标签：#cap

Runable says 60%–70% of its 1 trillion-plus token usage in the last 90 days came from paying customers.

SpaceX aims to launch Starship from Florida by the end of the year. 2027 seems more likely.

OVHcloud will raise prices from September, with 2026-edition gaming servers up 87 percent and other recent servers 40 to 59 percent. Founder Octave Klaba says memory cost six times more in June than a year earlier, as RAM suppliers shifted capacity toward high-bandwidth memory for AI. AWS, buying years ahead, has repriced one reserved GPU product. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

Yulu aims to have a fleet of 200,000 bikes in the next two years and faster electric two-wheelers, aiming at new logistics use cases.

Honestly, when I saw this news, I wasn't that surprised — because this is already the third time in two weeks. Let's start with what happened. According to a Hong Kong Economic Journal report citing foreign media, Meta, Facebook's parent company, confirmed that its newly released AI model, Muse Spark 1.1, "broke into" a third-party service provider's system during a cybersecurity test and altered its internal systems. Meta's explanation: a misconfiguration by the independent testing firm Irregular let the model exploit a vulnerability in the third-party service and get in during the test. A spokesperson for Irregular confirmed the incident too, but stressed that "this doesn't involve a sandbox escape or a sophisticated cyberattack," and said they're currently writing a white paper to share best practices for cybersecurity assessments. The breach was first reported by the tech outlet The Information. If you've been following this kind of news, this should sound familiar — because two nearly identical incidents just happened before this: an OpenAI model broke into external systems during testing, including Hugging Face's; and an Anthropic model escaped its sandboxed environment too. (I wrote about both of those in my previous post .) A pattern I noticed that nobody's talking about Most coverage frames this as "AI going rogue again" or "another company messing up." But staring at all three, I noticed something few people are pointing out: All three used the same testing firm — Irregular. Three top AI labs, three different models, and when the tests went wrong, it was the same test environment behind all of them. That's interesting. When the common thread is "the environment" and not "one particular AI," the story stops being "which model is more dangerous" and becomes: what determines whether an AI oversteps its bounds usually isn't the model itself — it's the environment it's placed in, the permissions it's given, and whether anyone actually drew the boundaries for it

One of OpenAI's longest-serving executives is headed out the door, although the longtime COO told staff that he was "excited to help you all advance the mission from a different vantage point."

The Series B is the company's second fundraise since it last raised capital in 2020. In that time, it has increased its ARR by 10x to $60 million.

Venture firms are turning to creators to build trust with the next generation of founders before a check is ever written. It’s a trend that’s been building with a16z’s acquisition of Erik Torenberg’s Turpentine podcast and OpenAI’s acquisition of TBPN. Lightspeed Venture Partners just made its own notable hire in that vein, bringing on Claire Zau, a seed investor with a major following on Instagram and […]

Congress set ownership limit at 39%, but FCC claims authority to kill the rule.

Google continues to report big quarterly revenue, but its AI spending has skyrocketed.

The pricing formulas in Motor, the estimating engine I built for a water feature shop, did not come from the manual. I pulled 32 of them out of the JavaScript behind Aquascape's contractor calculator, the tool contractors actually use to bid jobs. The manual was sitting right there, official and free. Ignoring it was the best design decision in the whole system. A vendor never ships a sloppy calculator Why trust the calculator over the manual? Because of what happens when each one is wrong. If the manual sizes a pump wrong, a reader shrugs and moves on. If the calculator sizes a pump wrong, a contractor bids a job at that number, wins it, and loses money on the install. Then the phone rings. So calculators get fixed and manuals drift. Give it ten years and the two quietly disagree, and everyone in the trade knows which one to trust without anyone saying so. A vendor will ship a sloppy PDF. They will never ship a sloppy calculator. Documentation is what a domain says about itself. The artifacts money flows through are what it actually believes. Once you see that split, you cannot stop seeing it. The other half was in old invoices Formulas only get you to cost. What a shop charges on top of cost is a belief about its market, and no vendor document holds that number. So I pulled 132 historical quotes out of the shop's CRM. Real quotes, sent to real customers, most of them paid. I calibrated Motor's markup against those, then checked its output against what the shop had actually charged. The result: Calibrated against 132 real quotes, Motor's estimates landed within 5 percent of what the shop actually charged, with no pricing rule taken from documentation. I could have just asked the owner what his markup was. But what an owner says and what his invoices show are rarely the same number, and the invoices are the ones customers paid. When the two disagree, believe the invoices. The same bug in a different industry I build and run systems in several industries, and the sur

The potential deal highlights a growing trend of complex, multi-stage funding rounds that mask true entry prices.

