标签：#car

For nearly 80 years, Ferrari occupied a unique cultural space where its cars were aspirational, even for people who resented those who could afford them. The price, the exclusivity, and the opacity of the buying process allowed Ferrari to sail above ordinary criticism. You might not be able to afford one, but you still wanted […]

Martin Fowler's May 27 Fragments brings together four arguments with direct implications for teams working with AI agents. All four are worth covering. Ian Johnson: build quality gates before releasing the agent Ian Johnson published a series about restructuring a gnarly codebase: three months, 258 commits, moving from a Laravel monolith with no tests to an application with automated quality gates and an AI agent shipping production code with minimal supervision. The insight Fowler highlights is about the transition from in-the-loop to on-the-loop: "For the first two months of this project, I used Claude Code with auto-approve turned off. Every file edit, every terminal command, every change… I reviewed it before it executed. The results were good. The code was clean. But I was doing most of the thinking and half the typing. The agent was a fancy autocomplete with better suggestions." Ian Johnson Manual review of every change is not how you build trust in the agent. Trust comes from building the structure that ensures the agent will do the right thing, then stepping back. The sequence: characterization tests first, static analysis, architectural patterns that make things flow correctly. Fowler notes this is exactly the sequence he would use himself. Adam Tornhill: roughly 2 hours of cognitive endurance Adam Tornhill observes that agentic work has a decision density that is mentally more expensive than it appears. The estimate is roughly two hours as a sustainable limit, not a full day of work. The implication: adding more parallel agents does not solve the problem, because the bottleneck is the coordinating engineer's cognitive capacity, not available processing volume. The solutions are smaller tasks, automation, and verification mechanisms, not more parallelism. NHS: closing open source repositories NHS (UK National Health Service) closed open source repositories citing LLM threats to code security. The UK Government Data Services countered directly: making code p

TL;DR -DevRelCon NYC returns to Industry City in Brooklyn on July 22–23, 2026. It's the flagship...

Here are two scenes. They look unrelated. They're not. Scene 1 Two people at a café, talking about a restaurant they want to try. A stranger walking past stops: "That place closed six months ago. The one on the corner is better." A brief nod, and they walk on. The two people exchange a glance, taken aback. Why did that person stop? What did they want? A few steps away, the stranger is also confused. They had useful information. They shared it. Why did these people react so strangely? Scene 2 A colleague is visibly stressed, describing a difficult situation at work. One friend pulls their chair closer, puts a hand on their arm: "That sounds really hard." Another opens their laptop: "I found something that might help — HR has a process for exactly this, I'll send you the link." The colleague leans into the first. Glances uncertainly at the second. The second person doesn't understand why sitting close and saying "that sounds hard" counts as helping. You haven't solved anything. The first doesn't understand why anyone would respond to distress with links. Both scenes end the same way: people on both sides convinced they did the right thing, confused by the other's reaction. The mismatch is mutual and invisible from the inside. Two survival instincts, two empathy systems For many autistic people, information is a survival mechanism. Uncertainty is threat, missing information is a vulnerability, and the drive to correct and share runs below conscious awareness. Empathy, expressed through that system , looks like giving someone what keeps you safe: accurate information, solutions, resources. The social preamble before sharing — announcing yourself, softening the approach — doesn't arise as a concept. Why would useful information require an introduction? For many neurotypical people, social safety is a survival mechanism. Group cohesion and reading others accurately are what keep people safe. Empathy, expressed through that system , looks like presence: mirroring distress,

Overview This is my first real-world cybersecurity VAPT experience inside an enterprise insurance company environment. I worked across network infrastructure, web applications, internal devices, and physical security — and learned how professional security assessments are actually performed beyond labs and CTFs. Introduction I am a cybersecurity enthusiast focused on SOC operations, web application penetration testing, and vulnerability assessment. In this engagement, I worked on assessing the security posture of an insurance company across its network infrastructure, devices, web applications, and physical security controls. This was my first real-world experience working in an enterprise environment, and initially I was not fully confident about the workflow. However, with the guidance and support of my senior, I was able to understand the process step by step and actively contribute to the assessment. Objective Identify security vulnerabilities across network, web, and internal systems Assess exposure of critical assets Analyze potential attack paths in the environment Evaluate basic physical security controls Scope of Work Network infrastructure assessment Web application security testing Device-level security review Basic physical security evaluation Tools Used Nessus (vulnerability scanning) Burp Suite (web application testing & request interception) Nmap (network discovery & port scanning) GVM / OpenVAS (vulnerability assessment) OWASP ZAP (automated web scanning) Wireshark (packet analysis & traffic inspection) Approach / Methodology Performed network discovery using Nmap to identify active hosts and open ports Conducted vulnerability scanning using Nessus and GVM to detect known security issues Analyzed web application behavior using Burp Suite and OWASP ZAP Intercepted and inspected HTTP/HTTPS traffic to understand request/response flow Used Wireshark to analyze packet-level communication and detect anomalies Evaluated system exposure across internal devic

