标签：#an

Six months ago, our React app's animation stack looked like a dependency graveyard: Rive for interactive vector graphics GSAP for timeline-based UI animations Lottie for JSON animations imported from design Framer Motion for React-specific transitions Plus a few hand-rolled CSS animations for good measure Four tools. Four mental models. Four runtime dependencies. And a growing gap between what designers shipped and what developers could maintain. We consolidated everything into a single visual runtime. Here's what actually happened. The Problem Nobody Talks About Animation tools are great in isolation. The cracks appear when you need a single component to do multiple things: A button that plays a Rive animation on hover, transitions with Framer Motion on click, and shows a Lottie loading state A card that animates into view with GSAP , has hover states in Rive , and a pressed state in CSS A form that validates with Framer Motion shake animations, loads with Lottie spinners, and succeeds with a Rive celebration Each tool handles its piece. None of them talk to each other. You end up writing coordination code that's more complex than the animations themselves. What We Switched To We moved to ExodeUI — a visual runtime that combines state machines with vector rendering. Instead of four tools plus coordination code, we have: One editor where designers define visual states as nodes One file format that stores both appearance and behavior One export that generates production React components One runtime that renders everything natively The pitch sounds almost too clean. We were skeptical too. What We Actually Gained 1. Eliminated three runtime dependencies Removing Rive's .riv player, Lottie's JSON player, and GSAP's timeline engine from our bundle saved roughly 180KB gzipped. Not life-changing for desktop, but noticeable on mobile. 2. Design files became production code The biggest win wasn't technical — it was process. Our designer builds components in ExodeUI with stat

Defense tech is red hot right now. Anduril and Mach Industries just doubled and quadrupled their valuations, respectively, and the U.S. government is proposing a 40% increase in defense budget. A wave of new startups is chasing those government contracts, but according to Ross Fubini, the venture investor who wrote Anduril’s first check, most of them will get lost in the Valley of Death between prototype contract […]

The modified Ioniq 5 will be loaded with sensors to capture data for Uber's new AV Labs division.

Security advisory leaves out key details. Dashlane maintains complete silence.

Dreambeans is a curated list of AI-illustrated "stories" culled from the personal data in your Google account.

Cursor's Developer Habits Report is one of the clearest signals yet that AI coding has crossed from individual productivity into software-delivery infrastructure. The headline numbers read as a story about speed: more code per week, larger PRs, deeper agent sessions, more changes committing without manual review. The deeper implication is governance -- whether teams can preserve architectural intent while generation, review, automation, and commit flows all accelerate at once. The velocity curve is now measured, not anecdotal. For two years the claim that AI coding is accelerating rested mostly on vibes and vendor decks. Cursor's data turns it into telemetry. And read as an operations document rather than a marketing one, that telemetry describes a structural shift: software delivery is getting harder to govern, not just faster to produce. This is not a critique of Cursor. The report is strong validation. Cursor proves the velocity curve with numbers most of the industry only gestured at. The point of this essay is what sits on the other side of that curve. What the Cursor Developer Habits Report Shows The inaugural Cursor Developer Habits Report (Spring 2026 edition), published by Cursor (Anysphere, Inc.), draws on Cursor usage data rather than survey responses. It captures the transformation across five themes -- developer acceleration, the economics of intelligence, the power user gap, the rise of context, and the shift to automation. The headline figures: 3.6K -> 8.6K lines added per developer per week -- the per-developer code volume rose from 3.6K (Jan 2025) to 8.6K (May 2026), with growth accelerating since the start of 2026. 125.86 -> 345.02 lines per PR at p75 -- lines added per pull request at the 75th percentile rose roughly 2.5x year over year (Jan 2025 to May 2026). Developers are taking on larger units of work in a single PR. 8% -> 13.8% mega PRs -- the share of PRs with at least 1,000 changed lines grew from 8% (Jan 2025) to 13.8% (May 2026). ~30% mor

