标签：#local

Both vulnerabilities allow untrusted users to gain root privileges.

I spent three iterations on an auto-fix pipeline that still doesn't work reliably. Here's what I learned. Loop 1 Wrote a background script. Pull tickets from Azure DevOps, run them through a local model, hand to a coding agent, push the result. Poll → triage → fix → push. Worked 40% of the time on trivial tickets. Anything that crossed file boundaries or needed real context — stalled or hallucinated. I shipped it anyway. That was naive. Loop 2 Made it smarter. Pre-selected relevant files. Broke big tickets into subtasks. Turned complex edits into atomic steps with verification between each. Got it to 55% or so. But every fix created two new edge cases. The complexity was compounding faster than the reliability. Loop 3 Went all in. Embeddings for dedup. Multi-repo routing. Auto-revert. A learning loop that fed failures back into future runs. The model server started dying. 890 memory errors in a day. Root cause: two independent consumers hitting the same local model server, each with its own retry loop. When memory filled up, retries amplified instead of staggering. The system was making itself worse. Fixes were simple in hindsight — stop retrying OOM, serialize access, use the local binary not npx. But the pattern kept repeating: add more to fix the last thing, break something else. Where I'm At The pipeline still only works on easy tickets. Hard ones need a human. After three rounds, the main thing I learned is that local models hit a wall before your ambition does — not in quality, in working memory. And adding features doesn't fix reliability gaps. It just moves them around. The 507 retry spiral taught me more than any successful deploy this year. Because it was entirely my fault. Not the model's, not the framework's. I built concurrent consumers with independent retry loops and expected them to coordinate. They didn't. What's Next I'll do a fourth loop. Smaller. A dedicated fast model for cheap work, the big model only for editing. One consumer at a time. Might

Dai metadati in una lingua a 20 localizzazioni senza impazzire tra click e schermate: un flusso pratico per indie e piccoli team. Localizzare un’app non significa solo tradurre le stringhe dell’interfaccia. Una buona parte dell’acquisizione organica passa dai metadati su App Store Connect : titolo, sottotitolo, descrizione e keyword. Il problema è che, quando provi a farlo “a mano” dal pannello web, diventa subito un lavoro di pura resistenza: apri la scheda, cambi lingua, compili i campi, salvi, ripeti. Ora moltiplica per 10–20 lingue. Per molti indie (e in generale per chi ha poco tempo e zero voglia di click ripetitivi) il punto di svolta è usare ASC CLI per rendere questa attività automatizzabile, ripetibile e verificabile . Perché la localizzazione dei metadati è un caso d’uso perfetto per una CLI Dal punto di vista del flusso di lavoro, i metadati App Store hanno tre caratteristiche che li rendono ideali per l’automazione: Sono campi strutturati (title, subtitle, description, keywords): non stai “inventando” contenuti ogni volta, stai trasformando contenuti. Sono ripetitivi per lingua : la sequenza di operazioni è identica, cambia solo la locale. Sono tanti : più lingue aggiungi, più l’approccio manuale scala male (tempo, errori, incoerenze). Con una CLI, invece, il lavoro si sposta dal “fare cose” al definire un processo : prendi i metadati di partenza, generi le varianti linguistiche, applichi l’update in batch. Cosa conviene localizzare (e cosa no) In genere ha senso includere in un passaggio di localizzazione “massiva”: App name / title (attenzione ai limiti e ai trademark) Subtitle (spesso è la parte più ASO-oriented) Description (qui conta più la leggibilità che la traduzione letterale) Keywords (campo delicato: va adattato, non tradotto alla cieca) Al contrario, è meglio trattare con più cautela: Claim e frasi marketing molto creative : in alcune lingue risultano innaturali se tradotte letteralmente Keyword strategy : la ricerca utenti cambia per mercat

