标签：#ci

Risk stratification sounds like a data-science buzzword until you have to build the thing. For a Medicare Advantage plan, it's a concrete pipeline: take a population of members, score each one's clinical and financial risk, and rank them so care management and documentation teams know who to touch first. Here's how I'd architect it. The core idea Population health risk stratification = scoring + segmentation. You compute a per-member risk signal, then bucket members into tiers (e.g., rising-risk, high-risk, catastrophic) so finite resources go where they move outcomes and revenue most. The mistake teams make is treating it as a single ML model. In practice you want a layered signal: a stable, explainable base (RAF + chronic conditions) plus optional predictive overlays. Explainability matters because care managers won't act on a black-box score, and auditors won't accept one. Step 1: Build the member feature record { "member_id" : "SYNTH-77310" , "age" : 73 , "hccs" : [ "HCC37_1" , "HCC85" , "HCC18" ], "raf" : 1.842 , "gaps" : [ "a1c_overdue" , "no_pcp_visit_180d" ], "utilization" : { "ed_visits_12m" : 3 , "inpatient_12m" : 1 } } The RAF here is your defensible, model-grounded risk anchor under CMS-HCC V28. Everything else is supplemental signal. Step 2: Score and tier def risk_tier ( member ): base = member [ " raf " ] util = 0.15 * member [ " utilization " ][ " ed_visits_12m " ] \ + 0.30 * member [ " utilization " ][ " inpatient_12m " ] score = base + util if score >= 3.0 : return " catastrophic " if score >= 1.8 : return " high " if score >= 1.0 : return " rising " return " stable " Keep the weights transparent and tunable. The point isn't a perfect model; it's a defensible, reproducible ranking your operational teams trust. Step 3: Make "rising-risk" actionable The tier that quietly drives the most ROI is rising-risk — members trending toward high cost who still have open documentation and care gaps. Surface their specific gaps (overdue labs, undocumented chroni

The US is getting closer to observing daylight saving time year-round. On Tuesday, the House advanced the Sunshine Protection Act on a 308 to 117 vote, which would turn clocks one hour ahead permanently, as reported by CBS News. President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social in May that the bill would save the "hundreds […]

The app is designed for people who want to create social content, but find traditional video editing tools too complex or time-consuming.

Gwen Shapira shares how teams are scaling AI features using PostgreSQL for mission-critical apps. She explains how to leverage Postgres's multi-modal capabilities - including JSONB parsing and high-recall HNSW vector indexing - to deliver deterministic and semantic context to LLMs. She also discusses vector quantization to speed up queries by 4x and strategies for managing agentic memory. By Gwen Shapira

Hey everyone, I recently had an "aha!" moment regarding how React handles updates under the hood, and I wanted to share it because I realize a ton of developers (including myself, until recently) trip over this exact concept. The common mental model is that React Reconciliation compares the Virtual DOM directly to the Real Browser DOM and surgically updates only what changed. But that’s fundamentally incorrect. React never reads or directly compares the real DOM during the diffing process. It actually splits the process into two entirely separate phases —The Render Phase and The Commit Phase —which creates a massive distinction between Re-rendering and Re-painting. Here is the exact breakdown of what happens when a single state change affects just 1 out of 100 divs in a component: The Render Phase (Pure JavaScript) When state changes, React calls your component function. It doesn't know which of your 100 divs changed yet, so it has to evaluate the entire JSX block. The Scope: React re-renders all 100 virtual divs in memory. The Process: It builds a brand-new Virtual DOM tree and compares it to the previous Virtual DOM tree (JavaScript object vs. JavaScript object). The Outcome: It spots that 99divs are identical, but 1 div has an update. It flags that single virtual node with an "Update" tag. Because this happens purely in-memory as JavaScript, it is incredibly fast and cheap. The Commit Phase (The Real DOM Update) This is where Reconciliation does its primary job. It acts as a shield to protect the browser from doing unnecessary work. The Scope: React completely ignores the 99 unchanged elements. The Process: It surgically targets the single real browser div associated with the flagged Virtual DOM element and updates only its modified property (e.g., element.textContent = "New Value"). The Outcome: The browser repaints only 1 single div on the screen. The Conclusion: Reconciliation isn't about stopping React from re-rendering (re-running JS to calculate the UI). It

Gidi Littwin's new AI startup, Hemispheric, makes diagnostic brain scans for conditions like depression, PTSD, and Parkinson’s. He wants the technology to be as cheap and easy as a blood test.

Private buyers are increasingly outbidding museums for fossils.

Spotify founder Daniel Ek's body-scanning startup, Neko Health, is setting its sights on the United States after raising $700 million from a star-studded group of celebrities, entrepreneurs, and investment firms. It plans to open its first clinic in New York this year before expanding rapidly across the country. Neko operates private clinics offering full-body scans […]

Companies’ increasing reliance on AI chatbots isn’t making the customer service experience smarter. It’s just making it more infuriating.

Official case counts likely capture only a fraction of US cyclosporiasis infections, and the outbreak is likely to get worse before it gets better.

