标签：#design

Your monitoring catches problems on everything except itself. Here is how an always-firing Watchdog alert plus an external heartbeat check turns silence into a signal, so you find out when your own alerting dies. TL;DR A monitoring system can't reliably monitor its own failure, so use a dead man's switch. Create an always-firing Prometheus Watchdog alert and route it to an independent external heartbeat service. As long as the monitoring pipeline is working, the Watchdog continuously refreshes the heartbeat. If Prometheus, Alertmanager, or the delivery path fails, the heartbeat stops and the external service alerts you through a separate channel. The key is independence: the system responsible for detecting that your monitoring is down must not depend on the monitoring stack itself. One of the traps of creating alerts on a monitoring stack is the hidden assumption that the mechanism evaluating the alert is running properly and has the ability to evaluate it. Prometheus watches your hosts and Alertmanager delivers the warnings. But what watches Prometheus? If something goes wrong and the monitoring stack fails in the middle of the night, no alerts are going out but there is definitely a problem. That is the failure mode that you should be most concerned about, because it is the one your monitoring cannot report on. The fix is an old idea with a grim name: a dead man's switch. A train's dead man's switch stops the train when the operator stops holding it down. The safe state requires continuous positive action, while the absence of that action is what triggers the response. Applied to monitoring, it means building one alert whose silence is itself the alarm. Step one: an alert that always fires This feels backwards the first time you see it, and it took me a little time to get it right. Basically, you create an alert with a condition that is always true, so it fires constantly, forever, on purpose. In the Prometheus world this is conventionally called Watchdog. - aler

Cloudflare has launched its Internal DNS service, providing authoritative and recursive DNS for private networks. This service simplifies DNS management by consolidating private and public DNS operations on a single platform. By Gianmarco Nalin

This article presents a defense-in-depth approach for securing Model Context Protocol (MCP) deployments in production. It outlines four architectural control layers: safe execution, management infrastructure, outbound trust, and semantic integrity, arguing that production security requires enforcement beyond the gateway at the earliest trustworthy control points. By Nik Kale

This is my first dev blog I'm making a terraria mod I'm not sure if i want to start right now but i am sure to start soon i already have some ideas so here are the ideas The Operator The operator is someone i have in idea for a while kind of the lore aspect is you work it, killing bosses and giving proof to the operator for certain rewards, at first it is an Npc but after moon lord you fight him. I might bring him back as the same dude but is occupied by the Fixer as a vessel which he is chained or has custom hand cuffs for the fixer to occupies the fixer without The Operator body, without the body dying. The Dulled One This is not my idea but a alternative version of it (Game: Craft-Wars Redux Roblox, Boss: Dulled Spectrum) for credits, so I really liked this boss idea but I'm really not sure if they did what I'm doing, but his power is to erase or turn into dust or "dull". To erase certain parts of the world either matter, or space i don't want to say time because i feel like that would be boring, it can either be like passive very weak erase which it can re-gain power. Second version is the Compacted version which does way more damage, maybe one shot if i do one shot then im adding middle attacks, but deplete the dust bar by a ton so if the boss is not careful or the player stops it then you can easily beat it. it might have a regen system where if the bar is full then it heals. Also hammer both the versions the game and mine has hammer. The lore is not very fleshed out right now but i will figure it out

Beeeep. Beeeep. Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

Uber's "Zero Growth Stack" focuses on scalable infrastructure that separates capacity growth from business demand, reducing hardware needs while enhancing service scaling. Central to this is garbage collection optimisation. Additionally, generative AI is integrated into development, elevating developer productivity while introducing cost management measures to maintain economic efficiency. By Olimpiu Pop