Hey Dev.to the community, I'm Ashwin Gururaj — a Data Scientist & AI Engineer based in Melbourne, Australia, currently open to full-time, contract, and internship opportunities. I specialise in building production-grade AI systems — not just notebooks and demos, but end-to-end pipelines that actually run in production. What I work with: Python · LangChain · LangGraph · FastAPI · RAG pipelines · pgvector · Multi-agent systems · LLMs · Groq · HuggingFace · Pydantic · Docker · Celery · Redis · PostgreSQL · Data Science · SQL · Pandas · Scikit-learn What I've built recently: Sift — an open-source multi-agent fact-checking pipeline. Takes any text, extracts every factual claim, retrieves grounded evidence via HyDE RAG + live web search, and returns auditable verdicts with cited sources. Built with LangGraph, pgvector, FastAPI, and Docker. → GitHub Open to: Full-time Data Scientist / AI Engineer / ML Engineer roles Remote or Melbourne-based Companies building serious AI products If you're hiring or know someone who is — I'd genuinely appreciate a connection. GitHub: https://github.com/ashg2099 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashwin-gururaj-93943816a/ Thanks!

Audi has developed an entirely new electric torque-vectoring rear differential.

There are strategies to improve healthcare, but US isn't trying them.

For a long time, I thought productivity was about effort. Work harder. Focus more. Stay disciplined. Manage time better. Most productivity advice is built around some version of this idea. Then I noticed something strange. Some days I could spend ten hours at a desk and accomplish almost nothing. Other days I could spend three hours working and make more progress than I had all week. The difference wasn't effort. The difference was context. The Most Expensive Thing Is Not Time Ask people what their most limited resource is and most will answer: Time. But for knowledge workers, engineers, researchers, writers, and designers, I think the scarcer resource is often something else. Mental state. The ability to hold a problem in your head. The ability to remember why a decision was made. The ability to see connections between ideas. The ability to continue a train of thought without interruption. That's the state where meaningful work happens. And it's surprisingly fragile. Every Context Switch Has a Cost Imagine you're debugging a difficult issue. You've already: read the logs inspected the code traced the requests formed a hypothesis You're finally starting to see the shape of the problem. Then: a Slack notification arrives someone schedules a meeting an email requires attention a different task becomes urgent The interruption itself might only take two minutes. The real cost is what disappears. The mental model. The momentum. The partially constructed map inside your head. The next time you return to the task, you don't continue where you left off. You rebuild. Software Often Creates The Problem It Tries To Solve One thing that surprised me after building products for years is how much software exists primarily because other software creates friction. A note-taking application exists because memory is limited. A task manager exists because priorities change. A research assistant exists because information is fragmented. Many tools are not solving fundamental problems.

If you're interviewing at Amazon this year, you've probably read that you need to "prepare STAR stories." What most guides don't tell you is exactly how Amazon uses STAR differently from every other company — and what interviewers are silently scoring you against while you talk. Here's the complete 2026 breakdown: the cheat sheet, the full question bank, scored example answers, and the four mistakes that get candidates rejected even when their stories are genuinely impressive. Why Amazon STAR Is Different Amazon evaluates every behavioral answer against its 16 Leadership Principles. This isn't just culture marketing — interviewers are trained to map your stories to specific LPs and give them discrete scores. A Bar Raiser isn't just listening; they're running a rubric. The STAR formula at Amazon has specific time allocations that most candidates ignore: Situation (10%): Set the context in 20–30 seconds max Task (10%): What was specifically your responsibility Action (50%): What you did — not your team, not your manager Result (30%): Quantified outcomes only That weighting is the whole game. Most candidates spend 60% of their answer on Situation and Task, then rush through Action and Result — which is exactly backwards from what gets high scores. The "I" Rule: The Single Biggest Reason Candidates Fail Bar Raisers flag one thing more than any other: candidates who say "we" during the Action phase. Weak answer: "We decided to refactor the codebase, and we deployed a caching layer to fix the latency issue." Strong answer: "I identified the bottleneck using distributed tracing. I proposed the Redis caching layer to my tech lead and personally implemented the proof-of-concept over a weekend before bringing it to the team." Amazon hires individuals. If you can't cleanly separate your contribution from the group's work, interviewers have no signal on whether you were the driver or just along for the ride. Every sentence in your Action phase should start with "I." 30 Amazon S

The pale-blue Ojai vehicles will start picking up members of the public in California and Arizona today.

After several months of testing, Waymo is finally ready to invite non-employee passengers into its newest vehicle, the Zeekr RT minivan, which has been rebranded as Ojai. Waymo says it will begin offering "select riders" access in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, before "gradually" expanding to more riders and cities. Trips will be free […]

Today, I’m talking with Wassym Bensaid, the chief software officer at Rivian, and the co-CEO of Rivian’s platform joint venture with Volkswagen, which everyone just calls RV Tech. That joint venture kicked off about a year and a half ago with a nearly $6 billion investment from Volkswagen. It effectively puts Wassym in charge of […]

