runs on a prime directive: if there's something usable out there, improve it; build our own only as a last resort. So when we needed a SignalK MCP server, the honest first move wasn't to write one — it was to evaluate the one that already exists. VesselSense/signalk-mcp-server (TypeScript, MIT) is good work. It exposes SignalK to an agent through a single execute_code tool: the model writes JavaScript, the server runs it in a sandboxed V8 isolate ( isolated-vm ), and only the result comes back. Its README claims a 90–96% token reduction versus traditional named MCP tools — 2,000 tokens down to 120 for a vessel-state query, 13,000 down to 300 for a multi-call workflow. Those numbers are plausible, and they line up with the broader industry result that code execution beats tool-calling on token efficiency for complex multi-step work. We read it, ran the numbers against our own agent, and kept our discrete-named-tool signalk-mcp anyway — then harvested three of VesselSense's ideas into our roadmap. This post is that evaluation: the two philosophies, why the obvious-sounding win doesn't bind for a voice-first agent, and a decision framework you can reuse before you adopt-or-build your own MCP server. This is a design-reasoning post, not a debugging saga, but it maps to the same arc: a question, the dead-end that looks like an obvious yes, and the call that actually held. The question Two SignalK MCP servers, two genuinely different designs: VesselSense/signalk-mcp-server sailingnaturali/signalk-mcp ───────────────────────────── ─────────────────────────── one tool: execute_code discrete named tools: → agent writes JavaScript read_sensor(path) → runs in a V8 isolate battery_state(bank) → queries SignalK, returns depth_state() only the result get_route() get_local_time() TypeScript / Node + isolated-vm list_paths(prefix) claims 90–96% fewer tokens get_active_alarms() Python, end-to-end The adopt-vs-keep question: does the token-efficiency win bin

The all-cash deal gives MoEngage access to technology that assigns AI agents to individual customers.

This is the third piece in a sequence. The first asked whether Sloan had flagged anyone else — it...

It's an odd-seeming move for a company selling an AI writing assistant.

A new update for Google Home could make it less likely your smart home cameras mistake you for someone else, just because you're facing away from the camera. Starting June 23rd, Google's expanding its facial recognition feature so that people you've tagged in your Familiar Faces library can continue to be identified when their faces […]

Netflix, A24, Focus Features, and Warner Bros.' Clockwork have all reportedly decided to pass on picking up Artificial - director Luca Guadagnino's new biographical drama about OpenAI cofounder / CEO Sam Altman - for distribution deals. And while Neon and Mubi are still said to be interested in the film, this situation makes it seem […]

I wanted AI code review I could actually own. Not access through a subscription or a black-box service with its own limits. The deployment, credentials, providers, and usage under my control. I kept hitting usage limits mid-week during deep building sessions. The models were capable. The workflow was useful. But access still depended on somebody else's weekly allowance, and centralized platforms can change whenever the company behind them decides to. Pricing, quotas, models, plan boundaries. A workflow that fits this month may sit behind another subscription next month. I could not find a reliable open-source option that gave me the ownership model I wanted. So I built one. That became Codra : A self-hosted AI review engine built around bring-your-own models, your own data boundary, and no Codra-imposed usage ceiling. What Codra Is Codra is an open-source, self-hosted AI code review engine for GitHub pull requests. It listens to pull request events, reviews changed files, posts inline findings, and provides a dashboard for jobs, repositories, model routing, history, usage, and failures. It runs on Cloudflare Workers and uses: Cloudflare Queues for review jobs PostgreSQL through Hyperdrive for storage KV for sessions and cache A React dashboard for operations The GitHub App, model credentials, database, and review history are yours. Provider keys are encrypted with AES-GCM using your deployment secret. Bring Your Own Model, Bring Your Own Limits Changing providers does not require replacing your review history, configuration, or workflow. You configure the provider and model. Supported: OpenAI-compatible APIs OpenRouter Anthropic Google / Gemini Cloudflare Workers AI Why Self-Hosted Matters Here A large frontend repo and a tiny backend repo should not need the same review strategy. Each repository gets its own review settings. You tune triggers, skip generated files, ignore drafts, use mention-triggered reviews, configure labels, set file limits, and define custom ru