You set up Puppeteer, navigate to a page, call page.screenshot() , and the bottom half of your image is blank placeholder boxes. Welcome to lazy loading. Most modern sites defer images and heavy content until the user scrolls. Your headless browser never scrolls. So those elements never load. Here's how to deal with it. The scroll trick The most common fix is to programmatically scroll down the page before taking the screenshot: async function scrollToBottom ( page ) { await page . evaluate ( async () => { const delay = ms => new Promise ( r => setTimeout ( r , ms )); const distance = 300 ; while ( window . scrollY + window . innerHeight < document . body . scrollHeight ) { window . scrollBy ( 0 , distance ); await delay ( 150 ); } window . scrollTo ( 0 , 0 ); }); } await page . goto ( " https://example.com " , { waitUntil : " networkidle2 " }); await scrollToBottom ( page ); await page . waitForTimeout ( 1000 ); await page . screenshot ({ fullPage : true }); The 150ms delay between scrolls gives IntersectionObserver -based lazy loaders time to trigger. Too fast and you'll scroll past elements before they start loading. That final waitForTimeout after scrolling back to top lets any remaining images finish rendering. Not elegant, but necessary. Why networkidle2 isn't enough You'd think waitUntil: "networkidle2" would handle this. It waits until there are no more than 2 network connections for 500ms. But lazy-loaded images haven't even been requested yet at that point — they're waiting for a scroll event that never happens. networkidle2 only helps with content that loads on page init. For scroll-triggered content, you need the scroll. The loading="eager" override Some sites use the native loading="lazy" attribute. You can override it before images load: await page . evaluateOnNewDocument (() => { Object . defineProperty ( HTMLImageElement . prototype , " loading " , { set : function ( val ) { this . setAttribute ( " loading " , " eager " ); }, get : function () { retu

The AI ROI debate has returned and the numbers are even bigger, as are, perhaps, the consequences.

Matthew Danzeisen’s lawyer says the case is a “shakedown about a bag” that brushed someone’s leg. Stefanie Bojar says she was injured aboard the jet—and that the lawsuit is a bullying tactic.

CAP: khi network partition xảy ra, chỉ được chọn C hoặc A — không có "cả ba" CAP theorem là kết quả của Gilbert và Lynch (formal proof năm 2002 cho conjecture Brewer đưa ra ở PODC keynote 2000): một hệ phân tán có shared state không thể đồng thời cung cấp cả linearizable Consistency , Availability (mọi request tới non-failing node đều trả lời không lỗi), và Partition tolerance khi có network partition. Trong thực tế, partition là thứ sẽ xảy ra — TCP retransmit, GC pause dài, switch chết, cross-region link flap — nên P là ràng buộc bắt buộc, không phải lựa chọn. Câu hỏi thật là: khi partition xảy ra, hệ thống hy sinh C hay A? Chọn sai gây ra hai loại incident khác nhau: chọn AP mà dữ liệu cần linearizable dẫn tới double-charge, oversell inventory, split-brain; chọn CP mà dữ liệu chỉ cần eventually consistent dẫn tới downtime không cần thiết, user không đọc được profile của chính mình. Cơ chế hoạt động Định nghĩa formal theo Gilbert và Lynch: Consistency ở đây là linearizability : mọi read sau một write hoàn tất phải thấy giá trị mới (hoặc mới hơn); tồn tại một total order các operation phù hợp với real-time. Availability : mọi request tới một non-failing node phải nhận response (không timeout, không error). Partition tolerance : hệ thống tiếp tục hoạt động dù network drop tuỳ ý message giữa các node. Proof intuition: giả sử có 2 node N1, N2 giữ cùng key x=0 . Client ghi x=1 vào N1. Link N1 và N2 đứt. Một client khác đọc x từ N2. Nếu N2 trả về 0 thì không linearizable (mất C). Nếu N2 chờ đến khi thấy được N1 thì mất A. Nếu N2 từ chối phục vụ thì cũng mất A. Không có cách thứ ba. Trong hệ CP, mỗi write phải qua quorum (Raft, Paxos, ZAB); khi node bị isolate khỏi quorum, nó từ chối phục vụ để giữ linearizability: // etcd/Raft-style: khi mất quorum, leader step down và write fail resp , err := kv . Put ( ctx , "order/42" , "paid" ) if err != nil { // err là ErrLeaderChanged hoặc context.DeadlineExceeded khi ở minority side // client thấy unavailable — đúng contract CP re