OpenAI employees have donated more than $215,000 to a political effort opposing Leading the Future, a group backed by the company’s president, Greg Brockman.

SpaceX's latest residential dish - the Starlink V5 - is now available in "select areas." It's notably smaller and lighter than the V4 dish with improved power efficiency. It'll be available in more places as SpaceX ramps up production to meet global demand. The company notes that Starlink V5 is not intended for in-motion use […]

Series: Master OOP for Software Engineering Interviews Introduction Ask ten beginner developers: "What is abstraction?" Most answers sound like this: "Abstraction is the process of hiding implementation details and showing only essential information." Technically, that's correct. But if I ask the next question: "Why was abstraction invented?" or "Can you explain abstraction using an Inventory Management System?" or "How is abstraction different from encapsulation?" many candidates struggle. That's because they memorized the definition instead of understanding the idea behind it. In this article, we'll learn abstraction the way experienced software engineers think about it—not by memorizing definitions, but by understanding why it exists, what problem it solves, and how it appears in every modern software system. 🎯 Learning Goals After reading this article, you should be able to: Explain abstraction without memorizing a textbook definition. Understand why abstraction exists. Identify abstraction in everyday life. Recognize abstraction in software systems. Confidently answer beginner interview questions. Build a strong mental model that makes future OOP concepts easier. Before We Learn Abstraction... Let's ask an important question. Why do programming languages even provide OOP? Imagine writing software for an e-commerce company. The system contains: Products Customers Orders Warehouses Payments Delivery Partners Notifications Discounts Reviews Thousands of features. If every developer had to understand every implementation detail before writing code, software development would become impossible. We need a way to reduce complexity. That solution is called abstraction. The Problem Abstraction Solves Imagine buying a new car. You sit inside. You: Press the accelerator. Turn the steering wheel. Shift gears. Press the brake. Simple. But underneath the hood, hundreds of complex operations happen every second. The engine burns fuel. The pistons move. The gearbox changes tor

The restrictions, which can be turned off, will include a crackdown on “addictive” app features and will be in addition to a total ban on children under 16 accessing platforms like TikTok and YouTube.

One weekend I wrote an LLM eval framework in about two hundred lines of Python. It demoed beautifully. I felt clever. Six months later that same framework was a mess. Three different judge models with three different parsing hacks. A test dataset nobody had touched since November. A CI gate that kept failing because a vendor nudged their model, not because anyone broke a prompt. And the second engineer on rotation asking me, fairly, "how does this even work?" The framework did not fail. The eighty percent of the work the weekend tutorial skipped is what failed. That gap is the whole story, and this is what I would tell myself before starting again. The one line I wish someone had told me: build the rubric, buy the runner Here is the split that took me six months to see. Some parts of an eval setup are yours and only yours. The rubric that decides what "good" means for your product. The dataset built from your real failures. The rules for when a change is bad enough to block a release. Nobody else can write these, because they encode your domain. The rest is the same at every company. The thing that calls the judge model, parses its answer, retries, and caches. The machinery to run thousands of checks in parallel. The plumbing that scores live traffic. The system that groups failing calls together. Every team rebuilds these, hits the same bugs, and gains nothing by writing them twice. So build the first list. Do not hand-build the second. I rebuilt the second, and it cost me most of a year. Two questions I now ask about every single piece Before writing any part of this, I ask two things: Is it specific to me, or generic? A rubric for my domain is specific and worth owning. A retry-and-cache loop around a model call is generic. Everyone writes the same one. Does it compound, or does it rot? A dataset that grows from real production failures compounds. A year in, it is a regression suite no competitor can copy. A hand-built tracing layer rots. The moment a vendor chan

Design + Product Thinking: NYC’s Path to Reliable AI AI delivers value when it’s useful, trusted, and operational. For city services that affect millions, those qualities don’t happen by accident — they come from applying design thinking (who the service is for, how it’s used) together with product thinking (what outcome we’re trying to achieve and how we operate over time). This article explains why hiring designers and product managers matters for NYC’s digital and AI initiatives, summarizes the city’s PIT Crew program, and outlines how Flamelit applies outcome-focused delivery in the public sector. Why design and product roles matter Designers and product managers have distinct but complementary responsibilities that reduce common AI delivery failures: Designers (Design Thinking): center human needs, prototype user flows, and validate that interfaces and decision workflows are understandable and accessible. They surface usability and trust issues early, preventing technically accurate models from becoming unusable in practice. Product managers (Product Thinking): define the measurable outcomes, prioritize use cases, align stakeholders, and manage the lifecycle from discovery to ongoing operations. They ensure work is evaluated against mission impact, not just technical metrics. Together they prevent common failures: building technically impressive models that nobody trusts, deploying brittle systems without human review, or shipping features with unclear ownership that decay in production. PIT Crew and NYC hiring context NYC’s PIT Crew program is a city initiative designed to attract and staff product, engineering, and design talent for public service projects. It’s a practical recognition that public-sector digital transformation needs people skilled in user research, product management, and delivery. Read more about the PIT Crew and how it works here: https://www.nyc.gov/content/pitcrew/pages/ (open in a new tab). Hiring programs like PIT Crew help create the c

