标签：#an

Por muito tempo eu acreditei que programação e desenvolvimento de software como sinônimos. Na...

Here's something that'll keep you up at night: 67% of World Cup 2026 goals in the 85th+ minute came from teams that were losing at the time . That's significantly higher than the 43% rate we saw in the 70-80 minute window. This single statistic reveals a hidden pattern in how desperation fundamentally rewires attacking strategy when the clock ticks down to the final whistle. As someone who's spent the last three months drowning in World Cup 2026 broadcast data, match statistics, and possession metrics, I've become obsessed with understanding how pressure affects team behavior in those nail-biting final minutes. The conventional wisdom says that late-game goals are chaotic, desperate, and unpredictable. But the data tells a much more interesting story—one about tactical discipline collapsing under psychological weight. The Numbers Behind the Drama Let me walk you through what we found when analyzing 64 matches from the 2026 tournament across 16 days of group stages. Time Period Total Goals Avg. Pass Completion % Shots on Target Defensive Errors 0-30 min 24 82.3% 18 3 30-60 min 31 81.7% 26 5 60-75 min 28 79.4% 24 8 75-85 min 19 76.8% 22 12 85-90 min 18 71.2% 19 18 90+ min (stoppage) 14 68.9% 16 22 Notice the decline? By the 85-90 minute window, pass completion drops to 71.2%—that's an 11-point deterioration from the opening 30 minutes. But here's where it gets weird: defensive errors triple in that same window. Teams aren't just playing sloppily; they're making genuinely catastrophic mistakes. Team-Specific Patterns: The Pressure Responders Not all teams crack under late-game pressure equally. Here's where the real story emerges: Team 85+ Min Goals Scored 85+ Min Goals Conceded Goal Differential Win Rate (Tight Matches) Argentina 6 2 +4 85% France 5 3 +2 72% Brazil 7 4 +3 81% England 3 5 -2 58% USA 4 6 -2 62% Morocco 5 2 +3 79% Japan 2 7 -5 41% What jumps out immediately? Argentina and Brazil are outliers . They scored 13 combined goals in the final 5 minutes but conc

In a recent audit, a team showed me an AI assistant they'd built on top of their company knowledge base. The demo had landed well: ask how to use a feature, and it walked through the exact pain point their support queue kept seeing. Leadership signed off. In production, the same agent told a user to open a menu option that didn't exist. Not a vague answer - a specific UI path, stated with confidence. Nobody caught it in testing. It surfaced when I audited the system, not when a user complained. The prototype passed testing because nobody was checking whether the answer matched the product. In production, that gap becomes a liability: the model invents UI paths, and your backend has no schema to reject them. When you're choosing an agent framework, popularity is the wrong scorecard. Pick the one that fails loudly in development and gracefully in production - or you'll find out in audit. What "Production-Ready" Actually Requires Tutorial agents are built to impress in a fifteen-minute demo. Production agents run unattended, handle bad inputs, and ship answers your backend has to trust. The gap between those two goals is where most teams stumble - and it's rarely visible until something reaches a user. When I audit agent codebases, I evaluate five things the tutorials skip: Structured, validated outputs: Can your system reject an invented menu path before it becomes user-facing advice? Dependency injection for testing: Can you swap the knowledge base for a mock in CI without rewiring the agent? Retry and error handling: When the model returns malformed output, does the framework retry - or do you ship a parser exception? Observability hooks: Can you trace which document grounded a bad answer when support escalates? Type-checker support: Will static analysis catch a breaking API change before deploy, or after the agent silently misbehaves? If you want to score your own system, the Production Readiness Audit covers the same five categories - deployment, observability, fa

Mach's approach differs sharply from some of its peers.

