标签：#plan

Astronomers will test equipment that, if it’s successful, will one day be crucial for discovering Earthlike planets.

In the last article, I wrote about a release story that was weaker than the engine underneath...

Originally published on tamiz.pro . The field of AI agents has moved rapidly from single-model executors to complex multi-agent orchestration. But after running 157 agent deployments across diverse task domains, one pattern emerged with striking consistency: planning quality predicts success far better than execution speed or model size. This isn't just theoretical—it's a practical lesson that's reshaping how engineers architect agent fleets, giving rise to what we're now calling Orca-style agents : hierarchical, planning-first systems that separate the expensive business of thinking from the cheaper business of doing. The Experiment: 157 Agent Runs Over six months, our team deployed and monitored 157 distinct agent runs across four primary use cases: code generation pipelines, automated testing workflows, infrastructure-as-code provisioning, and data transformation tasks. Each run varied along three dimensions: Architecture : Single-agent vs. flat multi-agent vs. hierarchical (Orca-style) Planning depth : No planning, brief intent statement, or full recursive planning loop Execution model : Direct LLM call per action vs. tool-augmented execution with validation The results were unambiguous. Systems that invested 3-5x more tokens in planning achieved 4.2x higher task completion rates and 3.8x fewer rollback cycles compared to agents optimized purely for fast execution. The correlation between planning sophistication and success held across every domain. Why Planning Beats Raw Execution The intuition behind this finding rests on an economic principle of LLM usage: planning is cheap relative to costly mistakes . A well-structured plan reduces the probability of executing the wrong sequence of tools, making incorrect API calls, or generating code that fails integration testing. Consider the token economics: Phase Tokens (typical) Cost impact Planning (intent + decomposition) 800–2,500 Low Execution per subtask 300–1,200 Medium Correction after failure 1,500–4,000 High

OVHcloud will raise prices from September, with 2026-edition gaming servers up 87 percent and other recent servers 40 to 59 percent. Founder Octave Klaba says memory cost six times more in June than a year earlier, as RAM suppliers shifted capacity toward high-bandwidth memory for AI. AWS, buying years ahead, has repriced one reserved GPU product. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

Utility-scale solar leads by a mile, followed by batteries. Fossil fuels, not so much.

Airline-backed venture aims to develop a hybrid-electric commercial aircraft.

Security researchers found that in less than 60 seconds, they could open a hatch on a plane’s exterior, plug in a tiny device, and redirect the aircraft’s autopilot or sabotage its flight plan.

The organization, Network for Hope, "strongly disagrees" with Trump admin's decision.

