标签：#design

Originally published at malaymehta.com The Interview Trap If you look at most system design tutorials, you get an extreme use case. Design Twitter. Design YouTube. Scale it to a billion users. Draw boxes on a whiteboard for 45 minutes. Do you think your app will be used by a billion users on day one? The answer is almost always no. But the tutorials don't teach you what to do when you have 500 users, unclear requirements, a team of four, and a quarter to ship something that works. Real system design is nothing like a whiteboard interview. You don't get clean requirements, you don't design from scratch, and nobody asks you to handle a billion requests per second on day one. Real System Design Starts with Questions, Not Diagrams The very first thing that matters in system design is something most tutorials skip entirely: unclear and chaotic requirements. In the real world, requirements don't come as a clean problem statement. They come from non-technical business teams, and you need to navigate through cross-questions to get all the clarity you need. Ask as many questions as possible. Understand your functional and non-functional requirements. Which features need to be synchronous and which can be async? What are the read and write load patterns? What is the maximum and average number of concurrent users right now? What does authentication look like? Do you need role-based access control? These questions drive your choices. You don't always need an axe where a knife will do. Being minimalist with a reasonable growth prediction and a 3, 6, 9 month plan will take you in the right direction. There will be things the situation demands immediately but would take more time than expected. Taking a predictable hit now and fixing it at the right future time without missing that balance is truly important. Weighing what will be expensive to change later, in terms of dollar cost or human effort, is how real architectural decisions get made. Pushing Back on Bad Requirements Many

I run brand and product work for crypto and fintech companies, and this year the same request keeps landing on my desk, worded slightly differently each time: we don't want to look like crypto anymore. It comes from payment companies, exchanges, stablecoin startups — the ones that spent years looking like "the future" and now want to look like a bank. Or rather, a neobank. The first thing they ask to kill is the gradient. This isn't taste finally maturing. It's regulation. Under MiCA you can't operate in European crypto without a license, and a licensed company that still looks like a 2021 DeFi protocol has a problem its lawyers can't fix. So the whole industry is quietly repainting itself toward "trustworthy." Here's the trap I keep watching people walk into. The gradient everyone's fleeing is already being replaced by a new monoculture — the same off-white, the same restrained type, the same calm. Swapping a gradient for clean sans-serif feels like progress because it looks like the companies that already won (Stripe, Coinbase). But you're not them, and wearing the surface of a trusted brand doesn't make you inherit the trust. It's just a different uniform. The escape route became a traffic jam. The deeper issue: the audience flipped. For 15 years crypto brands were built for insiders who chose crypto because it wasn't a bank. The dark dashboard and the "to the moon" energy were tribe signals. But a licensed company now answers to regulators, banks, institutions, and normal people moving their salary — none of whom read a glowing gradient as "innovative." They read it as "unregulated." Same brand, overnight liability. And the part most people skip: trust isn't a color. It's spread across every surface you own, all the way down to the transaction detail nobody thinks about. A clean homepage in front of a 2021 dashboard isn't progress — it's a tell. The repackaging that works goes all the way down: the same restraint and clarity from the cold email to the onboarding

Java LLD: Designing Snakes and Ladders with O(1) Move Resolution Designing Snakes and Ladders is a classic LLD (Low-Level Design) interview question that tests your ability to write clean, maintainable, and highly performant code. While the rules are simple, naive implementations quickly fall apart under scale, concurrency, or changing business requirements. Want to go deeper? javalld.com — machine coding interview problems with working Java code and full execution traces. The Mistake Most Candidates Make Expensive Runtime Scans : Iterating through lists of snakes and ladders on every single move, turning an $O(1)$ lookup into a slow $O(N)$ search. Violating SRP : Hardcoding board mechanics, game loops, and dice rolling logic inside a single monolithic class. Tight Coupling : Binding player movement directly to the dice, making it incredibly difficult to introduce custom game rules (e.g., crooked dice or extra turns). The Right Approach Core mental model : Treat the board as a flat, pre-computed $O(1)$ lookup array where each index represents a cell and its value represents the final destination. Key entities/classes : Board , Jump (representing Snakes/Ladders), Player , Dice , Game , and MovementStrategy . Why it beats the naive approach : It decouples board setup from game loop execution, turning expensive runtime lookups into instantaneous array access. The Key Insight (Code) public class Board { private final int [] board ; // Pre-computed jump destinations public Board ( int size , List < Jump > jumps ) { this . board = IntStream . range ( 0 , size + 1 ). toArray (); jumps . forEach ( j -> board [ j . start ()] = j . end ()); // Precompute O(1) lookups } public int resolvePosition ( int current , int roll ) { int next = current + roll ; return next < board . length ? board [ next ] : current ; } } Key Takeaways DP-Style Precomputation : Pre-populating a lookup array transforms runtime search complexity from $O(N)$ to $O(1)$ time complexity per turn. Open-Closed