Microsoft's Agentic Transformation Patterns Playbook is a useful signal because it does not treat AI agents as another productivity tool. It frames agentic AI as an enterprise operating-model shift: agents are moving from assisting humans to executing work across processes, systems, and teams. The implication for software teams is sharper than it looks -- coding agents are on the same trajectory, and architectural governance becomes part of the infrastructure stack the moment agents start executing. Microsoft's playbook describes six transformation patterns and emphasizes that each pattern requires different ownership, governance, and operating discipline. That is the move worth paying attention to. It reframes agentic AI from a model question into an enterprise operating-model question. That shift matters for software teams because coding agents are following the same path. They are moving from autocomplete to execution. Once agents edit files, open PRs, modify infrastructure, or coordinate multi-step changes, architectural governance becomes infrastructure. What is Microsoft's Agentic Transformation Playbook? Microsoft's playbook is a practical guide for choosing, scaling, and operating AI agents across the enterprise. Public summaries describe it as a 52-slide guide covering six transformation patterns, from employee productivity to core business processes and customer-facing agents. The throughline is that agents are not a single category -- they are a family of patterns with different ownership models, different risk surfaces, and different requirements for governance. That framing matters because it cuts against the dominant adoption narrative. Most enterprises are still treating AI as a per-team productivity story: this team gets Copilot, that team gets an internal assistant, another team is piloting an agent for support tickets. Microsoft is arguing that the pattern of deployment determines the operating discipline required, and that ad-hoc deployment does n

Google's Managed Agents announcement is one of the clearest signals yet that the AI industry is moving beyond stateless tool calling toward persistent execution environments and long-running agent systems. That shift expands what models can do. It also expands the governance surface -- from prompt and PR review into the runtime itself. We spent two years building brains in jars For most of the current AI cycle, the system around the model has been thin. Models could reason, propose commands, and orchestrate small tool calls. But they ran in short sessions, against narrow APIs, under human supervision, with ephemeral state. The model was a brain; the body was a few HTTP requests and a JSON tool schema. That assumption is ending. The frontier is not just better reasoning. It is a body for the brain. The brain finally has a body. Now it needs governance. The runtime layer for AI agents is arriving Google Managed Agents (and the parallel motion across the ecosystem -- OpenAI's containerized execution work, Claude Code's persistent sessions, MCP-based tool ecosystems, hosted agent harnesses) formalizes the runtime as a product: Sandboxed execution Persistent state across sessions Orchestration loops Infrastructure-native agents Agent-as-a-service lifecycle Long-running sessions Mid-session tool injection Managed runtime lifecycle This resembles the transition from scripts -> applications -> cloud platforms. Agents are no longer just calling tools. They are beginning to inhabit programmable environments . Why persistent agent systems change governance Once agents can continuously modify filesystems, maintain state across sessions, autonomously remediate, inject tools dynamically, operate against production systems, and coordinate across workflows, governance failures stop being one-off review misses. They compound over time . What that compounding looks like: Architectural drift -- small deviations accumulate across long-running sessions Policy propagation failures -- con

The Faros AI Engineering Report 2026 is not a survey of developer sentiment. It is two years of telemetry from 22,000 developers across 4,000 teams, measuring what AI adoption actually produces downstream. The findings have a name: the Acceleration Whiplash. The structural explanation has one too. What the telemetry actually shows The output numbers in the Faros report are real and worth stating plainly. Epics completed per developer are up 66.2%. Task throughput per developer is up 33.7%. PR merge rate per developer is up 16.2%. These represent genuine delivery acceleration, and dismissing them would be dishonest. AI coding tools are producing real productivity gains at the business level. The production quality numbers are also real: Metric Change Incidents per PR under high AI adoption +242.7% Median time in code review +441.5% Code churn (lines deleted to lines added) +861% PRs merged with no review at all 31.3% Source: Faros AI Engineering Report 2026: The Acceleration Whiplash . Telemetry from 22,000 developers across 4,000+ teams. Figures represent metric change from lowest to highest AI adoption periods within each organization. Both sets of numbers are true simultaneously. That is the whiplash. Throughput accelerated. The downstream systems built to validate that throughput did not. Plotted together, generation throughput rises steeply while control capacity stays nearly flat -- and the gap between the two curves is the governance debt. Why the systems did not scale Code review, incident response, and architectural validation were all designed for a world where development velocity was human-paced. A senior engineer could review the meaningful PRs in a sprint. An incident postmortem could trace a failure to a specific change and a specific decision gap. Architectural drift was visible because it moved slowly enough to catch. AI-generated code broke these assumptions quietly. Not because the code was obviously bad, but because it was often superficially conv

The breach at wearable ring maker Ultrahuman stemmed from credentials stolen from a malware-infected employee laptop.

Carvana was granted a warrant to buy shares in Slate last year, according to documents obtained by TechCrunch. Guggenheim Partners CEO Mark Walter is heavily invested in both companies.