LLM costs scale linearly with usage. A system processing 10,000 requests a day at $0.01 per request costs $100 daily — $365 a year. At enterprise scale, that's over $10,000. Cost optimization isn't about cutting corners. It's about spending tokens where they matter. Every token you waste is a token you could have spent on a better answer. Token budgeting The simplest way to control costs is to set limits. Per session, per task, or per day. Strategy 1: Per-Session Budgets Per-session budgets are straightforward: class SessionBudget : def __init__ ( self , budget_tokens : int = 10000 ): self . budget = budget_tokens self . used = 0 def allocate ( self , tokens : int ) -> bool : if self . used + tokens <= self . budget : self . used += tokens return True return False def remaining ( self ) -> int : return self . budget - self . used Strategy 2: Per-Task Budgets Per-task budgets are more useful. Different tasks need different amounts of context: task_budgets : classify : max_tokens : 100 model : qwen2.5-1.5b summarize : max_tokens : 500 model : qwen2.5-7b code_review : max_tokens : 2000 model : qwen2.5-coder-7b reason : max_tokens : 4000 model : qwen2.5-32b Strategy 3: Adaptive Budgets Adaptive budgets adjust based on what actually happens. If classification tasks consistently use 80 tokens, stop allocating 100: class AdaptiveBudget : def __init__ ( self ): self . task_history = {} def allocate ( self , task_type : str ) -> int : if task_type in self . task_history : return int ( self . task_history [ task_type ] * 1.5 ) return 1000 def record ( self , task_type : str , tokens_used : int ): if task_type not in self . task_history : self . task_history [ task_type ] = tokens_used else : self . task_history [ task_type ] = ( 0.9 * self . task_history [ task_type ] + 0.1 * tokens_used ) The exponential moving average (0.9 weight) means recent usage matters more than history. Adjust the weight based on how volatile your workloads are. API vs local inference Local inference

Running a 70B parameter model to summarize a 200-word email is wasteful. Running a 3B model to review production code is reckless. Most systems live somewhere in between — and that's where model routing comes in. It matches task complexity to model capability. The tradeoffs are real, but the savings are too. The routing problem People usually start with one model and stick with it. That works until you notice the cost, or the latency, or both. The alternative is building a router — something that decides which model handles which request. Four strategies work in practice: Capability-based — route by what the model can do Cost-aware — route by what you're willing to spend Latency-aware — route by how fast you need it Hybrid — combine them Each optimizes something different. Picking one is usually a decision about what hurts most. Capability-based routing The simplest approach. Classify the task, send it to the model that handles it. Task Model size Examples Classification, tagging 1-3B Qwen2.5-1.5B, Gemma-2-2B Summarization, extraction 3-7B Qwen2.5-7B, Llama-3.1-8B Code generation 7-14B Qwen2.5-Coder-7B, DeepSeek-Coder-V2 Complex reasoning 14-32B Qwen2.5-32B, Llama-3.1-70B Creative writing, analysis 32B+ Qwen2.5-72B, Claude, GPT-4 If the task doesn't need the bigger model, don't use it. A 1.5B model handles sentiment classification fine. It just won't write a coherent essay. Implementation is straightforward: ROUTING_RULES = { " classify " : { " model " : " qwen2.5-1.5b " , " max_tokens " : 100 }, " summarize " : { " model " : " qwen2.5-7b " , " max_tokens " : 500 }, " code_review " : { " model " : " qwen2.5-coder-7b " , " max_tokens " : 2000 }, " reason " : { " model " : " qwen2.5-32b " , " max_tokens " : 4000 }, " creative " : { " model " : " claude-sonnet-4 " , " max_tokens " : 8000 }, } def route_request ( task_type : str ) -> dict : return ROUTING_RULES . get ( task_type , ROUTING_RULES [ " reason " ]) The catch is classification itself. If you get the task type

