标签：#go

Leetcode 27: Remove Element Leetcode 27 asks us to remove a specific value from an array. The value to be removed is passed in as a parameter to the function along with the array. Just as we did in Day 1, we will cover a naive approach and an optimized approach and discuss the trade-offs between them. I think in the end there's a pretty clear winner. Let's get started. For both approaches we will use the following values: nums = [1, 3, 3, 2, 4] val = 3 Approach 1: Naive (For Loop + Splice) This approach uses a for loop and leverages .splice() for removals. Solution: var removeElement = function ( nums , val ) { let k = 0 ; for ( let i = 0 ; i < nums . length ; i ++ ) { if ( nums [ i ] === val ) { nums . splice ( i , 1 ); i -- ; } else { k ++ ; } } return k ; }; We begin by initializing a variable k to 0. We then enter the for loop. The condition is standard: create a variable i initialized to 0, continue looping while i is less than nums.length to avoid going past the end of the array, and increment by 1 each time through. Each iteration checks one condition: whether nums[i] is equal to val . If true, we call .splice() on the array. The arguments we pass to splice are i and 1 . i is the index at which we want to start removing, and 1 tells splice to remove only that one element. We then decrement i . The reason for this took me some time to wrap my brain around, so I have included a visual below to make it concrete. The core issue is this: when splice removes an element, every element to the right shifts one index to the left. Without i-- , the loop would increment i on the next iteration and skip right over the element that just shifted in. i-- counteracts that by stepping i back, so after the loop increments it, i lands exactly where the shifted element now sits. If nums[i] !== val , we skip the splice and increment k instead. At the end we return k , which holds the count of elements remaining after all occurrences of val have been removed. Time complexity: O(n²)

Lovable and Google signed an expanded multiyear deal that involves a 5x expansion of Lovable's footprint on Google Cloud, and expanded access to Anthropic Claude.

Defense tech is red hot right now. Anduril and Mach Industries just doubled and quadrupled their valuations, respectively, and the U.S. government is proposing a 40% increase in defense budget. A wave of new startups is chasing those government contracts, but according to Ross Fubini, the venture investor who wrote Anduril’s first check, most of them will get lost in the Valley of Death between prototype contract […]

Google must change AI Overviews after claiming users don't want "lots of sources."

Gemma 4 12B uses a new encoding scheme and token prediction to punch above its weight.

Dreambeans is a curated list of AI-illustrated "stories" culled from the personal data in your Google account.

GitHub热门项目 | Find vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, secrets, SBOM in containers, Kubernetes, code repositories, clouds and more | Stars: 35,334 | 26 stars today | 语言: Go

Cursor's Developer Habits Report is one of the clearest signals yet that AI coding has crossed from individual productivity into software-delivery infrastructure. The headline numbers read as a story about speed: more code per week, larger PRs, deeper agent sessions, more changes committing without manual review. The deeper implication is governance -- whether teams can preserve architectural intent while generation, review, automation, and commit flows all accelerate at once. The velocity curve is now measured, not anecdotal. For two years the claim that AI coding is accelerating rested mostly on vibes and vendor decks. Cursor's data turns it into telemetry. And read as an operations document rather than a marketing one, that telemetry describes a structural shift: software delivery is getting harder to govern, not just faster to produce. This is not a critique of Cursor. The report is strong validation. Cursor proves the velocity curve with numbers most of the industry only gestured at. The point of this essay is what sits on the other side of that curve. What the Cursor Developer Habits Report Shows The inaugural Cursor Developer Habits Report (Spring 2026 edition), published by Cursor (Anysphere, Inc.), draws on Cursor usage data rather than survey responses. It captures the transformation across five themes -- developer acceleration, the economics of intelligence, the power user gap, the rise of context, and the shift to automation. The headline figures: 3.6K -> 8.6K lines added per developer per week -- the per-developer code volume rose from 3.6K (Jan 2025) to 8.6K (May 2026), with growth accelerating since the start of 2026. 125.86 -> 345.02 lines per PR at p75 -- lines added per pull request at the 75th percentile rose roughly 2.5x year over year (Jan 2025 to May 2026). Developers are taking on larger units of work in a single PR. 8% -> 13.8% mega PRs -- the share of PRs with at least 1,000 changed lines grew from 8% (Jan 2025) to 13.8% (May 2026). ~30% mor