The Amble One is a street-legal $25,000 electric buggy designed for luxury resorts—but a car is also coming.

Cloudflare released the Cloudflare One stack, an open-source library of agent skills for planning, deploying, and managing Zero Trust environments. The skills include automated migration logic for Zscaler and Palo Alto Networks, the same logic used in Cloudflare's Descaler program that has moved enterprise customers in hours rather than months. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

Why developer tools deserve a design language of their own - and how I built one for my own corner of the web Somewhere along the line, we collectively agreed that "functional" had to mean "boring." Open almost any developer tool, internal dashboard, or technical log and you'll find the same thing: a sterile corporate wiki. Grey on white. The same SaaS design system everyone copied from the same three component libraries. Rounded cards, a sans-serif font, a faint drop shadow. It works. It's also completely forgettable. But here's the thing nobody says out loud: when you're building for engineers - or building your own space on the web - you are under no obligation to follow the standard playbook. The intersection of system design and visual identity is one of the most under-explored areas in frontend architecture. We obsess over latency, bundle size, and runtime dependencies, then slap a default theme on top and call it done. The backend gets all the craft. The interface gets a template. I wanted to do the opposite. Building VOID_PROTOCOL When I put together my own developer log - https://blog.naveenr.in - I deliberately stepped away from the standard minimalist tech blog. Instead, I built out a full design system I call the VOID_PROTOCOL × Manga Editorial Design System: dark-only, type-driven, built on Astro 6, Tailwind 4 (CSS-first @theme tokens), and React 19 islands. The name isn't decoration. VOID_PROTOCOL started on my https://naveenr.in portfolio, which runs in two modes. There's a minimal version, and there's an immersive one - and in immersive mode the background is a real-time 3D simulation of a sentinel entity. It's not a looping video; it actually responds to your movement, clicks, and scroll. When you leave it alone long enough, it sleeps. And when it sleeps, it dreams - it dreams my initials. (Yes, really. It started as a joke and I kept it.) That entity is the soul of the whole identity: black, empty, void-like space and a cool blue palette, a deep-sp

Grab's security team built Palana, a Kubernetes-native secure execution platform, to run autonomous AI agents safely. Unlike deterministic software, model-driven agents exhibit unpredictable tool-use, code-writing, and prompt injection risks. Palana contains these threats at the infrastructure level using isolated namespaces, out-of-process control planes, and proxy-mediated, Vault-backed secrets. By Patrick Farry

Thariq Shihipar, engineering lead for the Claude Code team, recently published a blog post (Using Claude Code: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of HTML) arguing that HTML, with its richer visualizations, color, and interactivity, improves the productivity of human-agent communication in many settings, especially when compared to default Markdown outputs. By Bruno Couriol

Figma's update adds a new code layer, support for motion and shaders, and the ability to create custom plug-ins for various tasks using AI.

Figma has revealed some new design and coding product updates at its annual Config conference that aim to help creatives "push their ideas further" and automate tedious tasks with AI. Part of this is a reimagined canvas that's now optimized for full-stack development, according to Figma, bringing teams, AI agents, tools, and materials "together in […]