One of the most confusing errors you can face while deploying a Node.js or Docker-based application is: fatal: Need to specify how to reconcile divergent branches At first glance, it looks like a Git bug. In reality, it is Git doing exactly what it should do, protecting you from overwriting history. In this article, I’ll break down a real production incident where a deployment failed due to divergent Git branches, how we diagnosed it, and the correct DevOps fix. The Problem A simple deployment script was running: git pull docker compose down --remove-orphans docker compose up --build -d But it failed with: fatal: Need to specify how to reconcile divergent branches This stopped deployment completely. What Git Was Telling Us To understand the issue, we ran: git rev-list --left-right --count HEAD...origin/main Output: 1 16 This means: 1 commit exists locally on the server 16 commits exist on GitHub So the branches had diverged. Why This Happens (Important) This usually happens when: Someone runs git commit directly on a server A previous deployment used git pull with merge commits History between local and remote is no longer linear Git refuses to guess whether you want to: Merge Rebase Or reject changes So it throws an error. Deep Diagnosis We inspected the commits: git log --oneline origin/main..HEAD Result: 6d9046b Merge pull request #222 Then: git log --oneline HEAD..origin/main Showed multiple new GitHub PR merges. Conclusion: The server was behind GitHub The “local commit” was already part of repo history No real production changes existed on server The Real Fix (Production Safe) For deployment servers, you should NEVER rely on git pull . Instead, use a deterministic reset: git fetch origin git reset --hard origin/main Then redeploy: docker compose down --remove-orphans docker compose up --build -d Why This Works This approach ensures: Server always matches GitHub exactly No merge conflicts in production No accidental local commits survive Fully reproducible depl

AI can generate a test script before you finish your coffee. That sounds like the hard part of test automation has finally been solved. In practice, most teams were never blocked by the first script. They were blocked by everything that came after it: maintenance, flaky runs, slow feedback, weak adoption, unclear ownership, browser differences, and the uncomfortable question of whether the suite is saving more time than it consumes. That is the theme I keep coming back to when I look at test automation in 2026. Creating tests is getting easier. Building a testing system that people trust is still difficult. Here is a practical map of the problems teams are dealing with now, along with deeper guides for each one. Start with the outcome, not the framework A surprising number of automation projects begin with a tool debate. Should we use Selenium? Playwright? Cypress? A no-code platform? An AI agent? Those questions matter, but they come too early. Before choosing a framework, it helps to agree on what test automation actually is , what risks you are trying to reduce, and which feedback needs to arrive faster. For a team starting from scratch, the most useful approach is usually smaller than expected. Pick a business-critical flow, automate it, run it consistently, and learn from the maintenance burden before expanding. This guide to getting started with automated testing explains that process without pretending every manual test should immediately become code. It is also important to distinguish individual checks from genuine end-to-end testing . A test that confirms a button is visible can be useful, but it does not tell you whether a customer can sign up, receive an email, complete a payment, and see the correct result in another system. Teams naturally ask for the fastest way to automate tests . The honest answer is that speed is not just the time needed to create version one. The fastest approach over six months is the one your team can understand, run, repair, an