Writing software that scales from a small monolith into a multi-team distributed system requires strict architectural discipline. The SOLID principles —coined by Robert C. Martin ("Uncle Bob")—serve as fundamental guidelines for object-oriented design and system architecture. When improperly understood, developers often fall into two extreme traps: creating monolithic "God objects" that break with every change, or over-engineering systems into hyper-fragmented, unmaintainable micro-services. In this deep-dive guide, we will break down each of the 5 SOLID principles from low-level class design up to high-level distributed systems design, complete with bad vs. refactored Java examples, system architecture diagrams, trade-off analyses, and a comprehensive cheat sheet. SOLID Principles Cheat Sheet Principle Core Concept Anti-Pattern / Code Smell Refactoring Solution Single Responsibility (SRP) A class or module should have one, and only one, reason to change (serving one business actor/domain). God Class / Micro-Fragmentation: Classes handling payment, DB, and notifications, OR over-fragmented single-function classes. Split by domain responsibility. Use orchestrator/coordinator components for workflows. Open/Closed (OCP) Software entities should be open for extension, but closed for modification . Conditional Bloat: Cascading if-else or switch statements checking object types or channels. Strategy Pattern, Dependency Injection, and Event-Driven Pub/Sub messaging (e.g., Kafka). Liskov Substitution (LSP) Subtypes must be completely substitutable for their base types without breaking client behavior. Runtime Exceptions: Subclasses throwing UnsupportedOperationException or silently breaking logic. Split fat inheritance hierarchies into granular, capability-specific interfaces. Interface Segregation (ISP) No client should be forced to depend on methods it does not use. Fat Interfaces: Monolithic interfaces forcing callers to mock or implement irrelevant methods. Role-focused

This series follows a fictional conversation between an experienced engineer and his nephew. Every episode explores one stage of how software moves from an idea to production. 👦 Nephew: Uncle, requirements are clear. I checked the codebase — there's already a FavoritesService I can extend for Wishlist. Now can I open VS Code? 👨‍🦳 Uncle: Almost. Tell me — what do you think HLD even is ? You've heard the term in every interview. What do you think it actually means? 👦 Nephew: Some kind of... diagram? Boxes connected with lines, before you start coding? 👨‍🦳 Uncle: That's what it looks like. That's not what it's for . Let me ask differently. Why do you think experienced engineers insist on drawing this before touching code, when they could just start building? 👦 Nephew: ...to plan the work? 👨‍🦳 Uncle: Closer, but still not it. Here's the real answer: HLD exists to decide, in advance, where the walls go — so that six months from now, when someone adds a new feature, they know exactly which room to build it in, without knocking down a wall that was holding up the ceiling. 👦 Nephew: That's a strange way to describe a diagram. 👨‍🦳 Uncle: Then let me show you, instead of describing it. That's the only way this actually lands. What Talks to What 👨‍🦳 Uncle: Suppose we're building this at Flipkart. Not a college project — a company with hundreds of live services, where breaking one thing can affect ten others you've never even heard of. Here's the simplest picture for Wishlist. Frontend ↓ Wishlist API ↓ Wishlist Service ↓ Database 👦 Nephew: That's it? Four boxes? 👨‍🦳 Uncle: That's it. HLD answers exactly one question, and nothing more — what talks to what. Not how the button looks. Not what fields the database table has. Just: which component calls which, and in what direction. 👦 Nephew: Then why does everyone treat it like it's such a big deal? This took ten seconds to draw. 👨‍🦳 Uncle: Because the value isn't in the ten seconds you spend drawing it today. The value is in what i

Elena van Engelen discusses how to eliminate serverless vendor lock-in without sacrificing native cloud capabilities. She explains how to structure FaaS applications using Clean Architecture, Spring Cloud Function, and Gradle modules to isolate business logic. Finally, she shares a live demo deploying portable Kotlin services across AWS and Azure using Terraform CDK for multi-cloud IaC. By Elena van Engelen