When designing systems like Facebook, WhatsApp, Netflix, Amazon, or Instagram, one of the first questions a system designer asks is: Can a single server handle the traffic? How much storage will be needed? Do we need caching? How much RAM should our cache have? How many servers should we deploy? Before discussing databases, load balancers, microservices, or caching layers, we need a rough understanding of the scale. This is where Back-of-the-Envelope Calculations come into the picture. Why Do We Need Back-of-the-Envelope Calculations? Imagine you're asked to design Facebook. If you immediately start drawing: Load Balancer ↓ Application Servers ↓ Redis Cache ↓ Database without knowing the expected traffic, you're designing blindly. System design is fundamentally about making trade-offs. To make those trade-offs, we first need estimates. Back-of-the-envelope calculations help us answer: How much traffic will the system receive? How much data will be generated? How much cache memory is required? How many servers are needed? The numbers don't need to be perfect. They only need to be close enough to make architectural decisions. What Exactly Is a Back-of-the-Envelope Calculation? A quick estimation technique used to approximate: Traffic Storage Memory Server Capacity using rough assumptions. Think of it as: "Getting the order of magnitude correct rather than getting the exact number correct." A system designer rarely needs perfect accuracy during interviews. They need reasonable estimates. The Standard Estimation Flow Whenever you get a System Design question: Users ↓ Traffic ↓ Storage ↓ RAM / Cache ↓ Number of Servers ↓ Architecture Design Always estimate first. Design later. The Ultimate Estimation Cheat Sheet Storage Units Unit Value 1 KB 10³ Bytes 1 MB 10⁶ Bytes 1 GB 10⁹ Bytes 1 TB 10¹² Bytes 1 PB 10¹⁵ Bytes Time Units Unit Value 1 Minute 60 Seconds 1 Hour 3600 Seconds 1 Day 86,400 Seconds Common Assumptions Metric Approximation Peak Traffic 3× Average Traffic Active

Long-running workflows look simple when you first build them. Something happens. A few systems exchange data. Everything completes. Done. At least that's the expectation. Reality is very different. The biggest thing I underestimated was time. Not execution time. Elapsed time. Because once workflows start running for hours, days, or continuously, strange things start happening. APIs become temporarily unavailable Data changes halfway through the process Retries arrive much later than expected Someone manually updates a record Another system processes things in a different order Nothing is broken. But everything is slightly different from when the workflow started. Early on, I assumed workflows were transactions. Start. Execute. Finish. Now I think of them as conversations between systems. And conversations can get interrupted. Another thing I underestimated: State changes. You might start processing an order that is "pending". Ten minutes later, another system marks it as "cancelled". An hour later, a retry comes in from an earlier step. If your workflow only thinks about data, weird things happen. Because the world has changed while the process was still running. Long-running workflows also expose assumptions you didn't know you made. Like: this API will always respond quickly data will arrive in order users won't modify records manually retries will happen immediately Those assumptions survive in testing. Production removes them quickly. One thing that changed how I build these systems: I stopped asking: "Will this workflow finish?" And started asking: "What state will the world be in when it finishes?" Because those are two very different questions. Most problems in long-running systems aren't caused by one big failure. They're caused by lots of small changes happening while the workflow is still alive. And if you don't account for that, eventually the workflow finishes successfully and still produces the wrong outcome. This is something we think about constantly

Disclosure: This post includes affiliate links; I may receive compensation if you purchase products or services from the different links provided in this article. Hello friends, System design ** and ** Software design are two important topics for tech interviews and two important skills for Software developers. Without knowing how to design a system, you cannot create new software, and it will also be difficult to learn and understand existing software and systems. That's why big tech companies like FAANG/MAANG pay special attention to System design skills and test candidates thoroughly. Earlier, I have shared system design interview questions like API Gateway vs Load Balancer , Horizontal vs Vertical Scaling , Forward proxy vs reverse proxy , and common System design concepts , and in this article, I am going to share with you the best System design books to learn Software design. Whether you are a beginner or an experienced developer, you can read these books, as you will definitely find valuable stuff. I have read them, and even though I have been doing Software development for more than 15 years, I have learned a lot. System design ** is a complex process, and you need to know a lot of stuff to actually design a system that can withstand the test of time in production. Software architecture is another field where you are expected to learn a lot of things. It's simply impossible to become a software architect by reading a few books, but if you have experience and a hunger to learn, then these books can be a gold mine. These books allow you to learn from other people's experiences. You can read these books to find what challenges they face when they design a real-world system like Spotify, Google, or Amazon, and how they overcome. Each story is a journey in itself, and you will learn a thing or two by reading and then relating with your own experience. I love to read books, and they are my primary source of learning, along with online courses nowadays. In this art