Microsoft's Agentic Transformation Patterns Playbook is a useful signal because it does not treat AI agents as another productivity tool. It frames agentic AI as an enterprise operating-model shift: agents are moving from assisting humans to executing work across processes, systems, and teams. The implication for software teams is sharper than it looks -- coding agents are on the same trajectory, and architectural governance becomes part of the infrastructure stack the moment agents start executing. Microsoft's playbook describes six transformation patterns and emphasizes that each pattern requires different ownership, governance, and operating discipline. That is the move worth paying attention to. It reframes agentic AI from a model question into an enterprise operating-model question. That shift matters for software teams because coding agents are following the same path. They are moving from autocomplete to execution. Once agents edit files, open PRs, modify infrastructure, or coordinate multi-step changes, architectural governance becomes infrastructure. What is Microsoft's Agentic Transformation Playbook? Microsoft's playbook is a practical guide for choosing, scaling, and operating AI agents across the enterprise. Public summaries describe it as a 52-slide guide covering six transformation patterns, from employee productivity to core business processes and customer-facing agents. The throughline is that agents are not a single category -- they are a family of patterns with different ownership models, different risk surfaces, and different requirements for governance. That framing matters because it cuts against the dominant adoption narrative. Most enterprises are still treating AI as a per-team productivity story: this team gets Copilot, that team gets an internal assistant, another team is piloting an agent for support tickets. Microsoft is arguing that the pattern of deployment determines the operating discipline required, and that ad-hoc deployment does n

Google's Managed Agents announcement is one of the clearest signals yet that the AI industry is moving beyond stateless tool calling toward persistent execution environments and long-running agent systems. That shift expands what models can do. It also expands the governance surface -- from prompt and PR review into the runtime itself. We spent two years building brains in jars For most of the current AI cycle, the system around the model has been thin. Models could reason, propose commands, and orchestrate small tool calls. But they ran in short sessions, against narrow APIs, under human supervision, with ephemeral state. The model was a brain; the body was a few HTTP requests and a JSON tool schema. That assumption is ending. The frontier is not just better reasoning. It is a body for the brain. The brain finally has a body. Now it needs governance. The runtime layer for AI agents is arriving Google Managed Agents (and the parallel motion across the ecosystem -- OpenAI's containerized execution work, Claude Code's persistent sessions, MCP-based tool ecosystems, hosted agent harnesses) formalizes the runtime as a product: Sandboxed execution Persistent state across sessions Orchestration loops Infrastructure-native agents Agent-as-a-service lifecycle Long-running sessions Mid-session tool injection Managed runtime lifecycle This resembles the transition from scripts -> applications -> cloud platforms. Agents are no longer just calling tools. They are beginning to inhabit programmable environments . Why persistent agent systems change governance Once agents can continuously modify filesystems, maintain state across sessions, autonomously remediate, inject tools dynamically, operate against production systems, and coordinate across workflows, governance failures stop being one-off review misses. They compound over time . What that compounding looks like: Architectural drift -- small deviations accumulate across long-running sessions Policy propagation failures -- con

The Faros AI Engineering Report 2026 is not a survey of developer sentiment. It is two years of telemetry from 22,000 developers across 4,000 teams, measuring what AI adoption actually produces downstream. The findings have a name: the Acceleration Whiplash. The structural explanation has one too. What the telemetry actually shows The output numbers in the Faros report are real and worth stating plainly. Epics completed per developer are up 66.2%. Task throughput per developer is up 33.7%. PR merge rate per developer is up 16.2%. These represent genuine delivery acceleration, and dismissing them would be dishonest. AI coding tools are producing real productivity gains at the business level. The production quality numbers are also real: Metric Change Incidents per PR under high AI adoption +242.7% Median time in code review +441.5% Code churn (lines deleted to lines added) +861% PRs merged with no review at all 31.3% Source: Faros AI Engineering Report 2026: The Acceleration Whiplash . Telemetry from 22,000 developers across 4,000+ teams. Figures represent metric change from lowest to highest AI adoption periods within each organization. Both sets of numbers are true simultaneously. That is the whiplash. Throughput accelerated. The downstream systems built to validate that throughput did not. Plotted together, generation throughput rises steeply while control capacity stays nearly flat -- and the gap between the two curves is the governance debt. Why the systems did not scale Code review, incident response, and architectural validation were all designed for a world where development velocity was human-paced. A senior engineer could review the meaningful PRs in a sprint. An incident postmortem could trace a failure to a specific change and a specific decision gap. Architectural drift was visible because it moved slowly enough to catch. AI-generated code broke these assumptions quietly. Not because the code was obviously bad, but because it was often superficially conv

Compact power banks have gotten a lot faster in the past year — and it’s not just their USB-C charging speeds that have received a boost. The newest Qi2.2-certified models can wirelessly charge an iPhone 16 or later at up to 25W. Combine that with their ability to magnetically snap on via MagSafe, and you’ve […]

After shelving the original executive order last month, Donald Trump finally got on board Monday night.