TL;DR: We launched Tarotas, a tarot reading app, in five languages (Czech, Slovak, Polish, English, German) on a single domain. Each market behaved completely differently. Here is what the data showed us about multi-locale growth. When we started building Tarotas at Inithouse, the plan seemed straightforward: one product, five languages, one domain. Czech as the base, then Slovak, Polish, English, and German. Same cards, same readings, same UI. Just translated. What we did not expect: each locale acts like a separate product. The setup Tarotas is a tarot card app where you draw a card and read a calm, generic interpretation. No fortune telling, no sign-ups, no paywall. 78 cards across five languages, all on tarotas.com with language detection. We built it in Lovable and deployed it in under two weeks. The multi-language part took another week: content generation for 78 cards times 5 languages, plus locale-specific meta tags and URL structures. What the data told us The Czech and Slovak markets responded first. That was expected: our studio is based in Prague, our existing portfolio (products like zivafotka.cz and magicalsong.com ) already had traction in CZ/SK. But the interesting part was the divergence. CZ/SK users stayed longer. Session duration in Czech and Slovak was noticeably higher than in other locales. Users explored multiple cards, came back for second readings. The "reflection" positioning landed well in these markets, likely because tarot has a quiet cultural niche in Central Europe: not mainstream, but not fringe either. Polish users bounced faster but shared more. The PL locale had higher bounce rates but showed a different signal: social referrals. Polish users who did engage were more likely to share readings. The tarot community in Poland leans more social: Facebook groups, Instagram stories, TikTok readings. Our product caught some of that energy. German users barely showed up. DE was our weakest locale by far. German-language search demand for ta

In Mexico, WhatsApp isn't a channel — it's the channel. It's where customers ask for prices, book appointments, and decide whether to buy from you or from the competitor who answered faster. And that last part is the problem: most small and medium businesses lose customers simply because nobody replied in time — after hours, during a rush, or while the owner was busy doing the actual work. At Proxxa , the AI automation agency I run in Mexico City, this is the single most common pain we solve. So I want to walk through how I built a production-grade WhatsApp AI assistant that answers, qualifies, and books 24/7 — using Claude and n8n, with no third-party chatbot platform in the middle. Why the WhatsApp Cloud API directly (no BSP) A lot of guides will tell you that you need a BSP (Business Solution Provider) to use the WhatsApp Business API. You don't. Meta's Cloud API is hosted by Meta itself and you can build on it directly. Skipping the BSP means no per-seat middleman tax, full control over the logic, and the client owns their own number and data. The stack n8n (self-hosted on a small VPS via Docker) as the orchestration layer. Claude (Haiku) as the intelligence layer — fast and cheap enough to answer every message. Postgres for conversation memory, a knowledge base, and a lightweight CRM. WhatsApp Cloud API for the messaging. Gemini for transcribing voice notes. The pattern that made it powerful: meta-blocks Instead of bolting on a separate "agent framework," I let Claude emit small structured blocks inside its answer, which a parsing node extracts and strips before sending — to schedule an appointment, escalate to a human, capture a lead, or generate a payment link. The user only ever sees clean text; the system reacts to the blocks. This kept the whole thing debuggable and predictable. With that pattern, the assistant handles eleven capabilities: natural-language conversation, per-customer memory, Google Calendar booking, vision (it reads a photo a customer sends

Oracle is spending billions on data center infrastructure to support AI.

Menlo has created a solid rep for itself as an AI investor, all based on one gutsy $750 million move in 2024.

Algae blooms, peeling paint, and a host of fixes from hydrogen peroxide to nanobubblers have made it hard to diagnose what's wrong with the Reflecting Pool, let alone how to clean up the mess.