Would you take a payment to ramp down your electricity use? Would it change anything if you were doing so to help power a local data center? Google just signed a new deal to help pay for a virtual power plant (VPP) in the largest power grid in the US. The agreement is with Voltus,…

At Red Hat Summit 2026, SWIFT shared the approach they’re rolling out — including the pilot results that informed it, and the scale they’re targeting next. Imagine running automation that touches roughly one third of global GDP every day. Tens of thousands of VMs, network devices in production, elevated privileges across production systems — and every playbook you run is, effectively, a software supply chain. That is the everyday reality at SWIFT, the secure financial messaging backbone connecting 11,000+ financial institutions across more than 200 countries. At Red Hat Summit 2026, Suvasish Ghosh , Product Owner for CI/CD Engineering and DevOps Engineering Services at SWIFT, joined Gregor Berginc , CEO of XLAB Steampunk, on stage to talk about how SWIFT is using Steampunk Spotter to govern Ansible automation at this scale. Why automation at SWIFT scale needs governance by design For SWIFT, security, availability and auditability are not features added on top — they are baseline engineering requirements. Regulatory frameworks (including DORA) codify the expectations, but as Suvasish made clear on stage, governance is by design at SWIFT, not driven solely by regulation. That stance reflects a simple truth that more and more platform teams are arriving at: automation is production infrastructure, and it must be governed as such. When you run an Ansible playbook, you are executing a software supply chain — collections, modules, roles, Python packages, system packages, the execution environment, the operating system underneath. The playbook itself is just the tip of the iceberg. Errors propagate fast. The blast radius is large. And yet, until recently, most of the security and compliance attention in IT organizations went to the applications shipping to production. The automation that built and configured everything around them often slipped through. Suvasish put it directly during the session: “We spent a lot of time being compliant and secure in our application, but w

PlayStation used its most recent State of Play showcase to make it clear where its focus is. After a series of costly live-service stumbles, it's getting back to focusing on premium, narrative-driven, single-player games. That statement was made clear with how it started and ended the hourlong show. The showcase began with an extended look […]

The offset-path property in CSS defines a movement path for an element to follow during animation. This property began life as motion-path . This, and all other related motion-* properties, are being renamed offset-* in the spec . We’re changing … offset-path originally handwritten and published with love on CSS-Tricks . You should really get the newsletter as well.

At Microsoft's annual Build conference on Tuesday, the company announced a slew of new or expanded AI initiatives, including a super app, in-house reasoning models, a cybersecurity tool, and OpenClaw-esque AI agents. All this news added up to a clear message: Microsoft is positioned to be one of the biggest players in AI, and it's […]

Doubts linger over whether Meta can close the gap with rivals.

Microsoft has two new Surface devices arriving later this year, both powered by Nvidia's RTX Spark chips. I got a chance to take a closer look at both the Surface Laptop Ultra and Surface RTX Spark Dev Box at Microsoft's Build conference this week, and while both have the same chip inside, they're utilizing Nvidia's […]

The Series F round values Coralogix at $1.6 billion and comes less than a year after its previous raise.

Every detection vendor ships a MITRE ATT&CK heatmap, and every one of them is mostly green. Broad coverage, techniques lit up across the board, a reassuring wall of color in the sales deck and the board slide. It's the universal flex. We cover the matrix. Then you parse the actual rules – the real YAML in the public repo, not the marketing layer on top of it – and the green collapses into three tactics. Everyone covers execution and persistence. Almost nobody covers discovery, lateral movement, or collection. The heatmap wasn't measuring coverage. It was counting rules, and counting them in a way designed to look complete. What a green cell actually means A green cell in a Navigator layer means one thing: at least one rule somewhere references that technique tag. That's it. Not "we detect this reliably." Not "this fires on real attacks and stays quiet otherwise." Not "this survives an attacker who knows the rule exists." One rule that names the technique in its metadata turns the cell green, and forty rules turn it the same shade. Unless the layer is scored by rule count – and most published heatmaps aren't – one and forty are indistinguishable. I've written before that an untested detection isn't a detection, it's a query that runs on a schedule. The heatmap is the same lie one level up. A green matrix isn't coverage. It's a wall of queries that run, rendered in a color that means "present," dressed up as a color that means "protected." The vendor knows the difference. The buyer staring at the green doesn't. You can measure the real shape yourself Here's the part the heatmap marketing depends on you not doing: the rules are public, and you can count them. SigmaHQ, Elastic's detection-rules, Splunk ESCU, Panther, Sublime – all on GitHub, all tagged with attack.TXXXX technique IDs and tactic tags in the rule metadata. The method is boring on purpose. Walk the rule directories. Pull the ATT&CK tags out of each rule. Aggregate by technique, roll the technique counts up