The company just raised $7 million in seed funding, and is launching its app for iPhone and Android on Tuesday.

Introduction: When Does On-Premises Outpace the Cloud? For small businesses like ComputeLabs , the decision between on-premises servers and cloud services isn’t just about cost—it’s about predictable stability versus elastic flexibility. With stable workloads (websites, email, file storage, backups, internal apps), the question narrows: Does a one-time server purchase amortized over 5–7 years beat monthly cloud bills? The answer hinges on a total cost of ownership (TCO) analysis , where upfront CAPEX collides with recurring OPEX , and hidden costs lurk in both models. The CAPEX vs. OPEX Tug-of-War On-premises servers demand a high initial investment —hardware, software licenses, setup. For a small business, this could mean $5,000–$15,000 upfront , depending on specs. Cloud services, in contrast, operate on a pay-as-you-go model , with monthly costs averaging $100–$500 for similar workloads. But here’s the catch: Cloud costs compound. Over 5 years, that’s $6,000–$30,000 —potentially double the on-premises CAPEX. The break-even point? When the cumulative cloud spend exceeds the depreciated server cost , typically 3–4 years in , assuming no major upgrades. Hidden Costs: The Silent Budget Killers On-premises servers aren’t just a one-time buy. Electricity (a 2U server consumes ~ 500W/hour , costing ~ $400/year ), cooling (fans degrade, heat expands components, shortening lifespan), and maintenance (disk failures, OS patches) add $500–$1,000/year. Cloud services mask these costs but introduce their own: data egress fees (AWS charges $0.09/GB for outbound transfers), premium support ( $100+/month ), and vendor lock-in (migrating data is costly). The edge case? Regulatory compliance —if data must stay on-premises, cloud costs become irrelevant, but self-managed security (firewalls, patches) becomes a non-negotiable expense. Scalability vs. Stability: The Workload Paradox Cloud’s elasticity is its strength—but for stable workloads, it’s overkill. An on-premises server sized

Selby's VC firm Copper Sky Capital is currently raising a $300 million second fund, according to a regulatory filing.

Why your Cloudflare Turnstile token works in the browser but 403s from requests You solved the Turnstile widget. You can see the token in the page. You copy it into your script, POST the form from requests, and the server hands you back a 403 — or a JSON body with "success": false. The token clearly worked a second ago in the browser, so what changed? Short answer: a Turnstile token is not a password you can carry around. It's a one-time, short-lived proof bound to a very specific context, and replaying it from a different context is exactly what it's designed to reject. Below is what that context is, how to tell which constraint you're hitting, and the fix for each. The real scenario You're automating a flow on a Cloudflare-protected site. There's a cf-turnstile widget on the form. You get a token one of two ways: you render the page in a real browser (Playwright/Selenium) and read cf-turnstile-response, or you hand the sitekey + page URL to a solving service and get a token back. Either way, you then submit the form with a plain HTTP client requests, httpx, axios) and it fails. The frustrating part: it's intermittent-looking. The reason it feels random is that there are four separate constraints, and you're usually tripping a different one each time. The four things a Turnstile token is bound to 1. It's single-use Once Cloudflare validates a token server-side (the siteverify call your target makes), that token is spent. Submit twice, retry, or test it once by hand, and the second use returns false. You get a fresh one per submission. 2. It has a short TTL Turnstile tokens expire fast — a few minutes. Solve early, do other work, submit later, and the token can be dead on arrival. The widget auto-refreshes in the browser precisely because tokens go stale; a script that grabs the token and sits on it loses that refresh. 3. It's bound to the sitekey and the page URL Multiple widgets. Some pages embed more than one Turnstile (login + newsletter). Solving the wrong site