Disclosure: This post includes affiliate links; I may receive compensation if you purchase products or services from the different links provided in this article. Credit: codemia.io Hello Devs, if you're preparing for software engineering interviews, particularly in MAANG, you already know that Data Structures & Algorithms (DSA) and System Design are two key areas where you will be rigorously tested. While LeetCode is the go-to platform for DSA, system design has always been a challenge. While there are many websites and platforms to prepare for System Design Interviews like ByteByteGo , DesignGurus.io , Exponent , Educative , and Udemy , there is nothing like LeetCode. These are great resources to learn fundamentals, go through case studies, and understand the theory part of system design, but LeetCode-style practice is one thing that is missing - until now. I recently found Codemia.io , and I must say, it feels like the LeetCode for System Design. If you've struggled with structuring your system design answers, getting real feedback, or knowing whether your approach is correct, Codemia.io is a game-changer. They not only have the biggest collection of System Design and OOP Design problems for practice, but they also have a free System Design course called Tackling System Design Interview Problems , which is a great free resource to learn essential System Design concepts. It's a short course with 2 hours of content, but it's powerful and also has quizzes to test your skills. Here are all the key System Design topics you can learn on this free course: Now, let's check out how Codemia.io can help you to prepare better for your System design and OOP Design interview, and why I think it's like Leetcode for System design. Most system design resources today are long, text-heavy articles or expensive courses. The problem? No hands-on practice - Reading about system design isn't enough; you need to actively design solutions. No structured progression --- Unlike DSA, where

Most architecture decision records fail for the opposite reason people think. The issue usually isn't that teams forget to write them. It's that the ones they write are filled with the wrong content. The key information a reader needs—why this option instead of the others—often gets buried on page three under a list of API changes. An ADR has one job: capture a decision that is costly to reverse, along with the reasoning that led to it, while that reasoning is still fresh. That's all. It isn't a design document, a specification, or a collection of research. If you keep that focus, everything else about what to include or leave out will follow naturally. The format that still works Michael Nygard's original ADR template from 2011 (title, status, context, decision, consequences) has lasted for a reason. It directly addresses the key questions a future reader has: What was the situation? What did we decide? What did we give up? Teams that add ten extra sections, like owners, review dates, risk matrices, or approval lists, usually end up with a document no one finishes reading, which defeats the purpose. If your ADR template is longer than the time it takes to fill it out for a simple decision, cut sections until it’s more concise. A useful rule of thumb is that an ADR longer than a page and a half is often a design document masquerading as an ADR. This isn’t a strict rule, but I haven’t seen a truly good ADR exceed 600 words. The decisions worth documenting this way can be stated, justified, and owned in about a page. If that's not possible, the record isn’t the issue. The decision is probably still tied up with other unresolved matters. What belongs The decision, stated clearly. "We will use event-driven integration between the order and inventory services instead of synchronous REST calls" is a decision. "The order service integrates with inventory" simply describes the current state and belongs in a wiki, not an ADR. The challenges faced. Describe the two or three a

It's easy to reach for the popular tool before asking what your system actually needs. For job queueing, the usual advice is to use RabbitMQ or Kafka. The underlying burden of using these tools will be additional processes to deploy, monitor and reason about. But what if using your existing database is possible? I built a job queueing system with a PostgreSQL database that cleared the bar without adding infrastructure. The next question will be, does this solution meet the criteria of a job queue? A job needs a few things to execute properly within a system. It needs to be persistent, surviving unforeseen crashes. Jobs must not be processed more than once by workers; one job should be processed once by one worker. Also, a job's state has to be tracked through every step. A job state must show when it's pending, completed or failed. That's the bar any solution must clear. With the Postgres approach, persistence comes free. Jobs live in a table so when a worker dies mid-job, the job still exists in a row in the db. Whereas with in-memory queues, a crash loses everything still in memory. A broker like RabbitMQ has to be configured for persistence and if configured wrongly, jobs get lost. A database however is fundamentally built for durability. Now, let's say three workers poll the queue at the same instant and run the same query. They'll see the same pending job at the top and nothing stops them all from grabbing it. If that job is a payment, the customer gets charged three times for one service. All the workers successfully process the job with no indication of an error or alerts. This is the requirement that seems to demand a real message broker, and it's exactly where people assume a database can't compete. It can. Postgres has a specific tool for exactly this. The SQL clause FOR UPDATE is used to lock rows. This can be called on a job when a worker picks it up to process. By default other workers will get blocked during this process, they'll wait for the lock to r

