标签：#ci

Il pensiero di Popper si intreccia con diversi autori in modi che illuminano il rapporto tra tecnologia, potere e libertà. Hannah Arendt Arendt condivide con Popper l'attenzione per la società aperta, ma la declina in termini di azione politica piuttosto che epistemologici. Dove Popper vede la chiusura come rifiuto della falsificazione, Arendt la vede come perdita dello spazio pubblico dove gli individui appaiono come agenti plurali. L'AI che automatizza decisioni politiche o sociali rischia di eliminare proprio questo spazio di apparizione — non c'è più un "chi" che agisce, ma un "cosa" che calcola. Il banale della tecnocrazia, per Arendt, può essere altrettanto pericoloso del male radicale. Theodor Adorno e Max Horkheimer La Dialettica dell'illuminismo offre un intreccio più critico con Popper. I due della Scuola di Francoforte vedevano la ragione strumentale — quella che calcola mezzi per fini prefissati — come il germe del dominio moderno. Popper difendeva invece la ragione critica come antidoto al totalitarismo. Il punto di tensione è rilevante per l'AI: se l'intelligenza artificiale è pura ragione strumentale ottimizzata, rientra nella diagnosi frankfurtiana più che in quella popperiana. La risposta popperiana sarebbe che l'AI può essere strumento di criticismo se aperta alla confutazione e al controllo democratico. Norbert Wiener Il fondatore della cibernetica condivide con Popper la preoccupazione per i sistemi che sfuggono al controllo umano. Wiener, già negli anni Cinquanta, avvertiva che le macchine intelligenti potrebbero imporre obiettivi incompatibili con i valori umani. Popper avrebbe riconosciuto in questo un caso di teoria non falsificabile: un sistema che apprende senza possibilità di essere corretto dall'esterno è un dogma tecnologico. Entrambi insistono sul human-in-the-loop , anche se Wiener lo motiva in termini di stabilità dei sistemi, Popper in termini di libertà. Michel Foucault Foucault aggiunge una dimensione che Popper lascia in ombra: il

The cycle number on a lithium battery's spec sheet is true and almost useless, because it describes a life the battery will live only in a temperature-controlled lab being cycled gently by a machine that never has a bad day. A cycle, in that test, means a full charge and a full discharge under mild, steady conditions, repeated until the pack fades to some fraction of its original capacity, often eighty percent. Your warehouse does none of that. It charges in bursts, discharges to whatever the shift demanded, bakes the pack in summer and chills it in winter, and counts a cycle as whatever happened between two plug-ins. Depth is the lever nobody quotes The single biggest mover of cycle count is how deep you run the pack on each outing, and that figure almost never shares the page with the headline number that sells the battery. The relationship is steeply nonlinear, which is the part that surprises people. Drain a lithium pack to nearly empty every time and you spend cycles fast. Use the top half and tuck it back on charge, and the same cell can deliver many times the number of shallow cycles before reaching the same faded state. The chemistry is mechanical about it: every deep swing stretches and contracts the electrode structures further, and the wider the swing the more wear each one inflicts. Two fleets on identical batteries can see lifespans years apart purely from how hard they drain them. This is why opportunity charging does double duty. It keeps the truck running, and it keeps each cycle shallow, which stretches the pack's life as a side effect. It also means a published cycle figure measured at full depth understates what a top-up fleet will see, while a figure measured shallow oversells what a run-it-flat operation will get. The same battery, the same number, two outcomes the sheet never warned you about. You have to know the test depth to know what the promise means. Heat is the other clock Cycles are only one of two clocks ticking on a battery, and the s

The Quest Begins (The "Why") Picture this: I’m hunched over my laptop at 2 a.m., surrounded by empty coffee mugs, trying to get a simple Node.js API to run on a friend’s Windows machine. I’ve got the code, I’ve got the dependencies, but every time I hit npm start on his box I’m greeted with “Cannot find module ‘left-pad’” (yeah, I know, that’s a meme, but it felt real). It was like trying to cast a spell in Harry Potter while forgetting the wand‑movement — nothing happened, and I felt like a Muggle in a wizard’s duel. That night I realized the real dragon wasn’t the buggy code; it was the “it works on my machine” curse. I needed a way to package everything — the runtime, the libraries, the environment variables — into a single, portable chest that any teammate (or future‑me) could open and instantly get the same result. Enter Docker, the holy grail of reproducibility. If The Matrix taught us anything, it’s that once you see the underlying code, you can bend reality. Docker lets you see the container code and then bend your deployment reality to your will. The Revelation (The Insight) The big “aha!” came when I stopped thinking of Docker as just another VM and started seeing it as a lightweight, immutable snapshot of my app’s filesystem. Unlike a full VM that boots an entire OS, a Docker container shares the host kernel but isolates everything else — think of it as the Inception dream‑within‑a‑dream, but each layer is a read‑only snapshot you can stack like LEGO bricks. Here’s the secret sauce in three lines: Dockerfile – a recipe that tells Docker how to build the image. Image – the built, immutable artifact (the “DVD” of your app). Container – a running instance of that image (the “movie playing” from the DVD). When you docker build , Docker reads the Dockerfile line‑by‑line, creates intermediate layers, caches them, and finally spits out an image you can tag, push to a registry, and run anywhere. No more “it works on my machine” because the machine inside the cont