Qdrant is an open-source vector database for AI applications, optimised for similarity search over high-dimensional embeddings, with a REST/gRPC API, payload filtering, and a built-in dashboard. This guide deploys Qdrant using Docker Compose with Traefik handling automatic HTTPS, API-key authentication, and a sample collection that runs a similarity search. By the end, you'll have Qdrant serving vector search securely at your domain. Set Up the Directory Structure 1. Create the project directory: $ mkdir -p ~/qdrant/data $ cd ~/qdrant 2. Generate a strong API key: $ openssl rand -hex 32 Save the value for the .env file. 3. Create the environment file: $ nano .env DOMAIN = qdrant.example.com LETSENCRYPT_EMAIL = admin@example.com QDRANT_API_KEY = PASTE_GENERATED_KEY_HERE Deploy with Docker Compose 1. Create the Compose manifest: $ nano docker-compose.yaml services : traefik : image : traefik:v3.6 container_name : traefik command : - " --providers.docker=true" - " --providers.docker.exposedbydefault=false" - " --api.dashboard=false" - " --entrypoints.web.address=:80" - " --entrypoints.websecure.address=:443" - " --entrypoints.web.http.redirections.entrypoint.to=websecure" - " --entrypoints.web.http.redirections.entrypoint.scheme=https" - " --certificatesresolvers.letsencrypt.acme.httpchallenge=true" - " --certificatesresolvers.letsencrypt.acme.httpchallenge.entrypoint=web" - " --certificatesresolvers.letsencrypt.acme.email=${LETSENCRYPT_EMAIL}" - " --certificatesresolvers.letsencrypt.acme.storage=/letsencrypt/acme.json" ports : - " 80:80" - " 443:443" volumes : - " ./letsencrypt:/letsencrypt" - " /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock:ro" restart : unless-stopped qdrant : image : qdrant/qdrant:v1.17.1 container_name : qdrant expose : - " 6333" volumes : - " ./data:/qdrant/storage" environment : QDRANT__SERVICE__API_KEY : " ${QDRANT_API_KEY}" labels : - " traefik.enable=true" - " traefik.http.routers.qdrant.rule=Host(`${DOMAIN}`)" - " traefik.http.routers.qdrant.entr

MLflow is an open-source platform for managing the machine learning lifecycle — experiment tracking, model registry, and reproducible runs. This guide deploys MLflow using Docker Compose with a PostgreSQL backend, S3-compatible artifact storage, basic-auth, and Traefik handling automatic HTTPS, then logs a sample scikit-learn run. By the end, you'll have MLflow recording experiments at your domain over HTTPS. Prerequisite: An S3-compatible bucket (e.g. Vultr Object Storage) with access key, secret key, region, and endpoint URL. Set Up the Directory Structure 1. Create the project directory: $ mkdir -p ~/mlflow $ cd ~/mlflow 2. Create the environment file: $ nano .env DOMAIN = mlflow.example.com LETSENCRYPT_EMAIL = admin@example.com POSTGRES_USER = mlflow POSTGRES_PASSWORD = StrongDatabasePassword123 MLFLOW_AUTH_CONFIG_PATH = /app/basic_auth.ini MLFLOW_FLASK_SERVER_SECRET_KEY = GENERATED_SECRET_KEY S3_BUCKET = mlflow-artifacts S3_ACCESS_KEY = YOUR_ACCESS_KEY S3_SECRET_KEY = YOUR_SECRET_KEY S3_REGION = YOUR_REGION S3_ENDPOINT = https://YOUR_OBJECT_STORAGE_ENDPOINT 3. Create the basic-auth configuration: $ nano basic_auth.ini [mlflow] default_permission = READ database_uri = sqlite:///basic_auth.db admin_username = admin admin_password = ADMIN_PASSWORD authorization_function = mlflow.server.auth:authenticate_request_basic_auth 4. Create a Dockerfile that adds the auth-server extras and Postgres/S3 clients to the official image: $ nano Dockerfile FROM ghcr.io/mlflow/mlflow:v3.10.1 RUN pip install --no-cache-dir psycopg2-binary boto3 'mlflow[auth]' Deploy with Docker Compose 1. Create the Compose manifest: $ nano docker-compose.yml services : traefik : image : traefik:v3.6 container_name : traefik command : - " --providers.docker=true" - " --providers.docker.exposedbydefault=false" - " --entrypoints.web.address=:80" - " --entrypoints.websecure.address=:443" - " --entrypoints.web.http.redirections.entrypoint.to=websecure" - " --entrypoints.web.http.redirections.entrypoint