Payment data pipelines fail in ways that ruin a payments engineer’s week, and the failures rhyme. The dashboards froze. Fraud scores arrived after the transaction had already cleared. Settlement reports came in stale. Nobody slept. The frustrating part is that the same data architecture had run fine for years. So, what changed? The honest answer is that batch thinking does not survive contact with real-time payments. A lot of banks built their data foundations in an era when nightly jobs were good enough. Load the warehouse overnight, run the reports in the morning, move on. That rhythm worked when money moved slowly. It does not work when a customer expects an instant confirmation and a fraud engine has milliseconds to make a call. Here is where things crack. Real-time payment rails push a constant stream of events instead of a tidy nightly dump. Your pipeline now has to ingest, transform, and serve data while transactions are still happening. Add ISO 20022 into the mix and the pressure climbs. ISO 20022 messages are rich. They carry far more structured detail than the old formats, which is wonderful for analytics and miserable for a pipeline that was never designed to parse that much context at speed. This is not a fringe concern either. Swift reported that by the time its MT/ISO 20022 coexistence period closed in November 2025, around 80% of daily traffic was already running on the ISO 20022 format, with more than 3.1 million of these messages exchanged every day. The rich-data era is the default now, not the roadmap. Then there is the fraud-scoring window. Fraud models need fresh features. Account behaviour over the last few minutes, velocity checks, device signals. If your pipeline takes thirty seconds to surface that data, the fraud decision is already too late. You are essentially detecting fraud after the loss. That gap between when data is created and when it becomes usable is the silent killer in most payment systems. And the cost of getting it wrong runs

If your LLM costs are climbing, the instinct is almost always the same: swap to a cheaper model. GPT-4 to GPT-4-mini. Claude Opus to Claude Haiku. Sometimes that helps a little. It rarely fixes the actual problem. The actual problem, in most workflows I've looked at, is that every step gets routed through the LLM, even the steps that don't need language reasoning at all. This post breaks down a simple mental model for deciding what should and shouldn't touch an LLM, with a working example you can adapt. The four components of any AI workflow Every automated workflow — whether it's a support ticket router, a fraud check, or a content pipeline — is built from some combination of four building blocks. They get treated the same once a workflow diagram is drawn flat, but they have wildly different cost and latency profiles. Component What it does Think of it as Typical cost Trigger Starts the workflow The doorbell ~$0 Deterministic ML Structured predictions — classify, score, rank The calculator Cents per 1,000 calls LLM / Generative Reads, writes, reasons in language The writer Dollars per 1,000 calls Tool / API Fetches or writes real data The hands Cents per 1,000 calls The gap between row 2 and row 3 is the whole article. A classifier and an LLM call can solve the exact same problem, but one costs roughly 100-1000x more than the other, depending on model and provider. If you're not deliberately deciding which one handles which step, you're probably defaulting to the expensive one — because in frameworks like LangChain or a quick custom agent loop, it's just easier to shove everything into a prompt. Where this actually shows up Here's a workflow I see constantly: an automated support ticket triage system. flowchart LR A[New support ticket] --> B{Classify intent} B --> C[Route to team] B --> D[Auto-draft response] D --> E[Update CRM] A naive build sends the entire ticket text to an LLM and asks it to do everything at once: classify the intent, decide routing, draft a re

Good architecture is not only about how a system is built. It is also about how well the team can understand that system once it is running. That is where observability belongs in the architecture conversation. It is common for observability to be treated as something that comes after the main engineering work. The service gets built. The API works. The deployment succeeds. Then, somewhere near the end, the team starts thinking about logs, dashboards, alerts, and operational visibility. That approach creates a gap. The architecture may look clean on paper, but once the system is in production, the team has to understand how it behaves under real conditions. Real users do not follow the happy path perfectly. Dependencies slow down. Queues back up. Data arrives in unexpected shapes. Deployments change behavior in ways that are not always obvious. If the system does not give the team a way to see those things clearly, the architecture is incomplete. Observability is not decoration around the system. It is part of the system design. Architecture Describes the System. Observability Shows the Truth. Architecture is built on assumptions. During design, teams make reasonable guesses about usage patterns, service boundaries, dependency behavior, data flow, scale, latency, and failure modes. Some of those assumptions are based on experience. Some are based on current requirements. Some are simply the best call the team can make with the information available at the time. That is normal. The problem is not that architecture contains assumptions. Every architecture does. The problem is when those assumptions cannot be tested once the system is real. A design might assume that an external dependency will be reliable enough. Production may show that it is the slowest part of the request path. A queue might look like a clean decoupling point during design. Production may reveal retry behavior, duplication, or ordering concerns that were not obvious upfront. A serverless function m