I'm a marketer. When I land on a developer tool's website, I don't open the pricing page. I don't read the features. I don't watch the demo. I ask one question: "Can I explain what this product does in 10 seconds?" If the answer is no, you've already lost me. I've worked with enough SaaS products to know that most of them don't have a product problem. They have a communication problem. Developers spend weeks building a feature. Marketing spends days trying to explain it. Users spend three seconds deciding whether it's worth their time. That's a brutal mismatch. The best products I've seen don't try to sound intelligent. They try to sound obvious. You read the headline and instantly think, "I know exactly who this is for." That's incredibly hard to achieve. And it's usually the result of dozens of conversations between product, engineering, support, and marketing. So here's my hot take: A feature isn't finished when it's merged into main . It's finished when a complete stranger understands why it exists. As a marketer, that's the lesson building products has taught me. Curious to hear from developers: Have you ever built something technically impressive that users simply... didn't understand?

Back-of-the-envelope estimation for system design interviews Most people don't fail capacity math because the arithmetic is hard. They fail because they do it silently, produce a number they can't defend, and then never use it again for the rest of the interview. The math itself is trivial. The method is what's worth learning. Why interviewers ask Capacity estimation isn't a numeracy test. It's checking two things: Can you tell whether a design is physically possible before you commit to it? Do you know which constraint actually binds — storage, read throughput, write throughput, or bandwidth? A candidate who estimates 30,000 reads/sec and 200 writes/sec has learned something that changes the design. A candidate who computes petabytes of storage and then never mentions it again has just performed arithmetic. Round aggressively Precision is a trap. You're not producing a capacity plan; you're finding the order of magnitude. The single most useful substitution: 1 day = 86,400 seconds ≈ 10^5 seconds That's a 16% error and it makes every subsequent division doable in your head. Nobody will challenge it. Everyone will notice if you spend forty seconds long-dividing by 86,400. A few more worth having ready: 1 million requests/day ≈ 12/sec — round to 10 1 KB × 1 million = 1 GB 1 KB × 1 billion = 1 TB Peak traffic ≈ 2–3× average Replicated storage ≈ 3× raw ## Work in one direction Users → requests → QPS → storage → bandwidth. Don't jump around. Say each assumption out loud and label it as an assumption, so the interviewer can correct you early rather than watch you build on sand. A worked example Say we're designing a social feed. Given: 100M daily active users. Assumptions (stated, not smuggled in): Each user posts 0.2 times/day Each user reads their feed 10 times/day A post averages 1 KB including metadata A feed page shows 20 posts Writes 100M × 0.2 = 20M posts/day 20M / 10^5 = 200 writes/sec Peak (3×) = 600 writes/sec Reads 100M × 10 = 1B feed loads/day 1B / 10^5 = 10,0

When you're building a multi-tenant SaaS, the first architectural question is usually: how do you keep tenant data isolated? The options range from separate databases per tenant (maximum isolation, maximum cost) to a shared database with row-level filtering (minimum cost, more careful coding required). But there's an equally important question that gets less attention: how does your API know which tenant context a request belongs to? This post covers a pattern we've used in production: a custom request header for tenant scoping, combined with JWT authentication. Simple to implement, easy to audit, and flexible enough to support multi-tenant access from a single user account. The Three Common Approaches 1. Subdomain-based ( tenant.yourdomain.com ) The tenant is encoded in the hostname. Each subdomain routes to the same backend, which extracts the tenant from the Host header. Good: Intuitive, visible in the URL. Bad: Requires wildcard TLS certs, more complex DNS setup, awkward in development, doesn't work for mobile API clients the same way. 2. URL path-based ( /api/tenants/{tenantId}/... ) The tenant identifier is part of every route path. Good: RESTful, self-documenting. Bad: Bloats all route definitions, requires every endpoint to include the tenant segment, makes API versioning messier. 3. Header-based ( x-tenant-id: <id> ) A custom header carries the tenant context. Routes stay clean. The tenant scope is resolved in middleware before the handler runs. Good: Routes stay simple, middleware handles scoping uniformly, works well with JWT auth, easy to test. Bad: Less visible (the tenant isn't in the URL), requires clients to always include the header. We use the header approach. The Implementation The API accepts two forms of auth: A JWT token in the Authorization header — identifies who is making the request A tenant ID in the x-tenant-id header — identifies on behalf of which tenant POST /api/v1/members Authorization: Bearer eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIs... x-tenant-id: ten

