标签：#an

On today’s episode of Decoder, my guest is Hayden Field, senior AI reporter for The Verge. Often when Hayden comes on the show, it’s because something has gone wrong in the world of AI. Last weekend, that something was a pretty intense mix of Anthropic, the Trump administration, and Anthropic’s new AI model, Fable 5. […]

The moment a customer taps "Place Order," the most anxiety-driven part of the delivery experience...

Vinay Chella and Akshat Goel discuss the challenges of running traditional CDC across heterogeneous databases during peak order traffic. They explain how Debezium hit limits under high load and share how they built Write-Ahead Intent Log (WAIL) - a custom architecture that utilizes a dumb producer proxy and a smart consumer pattern to cleanly separate the intent from the state payload. By Vinay Chella, Akshat Goel

Adobe is updating its Firefly AI assistant with new chops, and adding it to Premiere, Illustrator, InDesign and Frame.io.

The company's latest recall of 3,871 vehicles follows incidents of its autonomous cars prioritizing other hazards or failing to recognize closed construction zones altogether.

The company has identified at least 13 instances where its robotaxis drove into highway sections closed for construction.

How we decide is at the core of architecture, and the architecture advice process is a way to decentralize architectural decisions. It needs to be supported by Architecture Decision Records because of the speed at which technology and systems move, and can be complemented by a weekly architecture advice forum. By Ben Linders

As announced in this blog post on June 18, 2026, Gemini CLI and Gemini Code Assist IDE extensions...

Waymo is recalling over 3,800 of its self-driving taxis due to a software issue that could cause them to enter closed freeway construction zones at speed.

By focusing on sleep, ScreenZen’s app-blocking Halo gadget is downright dreamy compared to the rest.

Solar geoengineering is often portrayed as a sort of emergency brake. Something along the lines of Pull in case of climate emergency to scatter light-reflecting particles to bounce sunlight out of the atmosphere and cool the planet. But it might be less like a simple brake and more like a complicated, entirely unsolved puzzle. Some…

I shipped a small dev-news reader to Google Play with the entire client written in one Compose Multiplatform codebase — every screen in commonMain , no per-platform UI. This is an honest field report on what that actually costs in production: the numbers, the native seams, and the parts that still hurt (hi, iOS). The repo is open source (MIT), so everything here is checkable. TL;DR — For a content/list/detail app, CMP is comfortably production-ready on Android. 96.9% of the shared module is commonMain ; the native cost is concentrated in ~10 expect/actual seams. iOS compiles and renders, but isn't polished yet. The numbers Source set Files Lines Share commonMain 59 ~7,700 96.9% androidMain 2 123 1.6% iosMain 3 127 1.6% All 17 screens live in commonMain — trending list, aggregated feed, README detail, profile with paging, settings, favorites — and there isn't a single if (isAndroid) branch in the UI. The 3% that isn't shared The native cost isn't spread thinly across the codebase. It's concentrated in ~10 expect/actual seams, and this is the entire list: Platform info — app version, system language, User-Agent string System interaction — open URL, open app settings, share sheet Analytics — a trackEvent hook (Android → Aptabase; iOS is deliberately a no-op for now) WebView — the messy one (below) Everything that touches a platform API is small and enumerable. Everything else came for free. Why expect/actual and not an interface + DI? For these ~10 seams, expect/actual was the least ceremony: no DI wiring, and the compiler refuses to build until every target implements the declaration. The moment a seam has more than one implementation, or I'd want to fake it in tests, an interface in commonMain with injected impls is the better tool. For a fixed set of platform primitives, expect/actual wins on friction. The ugliest boundary: WebView I have two WebView paths, and I'll be precise because the repo is open: Rendering GitHub READMEs from an HTML string — inline expect/act

Underneath an Apennine massif, below the Jinping Mountains of Sichuan, and at the bottom of a South Dakota mine, there is a cosmic hunt afoot. Isolated deep beneath these rocky shields, massive detectors filled with liquid xenon aim to make the first direct detections of dark matter, the long-sought invisible substance whose gravity has sculpted…

Google Open Knowledge Format: Why Enterprise Agents Need a Knowledge Layer, Not Just More Tools Most enterprise AI conversations still start in the wrong place. They start with the model. Which model should we use? Which framework should we adopt? Which vendor has the best agent platform? Which tools should we connect next? These are fair questions. But in real enterprise architecture, they are not the hardest questions. The harder question is this: Can our AI systems actually understand how our business works? That is why Google Cloud’s article on Open Knowledge Format caught my attention. The article talks about a simple but important idea: representing knowledge in a way that humans can read and machines can use. In OKF, that means markdown for the content and structured metadata for context. At first glance, that may sound too simple. But that simplicity is the point. Enterprises do not need another place where knowledge goes to die. We already have enough portals, catalogs, wikis, dashboards, folders, and internal tools. What we need is a practical way to package knowledge so it can be reviewed, versioned, governed, searched, and reused by both people and AI agents. That is where this idea becomes very relevant for agentic AI. The Real Enterprise AI Problem Most organizations already have the knowledge their AI agents need. They have it in databases, dashboards, tickets, architecture notes, runbooks, Confluence pages, data catalogs, code comments, incident reports, old project documents, and the heads of experienced employees. The issue is not that knowledge does not exist. The issue is that it is fragmented. Some of it is outdated. Some of it is duplicated. Some of it is tribal. Some of it is locked inside tools. Some of it is written for humans but not structured enough for AI systems to use reliably. This becomes a serious problem when we move from AI assistants to AI agents. An assistant can give a helpful answer. An agent does more. It plans, selects tools

Peter Parker to Bruce Banner: "I didn't know you could get that big."