A colleague said something to me recently that I keep coming back to: "Often, by the time you've finished articulating a complex problem for the AI, you've already solved it yourself." It sounds almost like a joke. You open a chat window, start typing out your problem in careful detail — and somewhere in the middle of the second paragraph, the answer appears. Not from the AI. From you. If you've worked with LLMs seriously, you've probably experienced this. And I think it points to something important about what is actually changing in our craft — something that goes beyond the usual conversation about automation and job displacement. The Rubber Duck, Promoted Developers have known for decades that explaining a problem out loud helps solve it. The classic technique involves a rubber duck: you place it on your desk, narrate your code to it, and the act of articulation forces you to confront the assumptions you'd quietly made. The duck never responds. That's not the point. The LLM is a rubber duck that occasionally says something useful back. But even when it doesn't — even when the response is generic or slightly off — the discipline of formulating the prompt has already done its work. You've had to be precise. You've had to strip away ambiguity. You've had to decide what actually matters. That process is not a workaround. It is thinking. The Inversion of the Workflow In the pre-AI era, the typical development workflow looked something like this: you had a rough mental model of the solution, you started coding, and you discovered the edge cases along the way. The code was exploratory. The thinking happened during the writing. With AI assistance, that workflow inverts. Vague inputs produce vague outputs — the model has no way to compensate for an underspecified problem. So precision becomes mandatory upfront. You have to think before you type, not while you type. This is a more demanding cognitive posture. It requires holding the full shape of a problem in your head be

I first realized there was an issue with Kia's flagship EV9 when I tried to unlock my car last year. The hulking three-row SUV was sitting on my driveway completely dead. The key didn't work, the app connection to the car was gone, and I was already late to an appointment. Luckily, I had prepared […]

Two years ago, when I got my first freelance client, I was still in my final semester of college. A...

The advice was correct. That's what makes it interesting. A creator with a large audience recently described the problem precisely: unused project ideas atrophy. They gave the prescription: externalize the idea, commit to a 30-60-90 day sprint, get into a community that holds you accountable, treat a deployed URL as the only real milestone. The audience listened. The ideas stayed unshipped. Not because the advice was wrong. Because advice is not a mechanism. The gap between diagnosis and structure There's a category of knowledge that's completely useless without enforcement. "You should exercise consistently." Correct. Also irrelevant for the 80% of people paying for gym memberships they don't use. "You should ship your side project in 30 days instead of perfecting it." Also correct. Developers have been hearing this for years. The projects that were "almost done" last year are still almost done. The advice identifies the problem. The problem persists. The gap between them is not information. It's structure. Discipline is the tax on misalignment One phrase from the transcript stayed with me: "Discipline is the tax on misalignment." The insight is sharper than it sounds. When what you're building doesn't connect to why you're building it, every work session requires a new act of will. You're not building forward momentum — you're paying an interest payment on a debt you haven't quite defined. This is why most sprint systems fail. They give you the structure (30 days, daily tasks, accountability partner) but skip the alignment check. The structure holds for two weeks. Then it becomes another system you're "almost following." What the AI makes worse Here's where it gets specific for developers using AI tools on side projects. The AI is genuinely useful. It generates architectures, writes boilerplate, outlines features, summarizes where you are. The output looks like forward motion. But the AI has no ground truth about your actual progress. It has your files and your pr

I understand why so many people are questioning software engineering right now. Every week there’s another headline saying AI will replace developers. Junior engineers are worried there won’t be jobs. Senior engineers are wondering how long their experience will stay valuable. And honestly, if you spend enough time on tech Twitter or LinkedIn, it can start feeling like the industry is collapsing in real time. But after using AI heavily in my day-to-day work as a software engineer, I’ve started seeing things differently. AI didn’t make me feel less useful. It made me feel more capable. Before AI became part of my workflow, a lot of engineering time disappeared into things that were mentally draining but necessary: repetitive refactoring debugging small issues writing boilerplate digging through documentation trying to remember syntax cleaning up legacy code writing SQL queries optimizing simple functions translating vague tickets into technical tasks None of these tasks were impossible. They were just time-consuming. Now, a lot of that friction is reduced dramatically. One of the biggest changes I noticed was backlog cleanup. Tasks that used to sit untouched because nobody wanted to deal with them suddenly became manageable. Not because AI magically solved everything. But because it helped reduce the “mental startup cost” of difficult tasks. Sometimes all you need is: a starting point a refactored example help understanding unfamiliar code a faster debugging path quick documentation summaries That momentum matters more than people realize. A task that feels overwhelming at 9AM suddenly becomes achievable when AI helps break it down. I also noticed we started delivering faster as a team. Not in a “replace developers with AI” kind of way. More in a: less context switching faster research quicker prototyping fewer hours stuck on repetitive problems better ticket breakdowns improved communication kind of way. The interesting part is that AI didn’t just help with coding.

Ferrari fans don’t like the design of the new Luce EV, an electric four-door sedan that just doesn’t look like the Ferraris of old. It was designed with help from Jony Ive’s LoveFrom, but what worked for Ive at Apple isn’t working for Ferrari. The Luce’s launch immediately preceded a stock drop that even an […]

Designed by Jony Ive and a host of ex-Cupertino colleagues, the Luce shows us what might have been had Apple made good on its $10 billion bet.