Browser automation used to be easier to describe. A test opened a page, filled in a form, clicked a button, and checked the result. The hardest parts were usually selectors, waits, and browser compatibility. Those problems still exist, but the surface area has expanded. Today, browser tests may need to handle streaming interfaces, MFA, AI-generated content, multiple operating systems, preview deployments, canary releases, and code changes proposed by AI assistants. The challenge is no longer just writing a script that passes. The challenge is building a testing system that remains understandable and affordable after hundreds of tests and thousands of CI runs. Start by measuring instability instead of normalizing it Flaky tests often become accepted background noise. A test fails, CI retries it, and the second run passes. The pipeline turns green, so the team moves on. Over time, the retry count grows and nobody is sure which failures matter. The problem is that a passing retry does not erase the cost of the first failure. The article on calculating the real cost of flaky test retries in CI provides a useful framework for evaluating compute costs, developer interruptions, delayed feedback, and investigation time. A simple reliability metric can help: first-attempt pass rate = tests passing without retry / total test executions This is often more revealing than the final pipeline pass rate. A suite with a 99% final pass rate may still be deeply unstable if many tests require multiple attempts. Reproduce the environment before changing the test When a browser test fails only in CI, teams often edit the test before reproducing the environment. That can lead to unnecessary waits and conditionals. One of the most common variations is a test that passes in visible Chrome but fails in headless mode. The explanation is not always “headless Chrome is flaky.” Differences in viewport, rendering, animation, fonts, and resource timing can all change application behavior. This det

The company said the "rumors are completely false" after its stock sank more than 50% on a report that it was weighing the option.

The cohesion paper series is now published in full — five papers that build a chain from the concept of cohesion to the Independent Variation Principle (IVP) . The chain: On the Nature of Cohesion — defines cohesion as a $2k$-tuple: for $k$ partitioning rules, $k$ (purity, completeness) pairs. Proves the knowledge-embodiment theorem: maximal cohesion under a rule coincides with exact knowledge embodiment under that rule. Shows that every published algorithmic cohesion metric measures a structural proxy (method-call overlap, shared-field density), not cohesion as defined by a principle. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20785752 Causal Cohesion — instantiates the schema under one concrete rule — change-driver-assignment identity: elements belong together iff $\Gamma(e_1) = \Gamma(e_2)$. Develops the metric $H_\text{causal}(M) = (\text{purity}(M), \text{completeness}(M))$, a two-dimensional score that fills one slot of the $2k$-tuple. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20785881 Four Necessary Conditions for Optimal Modularization — from the schema plus the objective of minimizing change propagation, proves four conditions — Admissibility, Element Form, Separation, Unification — are necessary and jointly exhaustive, uniquely pinning the $\Gamma$-equality partition $E / \tilde{\Gamma}$. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21362420 Why Minimizing Change Propagation Minimizes Maintenance Cost — decomposes total maintenance cost into access, alignment, cognitive, and domain-fixed components. Proves that minimizing change propagation cost is equivalent to minimizing total maintenance cost under an explicit coefficient condition, justifying the objective paper 5 assumed. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21362542 The Independent Variation Principle — synthesizes the chain into a single structural principle and examines the premises (change drivers, functional model, change isolation), preconditions (driver independence, decisional autonomy), and scope boundary. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21362618 Two derivations Last month's preprint — Der

When I first heard the term backtracking , it sounded like a complicated algorithm reserved for computer scientists. After spending the last couple of weeks learning it and implementing it in a Tetris Optimizer project, I realized something surprising: Backtracking is simply the art of making a decision, checking whether it works, and if it doesn't, undoing it and trying something else. This article explains backtracking using a practical project instead of abstract examples. The Problem Imagine you have several Tetris pieces (tetrominoes), and your goal is to fit all of them into the smallest possible square . It might look something like this: A A A A B B B B C C C C D D D D The challenge is to arrange every piece so that: No pieces overlap. No piece extends outside the board. Every piece is used exactly once. The board is as small as possible. This is much harder than it looks. My First Thought Initially, I thought I could simply place one piece after another. Place A Place B Place C Place D Done! Unfortunately, programming isn't always that kind. Sometimes the first position you choose for piece A makes it impossible to place D later. The mistake wasn't with D . The mistake happened much earlier. Enter Backtracking Backtracking works like this: Place a piece. Try placing the next one. If you get stuck... Remove the last piece. Try a different position. Repeat until every piece fits. It's essentially saying: "If this path doesn't work, let's go back and explore another one." Visualizing the Search Suppose we have four tetrominoes. Start ├── Put A at (0,0) │ ├── Put B │ │ ├── Put C │ │ │ ├── D fits ✅ │ │ │ └── D fails ❌ │ │ └── Try another position │ └── Move A elsewhere └── Try another position for A Every branch represents another possibility. Backtracking explores these branches until it finds one that works. How It Looks in Go The heart of the algorithm is surprisingly small. func solve ( index int ) bool { if index == len ( pieces ) { return true } for every