My motorcycle has a Bluetooth instrument cluster. It pairs with the manufacturer's phone app and shows turn-by-turn navigation right on the dash, which sounds great until you actually use it. The nav is routed through a maps provider I don't love, the app is clunky, and there's no way to extend any of it. I kept thinking: it's just my bike talking to my phone over Bluetooth. How locked down can it really be? So one weekend I decided to find out, and a few weeks later I had Google Maps navigation running on the cluster through an app I wrote myself. Here's how that went. There are no docs Of course there aren't. It's a proprietary protocol, and the only reference that exists is the manufacturer's own app, in compiled form. So step one was just watching. I started with a GATT walk on the live bike, which is the Bluetooth equivalent of knocking on every door to see what's there. The cluster exposes one vendor service with two characteristics: one the phone writes to, one the bike sends notifications back on. That's the entire conversation surface. Then I captured the actual bytes going across. Android can log every Bluetooth packet through its HCI snoop log, so I paired the phone with the bike, rode around, and pulled the capture. Now I had real traffic, and absolutely no idea what any of it meant. Reading the app to read the protocol You can stare at hex forever and still guess wrong. The faster path was the app itself. I pulled the APK, ran it through JADX to decompile it, and got something close to readable source. Most of the class names weren't even obfuscated, which was a gift. From there it was cross-referencing: take a message I saw on the wire, find the code that builds it, and work out what each byte is. Frida helped a lot here. It lets you hook a running app and watch functions get called with their real arguments, so I could catch the exact moment the app turned "next turn is a left in 200m" into bytes and shipped them to the bike. Slowly the shape came out

C++ source code is written in order. That does not mean the processor executes it in order. This is the first correction. It is also the one many performance discussions manage to avoid. Modern high-performance cores use out-of-order execution . They accept a sequential instruction stream, break it into internal operations, rename registers, place work into scheduling structures, execute ready operations early, and then retire the results in program order. The machine preserves the visible behavior of sequential execution. Internally, it is not taking attendance line by line. For ordinary software, this is mostly invisible. For C++ intended to run in tens of nanoseconds, it is not invisible. At that scale, performance is not just about the number of instructions. It is about whether those instructions can be scheduled in parallel or whether the program quietly built a dependency chain and then acted surprised. The processor is a dependency scheduler Out-of-order execution exists because in-order pipelines waste time. If an older instruction stalls, an in-order processor must often wait even if later instructions are independent and ready. That is a poor use of hardware. The chip has execution units available. The instruction stream has more work. Dynamic scheduling fixes part of this problem. The processor tracks which operations have their inputs ready. When an operation is ready and an execution unit is available, it can issue. Older operations may still be waiting. Later operations may run first. The final architectural state is still committed in order, so the program behaves correctly. Tomasulo’s algorithm is the classic model for this idea. It used reservation stations and register renaming to allow instructions to execute when their operands became available rather than strictly when they appeared in the original program (Tomasulo, 1967). Later superscalar processors extended the same general approach with speculation and reorder buffers, but the central idea

Days before Anthropic took its most advanced AI models offline, the White House ordered the company to revoke SK Telecom’s access to Claude Mythos over claims of alleged ties to China.

The Quest Begins (The “Why”) Picture this: I’m knee‑deep in a legacy codebase that feels like the Death Star’s trash compactor—every time I try to add a feature, the walls close in and I’m squashed by tight coupling. I’d just spent three hours tracking down a bug that only showed up when the payment gateway was mocked in a test. The culprit? A new PaymentGateway() buried deep inside an OrderService class. It was like trying to defeat Darth Vader with a butter knife—no matter how hard I swung, the Dark Force (aka hidden dependencies) kept pulling me back. I realized I was instantiating collaborators inside the very classes that should be oblivious to their implementation details . The result? Tests that needed a real database, a real Stripe account, and a sacrificial goat to run. Any change to a third‑party API meant hunting down every new scattered across the project. Onboarding a new teammate felt like handing them a map written in ancient Sumerian. Honestly, I was ready to quit coding and become a professional napper. Then, during a late‑night coffee‑fueled refactor session, I stumbled upon a tiny line of documentation that whispered: “Depend on abstractions, not concretions.” It sounded like Yoda giving me a pep talk. The Revelation (The Insight) The magic spell I uncovered is Dependency Injection (DI) —specifically, constructor injection . Instead of a class creating its own collaborators, we hand them in from the outside. Think of it as giving a Jedi their lightsaber rather than making them forge one in the middle of a battle. Why does this feel like discovering the Force? Testability explodes – you can swap in fakes, mocks, or stubs without touching production code. Flexibility skyrockets – swapping a payment provider becomes a one‑line config change, not a scavenger hunt. Clarity reigns – the constructor becomes an honest inventory of what a class needs to do its job. The moment I applied it, the codebase felt lighter, like Luke finally trusting the Force ins

Elsewhere, beyond-classical quantum hardware, plus classical computing fires back.