My Testing Setup I used Midjourney V7 (midjourney.com, Standard plan at $30/mo for this project — volume was too high for Basic) over five weeks across six product photo projects: lifestyle context images, background replacement concepts, packaging mockups, and mood-board style reference images for briefing photographers. Some outputs went live in ads. Others were used internally. A few were scrapped entirely. Two specific examples: I generated 12 lifestyle context images showing a skincare product in a bathroom setting — no actual product in the image, just the environment and mood — and used them as ad backgrounds with the real product composited in afterward. Results were strong. I also tried to generate images of the actual product itself from reference photos. That failed in ways I will explain. Pricing: Standard plan at $30/mo. For product photo work at volume, Basic at $10/mo runs out fast. Budget for Standard if this is a regular workflow. 1. Lifestyle Context and Environment Images This is where Midjourney V7 earns its place in a product photo workflow. Generating the environment — a kitchen countertop, a gym bag, a coffee shop table — without needing to stage or shoot it is genuinely useful. I needed eight lifestyle backgrounds for a supplement brand's ad campaign. Real location shoots for eight setups would have cost $3,000 and taken two weeks. I generated the environments in Midjourney, exported them, and composited the real product in using Photoshop. Total cost: $30 for the month's Midjourney subscription and four hours of compositing work. The images ran in paid Meta ads for six weeks. CTR was in line with our studio-shot creative. Nobody asked if the backgrounds were AI-generated. The key: generate the environment only. Do not try to put your specific product into the Midjourney image. Composite it in post. That division of labor is where the workflow holds up. 2. Packaging Mockups for Concepts That Do Not Exist Yet Before you manufacture a product o

In this article, the author explores data poisoning as a threat to machine learning systems, covering techniques such as label flipping, backdoors, clean-label poisoning, and gradient manipulation. The article reviews real-world incidents, discusses the challenges of detecting poisoned data, and presents practical defenses, tools, and operational practices for securing ML training pipelines. By Igor Maljkovic

We asked Johan Ejdemo to list which Ikea items populate his home. He also tells us about his all-time favorite. (No, it's not a Billy bookcase.)

I bombed a system design interview last year — not because I didn't know the architecture, but because I spent the first 5 minutes fighting Excalidraw. So I built SystemDesignBoard — a free, keyboard-first whiteboard specifically for system design interviews. What it does You open it, press a key, and start drawing. No account, no onboarding, no drag-from-a-sidebar friction. R → place a Service node C → place a Database/Cache/Queue A → connect two nodes N → open the scratchpad for scale math The features I'm most proud of Animated connectors that show communication type Instead of just drawing arrows, connectors visually encode how services talk: ⇄ sync — paired dashes (request + ACK) ≋ stream — near-solid fast line with glow (continuous pipeline) This matters in interviews — your interviewer can glance at your diagram and immediately understand the communication pattern. Cloud provider badges Tag any node as AWS (EC2, Lambda, RDS, S3), GCP (GKE, Cloud Run, Firestore), or Azure. Each subtype has its own icon. Trade-off logging Right-click any node → Log Trade-offs → attach your CAP theorem stance, consistency level, and scaling strategy directly to the component. Diagram-as-Code Type: [Mobile App] -> [API Gateway] [API Gateway] -> [Auth Service] [Auth Service] -> [Users DB] [Feed Service] -> [Posts DB x3] [Feed Service] -> [Redis Cache] Hit Apply — it auto-lays out the whole architecture in seconds. Export to animated GIF Export your diagram as a GIF that shows live traffic flow animations. Great for sharing after an interview or in a design doc. Tech stack React + TypeScript + Vite @xyflow/react (ReactFlow v12) for the canvas Zustand + Immer for state with full undo/redo html-to-image + gifshot for PNG/GIF export It's free and open No signup required. Works entirely in the browser. Free during beta. 👉 systemdesignboard.com Would love feedback — especially from anyone who's done system design interviews recently. What's missing? What's annoying? Drop a comment below