Here's a thing that catches almost everyone the first week they run a model locally. You paste a 600-line file into your shiny new local assistant, ask it to find the bug, and it confidently rewrites a function that isn't even in the part it read. No error. No warning. It just... silently dropped most of your file on the floor before the model ever saw it. That's not the model being dumb. That's Ollama doing exactly what it was told. By default it gives every model a context window of 2048 tokens and quietly truncates anything past that. It's one of a handful of small surprises that separate "I installed Ollama" from "I actually understand what's running on my machine." Let's go through the ones that matter: how the thing works under the hood, what hardware you really need, the gotchas, and the honest answer to "should I even bother instead of just calling an API?" What Ollama actually is Ollama gets described as "Docker for LLMs," and that's a decent first approximation. You pull a model, you run it, there's a registry. But it hides what's doing the heavy lifting. Underneath, Ollama is a friendly wrapper around llama.cpp , the C/C++ inference engine that made running these models on consumer hardware practical in the first place. When you type ollama run , you're really booting a llama.cpp runtime with a sane default config and a tidy HTTP server bolted on. The models it runs are in a format called GGUF (GPT-Generated Unified Format). A GGUF file isn't just weights. It's a self-contained package that bundles the tensors, the tokenizer config, the architecture details, and hyperparameters like the trained context length, all in one file. That's why ollama pull llama3.1 gives you something that just works: everything the runtime needs to reconstruct the model is in the box. Ollama itself is young. The project shipped its first release in early July 2023 , and it rode the wave of open-weight models (Llama 2 landed that same month) that suddenly made "run a real LLM on

This post is part of the akm-knowledge series. Part ten introduced the improve pipeline — what each phase does and how to schedule it. This post goes deeper on what continuous operation looks like in practice: the hardware numbers, the reliability bugs we hit at 48 runs per day, and the observability layer we built to keep watch. Most people think of AI agent memory as something that happens during a session. You talk to your agent, it learns things, maybe you save a few notes, the session ends. The next session starts cold. akm improve is built around a different model: a continuous background process that runs on your own hardware, against local models, and quietly curates your agent's knowledge base while you work on other things. No cloud API required. No per-token billing for the maintenance pass. A GPU you already own, a model you already have downloaded, running on a schedule. This post covers what 24 hours of autonomous operation actually looks like, how consumer-grade GPUs handle the load, the reliability work that makes continuous operation viable, and the observability layer that lets you know it's working without watching logs. What akm improve Does in 24 Hours akm improve is a multi-phase pipeline. The core pass — consolidation — loads your memory pool, groups related memories into chunks, sends each chunk to a local LLM for a consolidation plan (merge similar memories, promote high-signal ones to your stash, delete redundant ones, surface contradictions), and then executes those plans. After consolidation, memory inference runs a lightweight factual extraction pass, and graph extraction updates the entity-relation index. The pipeline is scheduled to run automatically. Here is what one 24-hour window produced: Metric Value Runs completed 48 / 48 — zero failures Memories processed 14,189 Promoted to stash 1,361 Merged (deduplication) 49 (64 secondaries absorbed) Contradictions surfaced 211 Deleted (redundant) 31 Memory inference yield 69.3% — 115 new ato

This is part thirteen in a series about managing the growing pile of skills, scripts, and context that AI coding agents depend on. Part ten covered the full improve pipeline — all five phases and how they connect. Part fourteen covers what 48 runs per day looks like in practice, including hardware benchmarks and the reliability bugs that surface at that frequency. The reflect pass inside akm improve has three execution modes. Most installs are still running the slowest one. Agent mode — the original — spawns an opencode or claude subprocess for each reflect call. The subprocess starts cold, acquires a session, assembles context, makes its LLM call, and exits. That cold-start overhead is real: each call takes approximately 30 seconds on a quiet machine. Run akm improve against a 69-ref stash and the reflect phase alone costs about 35 minutes. SDK mode eliminated the subprocess. The reflect call runs in-process, cutting per-call latency to 10–15 seconds. A 69-ref run drops to 12–17 minutes — better, but still bounded by round-trip overhead that the reflect task does not actually need. LLM mode removes the round trip entirely. The context for reflect is statically pre-assembled — no live tool calls, no file reads, no external context needed. A direct HTTP call to the LLM endpoint is sufficient, and it costs 6–10 seconds per call. A 69-ref run completes in 8–10 minutes. Mode Per-call latency 69-ref run agent (CLI subprocess) ~30s ~35 min sdk (in-process) ~10–15s ~12–17 min llm (direct HTTP) ~6–10s ~8–10 min The 3–4× end-to-end improvement is from eliminating overhead that was never necessary for what reflect does. Why Reflect Does Not Need an Agent The reflect pass takes a stash asset, examines its current content, and proposes a refined version. The inputs are fixed before the pass starts: the asset text, its metadata, and the improvement prompt. Nothing changes mid-call. No files need to be opened. No search queries need to fire. No external context needs to be pulled