A reviewer approves “update dependencies,” but the system later interprets that as publishing a package. The human was present; meaningful approval was not. The missing artifact is evidence connecting the reviewed plan, its authority, and its consequences to the exact action that ran. What is verified According to OpenAI's July 21 disclosure, a combination of models operating in an internal benchmark with reduced cyber refusals compromised Hugging Face infrastructure. The primary statement is https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-model-evaluation-security-incident/ . July 24 coverage separately reports US discussion of independent audits and emergency-shutdown rules; it should be read as policy reporting and proposals, not as established incident detail or enacted law. Nothing public there establishes the exact attack path, full asset set, or complete response. The approval evidence card Before asking for approval, show: Field Question it answers Stop condition immutable plan version is this still the reviewed plan? version changed actions and arguments what will happen? hidden or wildcard action destinations where will effects land? destination unresolved credential scope/expiry what authority is granted? broad or persistent grant reversibility what can be undone? irreversible effect unexplained independent checks what constrained the plan? required check missing stop receipt did revocation complete? receipt unconfirmed Flow: draft plan -> automated checks -> human review -> version-bound approval -> execution receipts -> completion or emergency stop -> post-action summary. Any plan mutation loops back to review. “Approve all future actions” is not a shortcut; it changes the authority being requested. Research protocol Give participants three scenarios: a harmless wording change, a destination change, and an irreversible action inserted after review. Ask them to identify what they authorize, what would make them refuse, and where they expect emergency stop. Success

Originally published on hexisteme notes . A while back I wrote about why your vibe-coded app looks worse than you expect. That post diagnosed the cause. This one is the fix that actually worked, on a real job: redesigning the mascot in my trip expense-splitting app. The mascot is the face of the app. It shows up in more than twenty places — onboarding, settings, the stats screen, the map, the diary, the settlement report, and five little mini-games. And it was nothing. One circle did double duty as head and body. No legs. No hands. No eyebrows. One X for an eye. Visually its identity was zero: a tinted circle. I knew it was bad. What I could not do was say what to change. Words don't converge on a picture I kept talking myself in circles about it, and so did the AI I was pairing with. Rounder? Add a hat? Bigger eyes? Every sentence sounded reasonable and none of them moved the decision. At some point I noticed what was actually going on: this was not a shortage of information. Nobody needed to go fetch a fact. It was a shortage of fidelity . A visual decision cannot converge in prose, because prose is not the medium the decision lives in. That is the tell. When a discussion loops and more words don't help, you don't need more analysis — you need a picture. So I stopped arguing and built prototypes. Three variants, not more tints The rule I gave myself: make variants that are structurally different, not palette swaps. Different silhouette, different anatomy, a different device carrying the identity. Repainting the same shape in different colors teaches you nothing. Three genuinely different creatures force a real choice. I built three and rendered every one as an action sheet so I could look at them side by side: A, a jelly bean. The safe evolution of what I already had. It slots into the UI cleanly, but its whole identity hangs on a single coin floating over its head. Shrink it and it's just a round blob again. B, a wallet. Object personification: a wallet body with

Round and round we go Gaining an advantage in AI design workflow's isn't based on better prompting. It's something we've been doing for decades... First off, this isn’t an "AI is taking my job" post. It’s a "who’s already got an edge?" post. As AI settles into creative workflows, a divide is opening up. Some people consistently get better results. Experience helps, but something deeper is at play... an insight sitting in plain sight. Enter the Art Director I’ve never carried the title, but I’ve worked with enough Art Directors to appreciate their superpower. It isn’t simply seeing the vision... it’s being able to articulate it. They instinctively know how to explain why something isn’t working and what needs to change. They choose words that shape an idea. Words that push, pull, tighten, soften, emphasize, and refine . Think about a typical creative brief. It rarely says, "Make a brochure." It says: "The typography should feel established, but not corporate." "Give the layout room to breathe." "The call-to-action should feel confident, not aggressive." None of those are technical instructions. They're creative direction. Today, the prompt bar is simply a new creative brief. Those same words can guide an AI model to the same destination. Prompt Seekers Lament Sometimes we become prompt seekers, searching for a magical combination of words that will produce perfection on the first try. Anyone in design knows how unrealistic that is. The first concept is rarely the finished concept. Designer presents, client reacts, designer refines, client reacts again... and round you go. Iteration wasn't a workaround. It was the process all along. Yet the trend on X is always some eye-catching image with everyone asking for the "one-and-done" prompt. AI is great at creating options. It's much less impressive at knowing which option is right. Cue the Director Instead of saying, "Something isn't right," an Art Director diagnoses the problem: "The composition is balanced, but the visua