At Red Hat Summit 2026, SWIFT shared the approach they’re rolling out — including the pilot results that informed it, and the scale they’re targeting next. Imagine running automation that touches roughly one third of global GDP every day. Tens of thousands of VMs, network devices in production, elevated privileges across production systems — and every playbook you run is, effectively, a software supply chain. That is the everyday reality at SWIFT, the secure financial messaging backbone connecting 11,000+ financial institutions across more than 200 countries. At Red Hat Summit 2026, Suvasish Ghosh , Product Owner for CI/CD Engineering and DevOps Engineering Services at SWIFT, joined Gregor Berginc , CEO of XLAB Steampunk, on stage to talk about how SWIFT is using Steampunk Spotter to govern Ansible automation at this scale. Why automation at SWIFT scale needs governance by design For SWIFT, security, availability and auditability are not features added on top — they are baseline engineering requirements. Regulatory frameworks (including DORA) codify the expectations, but as Suvasish made clear on stage, governance is by design at SWIFT, not driven solely by regulation. That stance reflects a simple truth that more and more platform teams are arriving at: automation is production infrastructure, and it must be governed as such. When you run an Ansible playbook, you are executing a software supply chain — collections, modules, roles, Python packages, system packages, the execution environment, the operating system underneath. The playbook itself is just the tip of the iceberg. Errors propagate fast. The blast radius is large. And yet, until recently, most of the security and compliance attention in IT organizations went to the applications shipping to production. The automation that built and configured everything around them often slipped through. Suvasish put it directly during the session: “We spent a lot of time being compliant and secure in our application, but w

U.K. regulators are requiring Google offer a tool allowing website publishers to opt-out of generative AI search features. The option will be tested in the U.K. then rolled out globally.

Google has expanded its water stewardship projects in the midst of growing unrest over data centers' water usage.

Researchers are using machine learning algorithms to decrypt historical pencil-and-paper ciphers.

Google, Microsoft, and other hyperscalers have come under scrutiny for their impact on water quality and availability.

🚀 Try it now: Open the Arthas web app — create a room, share the code, chat with E2EE. No signup needed. TL;DR — Try It in 2 Minutes No signup required. A free public server is running at wss://arthas100-arthas-server.hf.space/ws . 1. Create an encrypted room (CLI) # Linux/macOS — download and make executable curl -L -o arthas-cli https://github.com/michaelwang123/arthas/releases/latest/download/arthas-cli chmod +x arthas-cli # Windows (PowerShell) — download the .exe # curl.exe -L -o arthas-cli.exe https://github.com/michaelwang123/arthas/releases/latest/download/arthas-cli-windows-amd64.exe # Create a room — generates AES-256 key locally, outputs share code ./arthas-cli create --server wss://arthas100-arthas-server.hf.space/ws --name "Alice" # Windows: .\arthas-cli.exe create --server wss://arthas100-arthas-server.hf.space/ws --name "Alice" # Output: # ✓ Room created! Share code: # QYEq9uxfKP9h-KCUsPUay:NlZezXoUErYr92grhif3Y-Hy3FOOK1ocb3WocCJJrQM # # The encryption key never leaves your device. ⚠️ Keep this terminal open — the room exists only while at least one participant is connected. 2. Join from another terminal (or send the code to a friend) # Linux/macOS ./arthas-cli join QYEq9uxfKP9h-KCUsPUay:NlZezXoUErYr92grhif3Y-Hy3FOOK1ocb3WocCJJrQM \ --server wss://arthas100-arthas-server.hf.space/ws \ --name "Bob" # Windows # .\arthas-cli.exe join QYEq9uxfKP9h-KCUsPUay:NlZezXoUErYr92grhif3Y-Hy3FOOK1ocb3WocCJJrQM --server wss://arthas100-arthas-server.hf.space/ws --name "Bob" That's it — you're chatting end-to-end encrypted. The server only sees ciphertext blobs; it cannot read, store, or parse anything. 💡 Prefer a web UI? Open the Arthas web app , create a room, and share the code. Bonus: Connect an AI Agent to the Same Room Every AI agent channel today (Telegram bots, Slack apps, Discord) transmits prompts in plaintext. With Arthas, your AI joins the encrypted room as a regular participant — the server can't tell human from bot (both are encrypted binary blobs). npm

In the face of widespread backlash to the AI data center buildout throughout the US, Google is touting its efforts to minimize the environmental impact by actually increasing water for local communities. The company laid out five commitments around water use in a new blog post published Wednesday, including a goal to replenish more water […]