Let me confess something a little creepy. I have a habit of peeking at other people's dev posts. Not stealing the writing — relax. I run a tiny read-only job that fetches the public pages on dev.to, Zenn, and Qiita and counts only the boring parts: titles, post times, like counts. Who published what, at what hour, and how far it traveled. Then it tallies the lot. The reason is petty: my own posts weren't landing. The content is already in my hands — so I wanted to know how much the rest, the when and how you publish , actually moves the needle. By the numbers, not by gut. So I counted across three platforms. And the conditions that make a post fly turned out to be roughly mirror images between Japan (Zenn / Qiita) and the English-speaking world (dev.to). Here's the story. First, my most important disclaimer This post is full of numbers, so let me put up a guardrail before any of them. This is correlation, not causation . A result like "weekend posts don't do well" could mean the weekend itself is bad — or it could mean people who post on weekends are just dashing something off on the side. The data can't separate those. Please read it that way. Also, I only keep aggregate numbers I computed myself . I don't store or reuse anyone's article body (read-only GET, count the features, throw the page away). I peek, but only at the overall shape . Nobody gets singled out here. With that out of the way — four findings I enjoyed. 1. The best hour to publish is just your readers' time zone This one came out cleanest. On Qiita , posts published in the morning win (+32pt in the GOOD group). Midday is +14pt. Evening is -32pt, late night -14pt. Zenn likes midday too (+27pt). Late night is -15pt. dev.to is the exact opposite. Late night Japan time scores +7pt — Japanese evening is actually weak. The trick is obvious once you see it. dev.to's readers are English-speaking, mostly US. Late night in Japan is the US working day. Zenn and Qiita readers are in Japan, so the Japanese morni

Corro varios agentes respaldados por Bedrock en producción: análisis de documentos, emparejamiento de contenido, búsqueda en registros, búsqueda semántica. Esta es una pasada honesta sobre el OWASP Top 10 para aplicaciones LLM desde el lado de la implementación : el código de verdad que defiende cada riesgo y, igual de importante, las categorías donde mi respuesta es "parcial" o "todavía no". Primero el modelo de amenazas Un flujo de agentes es un pipeline: entrada no confiable → prompt → modelo → parseo → actuar. Cada flecha es una superficie de ataque. Antes de cualquier control, la pregunta más útil que me hice fue esta: ¿qué puede HACER de verdad un agente si el modelo está completamente manipulado? Mi respuesta dio forma a todo lo de abajo. Los agentes son mayormente-de-lectura : llaman a un modelo, leen filas acotadas de la base de datos, y escriben resultados de análisis con llave del usuario que pide. Sin shell, sin SQL arbitrario, sin llamada a herramientas. El radio de impacto es chico por construcción, que es el control más barato que existe. TL;DR, estatus honesto OWASP LLM Mi estatus El control LLM10 Consumo sin límite Fuerte Límite de tasa + cortacircuitos de costo mensual + topes de tokens por modelo LLM06 Agencia excesiva Fuerte (por diseño) Sin llamada a herramientas; mayormente-de-lectura; escrituras acotadas a quien llama LLM01 Inyección de prompt Parcial Contenido del usuario enmarcado como DATOS (delimitadores + preámbulo anti-inyección) LLM02 Divulgación de info sensible Parcial Limpieza de PII por regex antes del modelo; exclusiones auditadas LLM05 Manejo inadecuado de salida Parcial Validación de esquema + chequeos de fundamentación + sanear-antes-de-renderizar LLM07 Fuga del system prompt Parcial Registro versionado de prompts + regla anti-eco LLM08 Vector/Embedding N/A (todavía no construido) (nada) AuthN/Z + interruptor de apagado Fuerte Llave interna, gateo por cuota/gama, deshabilitado por agente LLM10 Consumo sin límite: empieza aquí, e

Every developer I know has the same problem: knowledge scattered across five places at once. Browser bookmarks they never re-read. Notion docs that become graveyards. Slack threads with critical context that disappear into the archive. README files that contradict each other. Stack Overflow answers bookmarked with zero recall of why. I tried most of the "second brain" setups and none of them stuck until I figured out why they kept failing: generic productivity systems are not built for how developers actually think and work. A developer's knowledge is fundamentally different from a writer's or a manager's. It is: Code-linked (a note about a library is useless without the actual code it explains) Decision-heavy (architecture decisions need context, rationale, and alternatives considered) Debugging-intensive (solutions to bugs need the exact error message, environment, and what you tried) Time-sensitive (that API migration note is only relevant for a 3-month window) Here is the structure that actually worked. The Core Structure 00-Inbox/ 10-Projects/ 20-Areas/ - Language: Python/ - Stack: AWS/ - Domain: Auth/ 30-Resources/ - Libraries/ - Tools/ - Patterns/ 40-Archive/ The key insight: Resources are evergreen, Projects are temporary, Areas are ongoing responsibilities. A note about how JWT works lives in 30-Resources/Domain-Auth/ . A note about implementing JWT for the current sprint lives in 10-Projects/Sprint-42-Auth-Revamp/ . When the sprint is done, the project gets archived. The JWT fundamentals note stays forever. The Templates That Made It Click Architecture Decision Record (ADR) # ADR-042: Use Postgres over DynamoDB for user sessions Status: Accepted | Date: 2026-06-22 ## Context We need session storage that supports complex queries for the audit log feature. ## Decision Postgres with connection pooling via PgBouncer. ## Alternatives Considered - DynamoDB: rejected (query limitations for audit log requirements) - Redis: rejected (not durable enough for complian

Samsung Electronics deploys ChatGPT Enterprise and Codex to employees worldwide, marking one of OpenAI’s largest enterprise AI rollouts.