LocalAI is an open-source platform for running Large Language Models locally with an OpenAI-compatible API, so you can swap it in behind existing OpenAI client code without paying per-token or sending data off-server. This guide deploys LocalAI using Docker Compose with Traefik handling automatic HTTPS, persistent model and cache directories, and a working chat-completion test. By the end, you'll have LocalAI serving an OpenAI-compatible API securely at your domain. Set Up the Directory Structure 1. Create the project directories: $ mkdir -p ~/localai/ { models,cache } $ cd ~/localai models/ holds downloaded model files; cache/ persists between restarts. 2. Create the environment file: $ nano .env DOMAIN = localai.example.com LETSENCRYPT_EMAIL = admin@example.com Deploy with Docker Compose 1. Add your user to the Docker group: $ sudo usermod -aG docker $USER $ newgrp docker 2. Create the Compose manifest: $ nano docker-compose.yaml services : traefik : image : traefik:v3.6 container_name : traefik restart : unless-stopped environment : DOCKER_API_VERSION : " 1.44" command : - " --providers.docker=true" - " --providers.docker.exposedbydefault=false" - " --entrypoints.web.address=:80" - " --entrypoints.websecure.address=:443" - " --entrypoints.web.http.redirections.entrypoint.to=websecure" - " --entrypoints.web.http.redirections.entrypoint.scheme=https" - " --certificatesresolvers.le.acme.httpchallenge=true" - " --certificatesresolvers.le.acme.httpchallenge.entrypoint=web" - " --certificatesresolvers.le.acme.email=${LETSENCRYPT_EMAIL}" - " --certificatesresolvers.le.acme.storage=/letsencrypt/acme.json" ports : - " 80:80" - " 443:443" volumes : - /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock:ro - ./letsencrypt:/letsencrypt localai : image : localai/localai:latest-aio-cpu container_name : localai restart : unless-stopped volumes : - ./models:/models:cached - ./cache:/cache:cached healthcheck : test : [ " CMD" , " curl" , " -f" , " http://localhost:8080/readyz" ] interval :

LibreChat is an open-source, ChatGPT-style web UI that supports OpenAI, Anthropic, Azure OpenAI, Gemini, OpenRouter, local OpenAI-compatible endpoints, and more — with MongoDB-backed conversation history and Meilisearch-powered search. This guide deploys LibreChat using its official Compose manifest plus a Traefik override for automatic HTTPS. By the end, you'll have LibreChat running with a registration page and multi-provider chat at your domain over HTTPS. Clone LibreChat and Prepare the Environment 1. Clone the LibreChat repository and check out a stable tag: $ git clone https://github.com/danny-avila/LibreChat.git $ cd LibreChat $ git checkout tags/v0.8.3 2. Find the Meilisearch data directory name pinned by this release: $ grep -o 'meili_data_v[0-9.]*' docker-compose.yml | head -1 3. Create the required data directories (replace meili_data_v1.35.1 if the previous command printed a different name): $ mkdir -p data-node images logs meili_data_v1.35.1 uploads $ sudo chown -R 1000:1000 meili_data_v1.35.1 4. Copy the env template and uncomment the UID/GID lines: $ cp .env.example .env $ nano .env UID = 1000 GID = 1000 Override the Compose Stack with Traefik 1. Create a Compose override that adds Traefik and wires the API to it: $ nano docker-compose.override.yml services : api : labels : - " traefik.enable=true" - " traefik.http.routers.librechat.rule=Host(`librechat.example.com`)" - " traefik.http.routers.librechat.entrypoints=websecure" - " traefik.http.routers.librechat.tls.certresolver=leresolver" - " traefik.http.services.librechat.loadbalancer.server.port=3080" volumes : - ./librechat.yaml:/app/librechat.yaml traefik : image : traefik:v3.6.10 ports : - " 80:80" - " 443:443" volumes : - " /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock:ro" - " ./letsencrypt:/letsencrypt" command : - " --providers.docker=true" - " --providers.docker.exposedbydefault=false" - " --entrypoints.web.address=:80" - " --entrypoints.websecure.address=:443" - " --entrypoints.web.http.redirect