This is the technical, reproducible version of a fix I shipped on my own homelab. If you want the narrative version, that's on Medium. This one is the recipe: the measurements, the math, the Modelfile, and the exact prompt I gave Claude Code to generate it. Copy-paste friendly. Repo for the dashboard used throughout: https://github.com/SikamikanikoBG/homelab-monitor TL;DR One 24GB RTX 3090, two GPU services: WhisperX large-v3 (STT, 7.7GB peak) and a Devstral Small 24B email-triage LLM (Q4_K_M, ~18.3GB). 18.3 + 7.7 = 26GB → CUDA OOM whenever they overlapped. The LLM was loaded with a 40k context window but the triage job never needed more than ~5–8k tokens. Capped num_ctx to 8192 → KV cache drops from ~6.1GB to ~1.25GB → model footprint ~18.3GB → ~14.2GB . 14.2 + 7.7 = 21.9GB → both resident, zero OOM, no quality loss. The setup Host : openSUSE, Xeon (56 threads), 125GB RAM, 1x RTX 3090 (24GB) GPU svc : WhisperX large-v3 (speech-to-text) GPU svc : Ollama -> devstral-small-2 (24B, Q4_K_M) for background email triage Both services run all the time. The OOM only happened when I dictated to my assistant (WhisperX) while the triage loop was active. Step 1 — Make the contention measurable nvidia-smi shows instantaneous VRAM. It can't show you which service spiked or when two of them overlapped — and an intermittent OOM is a timing problem. You need per-service VRAM history. I use my own dashboard (homelab-monitor) for this. The relevant view is "AI Models", which attributes VRAM per model server and per loaded model, over a time range, with OOM markers and a capacity ceiling line. What the history showed at the overlap window: Service Peak VRAM Devstral 24B (triage) ~18.3 GB WhisperX large-v3 7.7 GB Total ~26 GB on a 24 GB card If you want to reproduce the measurement, the dashboard runs as a single container: git clone https://github.com/SikamikanikoBG/homelab-monitor cd homelab-monitor docker compose up -d --build # open http://<host>:9800 -> AI Models / GPU views (NVIDI

By Takeshi Yokoyama — Onecarat Labs Hi. I'm Yokoyama, and I build a local-first AI text editor as a side project, along with a few other experimental tools. Working on them, I keep running into the same question about where the web is going. This post is one observation, plus a small experiment I built to test it — including a Chrome extension you can actually try. The short version: I think websites will increasingly be read through AI agents, reshaped per reader, on the fly. And once that happens, there's a clear gap between sites that are easy for an AI to read and sites that aren't. What's starting to happen Until now, people read websites as websites. You open the top page, follow the menu, read the body, click a button — tracing the path the maker designed. As local AI and AI agents become normal, that breaks. People stop opening the page directly. They tell an AI what they want — "Can I try this quickly?" , "I just want to check it's safe" , "Just the gist" — and the AI reads the web and reshapes it into the form that reader wants. What the reader receives is no longer the layout the maker built. This isn't speculation. The idea that AI generates the interface for the reader already has a name — Generative UI — and it's one of the hottest areas in frontend right now, with Google, Vercel and others building toward it. But notice who's holding the pen in almost every version of that story: the site , or an AI embedded in an app — something under the maker's control. What I'm looking at is one step past that: a local AI, in the reader's own hands, reshaping any site into that person's preferred form — with no involvement from the maker at all. The initiative moves from the maker to the reader. The part that nags at me as a builder I build software too. So this shift nags at me. A site carries its maker's intent and rights. The order things appear in, what gets emphasized, the tone. Design, copy, flow — all of it is deliberate. Having an AI quietly reorder, rewri