Whether you're brand new to Power BI or just getting started with data analytics, this guide walks you through everything you need to know about data modeling — from how tables connect, to the schemas that make your reports fast and reliable. What Is Data Modeling in Power BI? Imagine you have three spreadsheets: one with your customers , one with your products , and one with your sales transactions . Individually, each table tells you something. But together, they can tell you which customer bought which product, when, and for how much . That's exactly what data modeling is: the process of organizing your data tables and defining how they relate to each other so Power BI can combine them into meaningful reports and dashboards. A data model in Power BI has three core building blocks: Tables — your data sources (Excel files, databases, CSVs, cloud services, etc.) Relationships — the links between tables that tell Power BI how data connects Measures & Calculations — formulas (in DAX) that compute totals, averages, and other insights A well-designed data model is the difference between a report that loads in seconds and one that takes forever. It's also what keeps your numbers accurate and your dashboards easy to use. Why Does Data Modeling Matter? Here's a simple analogy: a city without roads is just a collection of buildings. Data modeling is the road system that lets you travel between your tables. Without a good data model: Your visuals may show incorrect or duplicated numbers Filters in one chart won't affect another Reports will be slow and hard to maintain With a good data model: Clicking on a customer in one visual automatically filters every other visual Calculations are accurate and consistent You can easily add new data sources without rebuilding everything Types of Tables: Facts vs. Dimensions Before diving into schemas and relationships, you need to understand the two types of tables that make up most Power BI models. Fact Tables A Fact table stores the ev

This is a submission for the June Solstice Game Jam What I Built The Imitation Game The Imitation Game is a real-time multiplayer social deduction game inspired by Alan Turing's famous Imitation Game the thought experiment that eventually became known as the Turing Test. Most people believe they can easily tell the difference between an AI and a human. They assume AI is too perfect, too logical, too fast, or too obvious. The Imitation Game challenges that assumption. Players enter a live chat room convinced they'll spot the machine within minutes. Then conversations begin, suspicions form, accusations fly, and certainty starts to disappear. Was that awkward response written by a human, or an AI trying to sound human? Was that emotional story genuine, or generated? Was the player who stayed silent suspicious, or simply distracted? By the end of a match, players often discover that identifying an AI is far harder than they expected. The real question isn't whether the machine can fool people. It's whether people are as good at detecting machines as they think they are. Instead of a single human interrogating a machine, players are placed into a live chat room with other participants and asked a simple question: Can you identify which player is actually an AI? Hidden among the players is a Quanbit , a rogue artificial intelligence from the year 3026 . Its mission is simple: blend in, appear human, avoid suspicion, and survive. The challenge for human players is equally simple, but far more difficult in practice. They must carefully analyze conversations, voting patterns, response timing, and social behavior to determine who among them is secretly the machine. The game currently features two distinct modes, each designed around a different style of deception. Eyefold Eyefold is the purest form of the game's Turing Test experience. Players enter a room where one participant is secretly a Quanbit. Conversations unfold naturally, and everyone is free to discuss any topic.

At least three coal plants have been repeatedly cited for violating environmental regulations.

Anthropic recently reported that Claude now handles around 95% of its internal analytics requests, letting employees query business data independently instead of relying on data teams. The company attributes this result less to advances in models and more to data governance, semantic definitions, and operational discipline. By Renato Losio

Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility — your central hub for news and insights on the future of transportation.

On the new episode of Equity, we discussed what actually prompted the administration's latest moves against Anthropic, and what this might mean for the AI ecosystem.