The dangerous thing about CI agents is not that they can write code. It is that they run in the place where we already concentrate trust. CI has repository access. CI has tokens. CI has build logs. CI can fetch dependencies, publish artifacts, comment on pull requests, open issues, deploy previews, and sometimes touch production systems. It is the automation layer we taught ourselves to trust because the alternative was humans doing the same boring steps by hand. Now we are putting agents inside it. That is useful. It is also exactly where the security model gets weird. Microsoft published a write-up this month about a Claude Code GitHub Action case where untrusted GitHub content and file-reading capability could combine badly. The short version is that an agent operating in a CI/CD context had enough ambient access to read more than the user probably intended, including process environment data that could expose workflow secrets. Anthropic mitigated the issue in Claude Code 2.1.128. The specific bug matters. The pattern matters more. CI/CD agents are not chatbots with a build badge. They are automated actors running in a high-trust environment while reading untrusted instructions from pull requests, issues, comments, commit messages, files, logs, and whatever else the workflow feeds them. That combination deserves more fear than it is getting. prompts are now part of the attack surface We are used to thinking about CI security in terms of code and configuration. Who can modify the workflow file? Which secrets are available to pull requests? Do forks get privileged tokens? Are dependencies pinned? Are artifacts trusted? Can a build script publish something? Does the workflow run on pull_request or pull_request_target ? Those questions still matter. But agents add another layer: text becomes operational input. The agent may read a pull request description. It may read a comment asking it to fix a test. It may read source files changed by an untrusted contributor. It

For the last 30 years, stopping the flow of cybersecurity-related software has proven to be ineffective. It's unclear why it would work now with Anthropic’s cybersecurity model Mythos.

Relativity Space, the rocket company led by former Google executive Eric Schmidt, was picked to launch NASA's Aeolus payload to Mars in 2028, as reported earlier by TechCrunch. Under a new public-private partnership, Relativity Space will provide the "spacecraft, rocket, and cruise operations" to fly Aeolus to Mars, where the payload will "provide the first […]

Stop Fighting Scikit-Learn Pipelines: How Metadata Routing Fixes Sample Weights & Groups A couple of months ago, I stumbled upon this video by Vincent D. Warmerdam about metadata routing in scikit-learn. I'll be honest, I had no idea what "metadata routing" even meant, but Vincent's explanation completely changed how I think about building ML pipelines. The video showed me that one of the most frustrating problems in scikit-learn; passing sample weights and groups through complex pipelines finally had an elegant solution. It piqued my curiosity enough that I dove deep into the feature, tested it extensively, and honestly, I was surprised by how little coverage this gets in technical blogs and articles. So I figured, why not write about it myself and share what I learned? If you've ever struggled with imbalanced datasets, grouped cross-validation, or just wanted to pass custom information through your pipelines, this article is for you. Let's start from the very beginning. What is "Metadata" in Machine Learning? Let's start with a concrete example. You're building a credit card fraud detection model with this data: # Your training data X = transaction_features # Amount, merchant, time, location, etc. y = is_fraud # 0 = legitimate, 1 = fraud # But you also have additional information: sample_weights = [ 1.0 , 1.0 , 10.0 , 1.0 , ...] # Fraud transactions weighted 10x customer_ids = [ 101 , 102 , 101 , 103 , ...] # Which customer made each transaction Metadata is the "extra information" beyond your features (X) and labels (y): sample_weight : How important is each transaction? (Fraud = 10x more important) groups : Which customer does each transaction belong to? (For proper cross-validation) Custom metadata : Transaction timestamps, confidence scores, data quality flags, etc. Why Metadata Matters: The Credit Card Fraud Problem Imagine you're building a fraud detection system for a financial company. You have: Imbalanced data : 99% legitimate transactions, 1% fraudulent T