Guidelines, not rules. Here's the difference — and why it matters. What is SOLID? SOLID is a set of software design guidelines — not hard rules, but principles that guide how we organize our code. The goal is simple: as your codebase grows and your team scales, things should get easier to change, not harder. SOLID is what makes that possible. Five principles. One goal. Let's walk through each one with real code. S — Single Responsibility Principle A class, function, or method should have one and only one reason to change. The Violation class Bird : def __init__ ( self , name : str , bird_type : str ): self . name = name self . bird_type = bird_type def make_sound ( self ): # two jobs — deciding the type AND making the sound if self . bird_type == " parrot " : print ( " Squawk! " ) elif self . bird_type == " eagle " : print ( " Screech! " ) elif self . bird_type == " owl " : print ( " Hoot! " ) else : print ( " ... " ) make_sound() has two responsibilities — deciding which bird type it is AND making the sound. That's two reasons to change. Add a new bird? Touch make_sound() . Change how sounds work? Touch make_sound() again. Two different reasons, one method. SRP violated. The Fix from abc import ABC , abstractmethod class Bird ( ABC ): def __init__ ( self , name : str ): self . name = name @abstractmethod def make_sound ( self ): pass class Parrot ( Bird ): def make_sound ( self ): print ( " Squawk! " ) class Eagle ( Bird ): def make_sound ( self ): print ( " Screech! " ) class Owl ( Bird ): def make_sound ( self ): print ( " Hoot! " ) # Usage birds = [ Parrot ( " Polly " ), Eagle ( " Sam " ), Owl ( " Oliver " )] for bird in birds : bird . make_sound () Now each class has one responsibility. Parrot.make_sound() only changes if parrots change how they sound. Nothing else touches it. O — Open/Closed Principle A class should be open for extension but closed for modification. SRP and OCP go hand in hand. When you fixed SRP in the Bird example above — you also fixed OCP.

An app called ToneAdapt is pulling in roughly $25K/month, five months after launch, built by one person with no funding and no team. It solves one narrow problem: guitarists want to sound like their favorite recordings, but tutorials and gear reviews rarely match what's actually sitting in their room. Input your guitar, amp, and pedals, pick a song, and it spits out the exact settings to get there. It's not a big, category-defining idea. It's a small, sharp one, solved well, and marketed relentlessly. That combination is worth breaking down. The Numbers The founder shared these publicly: combined web and mobile revenue is running around $25K/month, split roughly evenly between a Stripe-powered website and a mobile app on RevenueCat. Mobile has under 400 active subscribers. Pricing is aggressive for a mobile app, $10/week, or about $60/year, which works because it's solving a moment of real frustration rather than sitting as a passive subscription people forget about. Worth noting: these numbers come from a founder interview, so treat them as a snapshot of where the business was at that point rather than a live dashboard. The shape of the story, fast growth on a narrow niche with aggressive pricing, is the part worth paying attention to. Marketing: Almost Entirely UGC The founder posted three times a day across Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook. Most of it didn't land. Once a specific format started converting, he stopped experimenting and went all-in, bringing in UGC creators and running paid ads on top of the format that already worked. That's the actual playbook: post relentlessly, watch for the one format that converts, then stop spreading effort thin and pour it all into what's already working. The Pattern Behind It The reason this works isn't guitar tone specifically. It's a translation problem: someone sees a result they want, but the instructions that got that result assume gear they don't have. The gap between "here's what worked for them" and "here's