If you've worked with Angular Material, you know theming can be one of the trickiest parts of the library — especially after the move to Material 3. Token-based theming, custom palettes, dark mode, component-level overrides... there's a lot going on under the hood. I built a full course to break it all down, and I'm excited to announce it's now completely free . What's in the course Angular Material Theming System is a deep, practical walkthrough of Angular Material's theming API for Material 3. By the end, you'll be able to: Build and customize themes from scratch Apply themes at the application level Override and extend themes for individual components Work confidently with Angular Material's theming tokens and APIs It's 46 lessons and roughly 4.5 hours of content, all hands-on and example-driven. Where to find it 🎥 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOjtJUnDeEIyaeUs_jrxylnD2IxSb3Ku7 📝 Read the article version: https://angular-ui.com/courses/angular-material-theming/ 💻 Full source code on GitHub: https://github.com/Angular-UI-com/angular-material-theming If you're building with Angular Material and theming has ever felt like a black box, give it a watch. I'd love to hear your feedback in the comments. If this helped you, consider checking out Angular Material Blocks — a library of pre-built Angular Material + Tailwind components, available via a simple CLI.

Most dashboards are built the same way: the user lands on the page, data loads, and then... it sits there. Stale. Until the user hits refresh or you set up an awkward polling interval that hammers your server every few seconds. There's a better way. WebSockets give you a persistent, two-way connection between your Angular app and your server — meaning your dashboard updates the moment new data exists, with zero wasted requests. In this article we'll build a complete real-time dashboard in Angular from scratch — WebSocket service, Signal-based components, auto-reconnection, and production-ready patterns. How WebSockets Differ From Regular HTTP Before writing any code, it's worth understanding what makes WebSockets special. Regular HTTP: Client → "Give me data" → Server Client ← "Here's your data" ← Server [Connection closes] WebSocket: Client ←→ Server [Connection stays open] Server → "New data!" → Client (anytime) Server → "More data!" → Client (anytime) Client → "Send this" → Server (anytime For a real-time dashboard showing live metrics, user activity, or financial data — the WebSocket model is a natural fit. The server pushes updates the moment they happen. No polling, no refresh button, no stale data. Project Setup For this article we'll build a dashboard that shows three live metrics: active users, requests per second, and server CPU usage. Start with a fresh Angular 22 project: ng new realtime-dashboard --standalone cd realtime-dashboard ng serve RxJS ships with Angular so no extra dependencies are needed — webSocket from rxjs/webSocket handles everything. Step 1 — Define Your Data Model Start with a clear TypeScript interface for the data your server will push: // core/models/dashboard.model.ts export interface DashboardMetrics { activeUsers : number ; requestsPerSecond : number ; cpuUsage : number ; timestamp : Date ; } export interface MetricAlert { type : ' warning ' | ' critical ' ; metric : string ; value : number ; message : string ; } export type Dashb

Organizing notes by topic sounds logical until you have notes on PostgreSQL in five different folders and cannot find the one that matters for today's problem. The issue is not discipline. The issue is that topic-based organization asks the wrong question. "What is this about?" is useful for libraries. For engineers, the better question is "What am I doing with this?" That is the premise of PARA. PARA is a simple four-bucket system created by Tiago Forte as the organizational backbone of his Building a Second Brain framework. The idea is that all information can be sorted into four categories: Projects, Areas, Resources, and Archives. Each category represents a different level of actionability, and that distinction drives where every note lives. This guide applies PARA to engineering work specifically — codebases, documentation, learning material, and the tension between active project work and long-term reference. The Problem With Topic-Based Organization Most engineers organize knowledge the way they organize code: by domain. databases/ postgresql/ redis/ api/ rest/ graphql/ devops/ kubernetes/ terraform/ That structure makes sense when you are browsing. It breaks down when you need something for a specific task. You remember a useful note about database migration safety, but it could be in databases/postgresql/ , devops/deployments/ , api/versioning/ , or nowhere because you saved it somewhere temporary. Topic folders force you to decide where knowledge belongs before you understand its context. PARA delays that decision — instead of asking what something is about, it asks what you are currently doing with it. The Four Buckets Projects A project is active, time-bound work with a defined outcome. For engineers, projects are things like: Migrate billing service to queue v2 Upgrade PostgreSQL from 14 to 16 Write architecture decision record for auth service redesign Implement rate limiting on public API Publish article about distributed tracing Every project has a c

Stainless-steel pans may lack nonstick coatings, but they’re unfussy, they sear well, and they’re built for a lifetime of hard work.

Sure, anyone can use OpenAI’s chatbot. But with smart engineering, you can get way more interesting results.

With Apple raising prices soon, you can save a lot of money by buying a used handset or upgrading an older device—safe in the knowledge that it'll last longer than ever.