We constantly hear that Ansible and Python are apparently the only ways to automate networks, today I even listen in a conversation "Python is the industry standard" probably I missed the RFC document or probably the guy was referring to a sales standard, but back to us what happens when the framework, the platform or the software we are using becomes heavier than the problem to solve? There is a moment where automation becomes necessary, not because we want to look modern, not because every task deserves a framework and not simply because adding automation automatically means we are doing things better. It becomes necessary because repeating the same command collection manually across many devices is slow, risky, boring and almost impossible to diff and validate properly especially under pressure. For this reason I built the Cisco Go Collector during a real migration activity with a very practical goal: collect configuration and command outputs from Cisco devices in an easily repeatable way, without forcing every colleague involved in the process to become developers or to install an automation stack just to run a super simple flow. The idea was simple: define the devices in a CSV which is the comfort zone for everyone define the commands in the same CSV file, super simple and organized to manage one row per device run a portable Go binary against that CSV file collect the outputs in organized text files archive the result as operational evidence that can be easily diff That is it! super lightweight to run no Python virtual environment no Ansible playbook structure no inventory hierarchy no framework onboarding no additional runtime or software on corporate managed workstations just a CSV file and a compiled binary The automation and AI trap when the solution is heavier than the problem to solve I love automation and I fully support AI if used the proper way, but we have to find a balance and recognize when to choose one tool over the other and specially one progra

"Intelligence isn't about searching everywhere—it's about knowing where not to search." Artificial Intelligence is often associated with neural networks, large language models, and autonomous systems. But long before modern generative AI, computer scientists were solving a much deeper question: How do intelligent systems make decisions efficiently? Whether you're building search algorithms, recommendation systems, autonomous robots, or distributed systems, the architecture of intelligence teaches timeless lessons about solving problems under uncertainty. Let's explore five powerful ideas that shaped AI—and why they matter far beyond computer science. ✈️ 1. The Pilot's Dilemma: Why Blind Search Fails Imagine you're a pilot. Suddenly, one of your engines fails. In the next few seconds, there are hundreds of switches, buttons, and controls available. If you treated every control equally, you'd spend precious time trying random combinations. That is exactly how uninformed search works. Algorithms like: Breadth-First Search (BFS) Depth-First Search (DFS) have no knowledge of where the solution might be. They simply explore. Start ├── Option A ├── Option B ├── Option C └── ... The larger the search space becomes, the less practical this strategy is. A pilot doesn't blindly flip switches. They use additional knowledge : Engine pressure Fuel flow Hydraulic readings Warning systems Those clues dramatically reduce the number of possibilities. This is exactly what AI calls Informed Search . Instead of exploring everything, intelligent systems use knowledge to eliminate impossible paths before searching them. 🧠 2. Heuristics: The Cheat Code of Intelligence The secret behind informed search is something called a heuristic . A heuristic is simply an educated estimate. Mathematically, h(n) represents the estimated cost from the current state to the goal. One important rule always holds: h(goal) = 0 Once we've reached the goal, there's no remaining cost. Example: Finding Bucharest

Years after initial tests, researchers are now racing to see if a vaccine developed in 2011 can help fight the current Bundibugyo outbreak in Congo.

This is Optimizer, a weekly newsletter sent from Verge senior reviewer Victoria Song that dissects and discusses the latest gizmos and potions that swear they're going to change your life. Opt in for Optimizer here. On TikTok, the tanned youths are explaining why they no longer wear sunscreen. In one video, a young man films […]

A French launch startup is scrapping the name of its rocket, apparently due to a trademark issue.

OpenAI’s Bonnie Xu discusses Kepler, an internal AI data analyst agent built to query 600+ petabytes of data. She explains how they overcome context window limits using MCP, automated code crawling, and RAG. Xu also shares how their team leverages scoped semantic memory for self-learning and utilizes AST-based LLM grading to build a robust, regression-free evaluation pipeline. By Bonnie Xu

CircleCI has launched Chunk Sidecars, a new capability designed to bring CI-style validation directly into an AI coding agent's inner development loop By Craig Risi

Researchers say these coral strongholds may help repopulate more degraded reefs.

Miami-based AI startup Subquadratic came out of stealth mode last month with a huge claim. It announced that it had solved a mathematical bottleneck that had been holding back large language models for almost a decade. The details were thin, and many people were unconvinced. But Subquadratic has started to bring the receipts, sharing the…

UK attorney general Richard Hermer told his staff his office was quitting X, according to The Guardian and The Observer.

A new report shows that government agencies failed to communicate and includes recommendations for stronger oversight in a bid to avert future disasters.

A London clinic owner has claimed he is treating people with stage 4 cancer by sealing them into a plastic bag while they're naked from the waist down and gassing them with chlorine dioxide.

"I consider this a success already, just from the fact that we're even going to try this."