📅 เขียนเมื่อ: กรกฎาคม 2026 ⚠️ อ้างอิงจากเอกสารต้นฉบับของ Bell Labs และบันทึกของผู้พัฒนา ถ้าผมถามว่า "ระบบปฏิบัติการที่เจ๋งที่สุดในโลกคืออะไร" — คุณคงตอบ Linux, macOS, หรือ Windows แต่ถ้าถาม Ken Thompson และ Dennis Ritchie — สองคนที่สร้าง Unix ขึ้นมา — พวกเขาจะตอบว่า Plan 9 Plan 9 คือระบบปฏิบัติการที่ Bell Labs สร้างขึ้นในช่วงปลายยุค 80 ถึงต้นยุค 90 โดยทีมเดียวกับที่สร้าง Unix แต่มันไม่ใช่แค่ "Unix เวอร์ชันใหม่" — มันคือการเริ่มต้นใหม่ทั้งหมด และถึงแม้วันนี้แทบไม่มีใครใช้ Plan 9 — แนวคิดของมันแทรกซึมอยู่ในทุกระบบปฏิบัติการที่คุณใช้อยู่ จุดเริ่มต้น — "Unix เริ่มแก่แล้ว" ปัญหาที่ Unix สะสมมา Unix เกิดในปี 1969 — ตอนนั้นคอมพิวเตอร์คือเครื่องเดียวที่มี terminal ต่อพ่วง พอยุค 80 มาถึง โลกเปลี่ยน — network กลายเป็นเรื่องปกติ, graphics เริ่มสำคัญ, distributed computing เริ่มเกิด แต่ Unix ไม่ได้ถูกออกแบบมาเพื่อสิ่งเหล่านี้ มันถูก patch, extend, retrofit — จนกลายเป็นระบบที่ซับซ้อนเกินกว่าที่ผู้สร้างจะภูมิใจ Ken Thompson เคยพูดประมาณว่า: "Unix เริ่มต้นด้วยความเรียบง่าย แต่มันค่อย ๆ สะสมความซับซ้อนเข้าไปเรื่อย ๆ — ถึงเวลาที่ต้องเริ่มใหม่" ทำไมต้องชื่อ Plan 9 ชื่อ "Plan 9" มาจากหนัง B-movie สุดคลาสสิกเรื่อง "Plan 9 from Outer Space" (1959) ของ Ed Wood — ที่ได้ชื่อว่าเป็น "หนังที่แย่ที่สุดตลอดกาล" แต่ชื่อนี้ไม่ได้หมายความว่า OS นี้แย่ — มันคือมุกวงในของทีม Bell Labs ที่ชอบตั้งชื่อแปลก ๆ (Unix เองก็เป็นมุก — มันล้อ Multics) หัวใจของ Plan 9 — "ทุกอย่างคือไฟล์" จริง ๆ จาก Unix สู่ Plan 9 — ทำให้สุดทาง Unix มีแนวคิด famous: "everything is a file" filesystem เป็นไฟล์ → /home/user/document.txt devices เป็นไฟล์ → /dev/sda , /dev/tty processes เป็นไฟล์ → /proc/1234 แต่มันมีข้อยกเว้น — network sockets, graphics, window system — สิ่งเหล่านี้ไม่ใช่ไฟล์ใน Unix Plan 9 เอาแนวคิดนี้ไป สุดทาง — ใน Plan 9, ทุกอย่างคือไฟล์ ไม่มีข้อยกเว้น 9P — โปรโตคอลเดียวที่เชื่อมทุกอย่าง หัวใจของ Plan 9 คือ 9P — โปรโตคอลที่ทำให้ทุกอย่างสื่อสารกันผ่าน filesystem หน้าต่าง GUI → mount เป็นไฟล์ network connection → mount เป็นไฟล์ เครื่องอื่นใน network → mount เป็นไฟล์ ลองนึกภาพ: คุณ ls ดูไฟล์ในเครื่องคนอื่นได้เหมือน

A discovery in a solar system 73 light-years from Earth is challenging definitions and “blurring the lines between stars, planets, and moons.”

Astronomers have discovered a rocky exoplanet that has an atmosphere and sits within the habitable zone of a solar system.

If the large, rocky planet is losing helium, then we can infer what is left behind.

It's unclear how the planet avoided its star's bloated red giant stage.

terraform plan is honest about what it's going to do. The problem is it's also verbose, repetitive, and full of cosmetic changes (like recomputed tags) mixed in with real ones (like a database instance scheduled for -/+ replace ). On a 400-line plan, the dangerous changes hide. This is the kind of task AI is actually good at: skimming structured text, flagging the entries that matter, ignoring the rest. But "paste plan into Claude" is not the workflow. There's a specific shape to this that works. Why people get this wrong The natural instinct is to copy the plan output and paste it into a chat: Terraform will perform the following actions : # aws_instance.web will be updated in-place ~ resource "aws_instance" "web" { id = "i-0abc123def456" ~ instance_type = "t3.small" - > "t3.medium" ... The model will respond with a sentence about each line. You'll scroll. You'll skim. You'll miss the -/+ replace on the database because it's in the middle of 30 routine updates. This is the same failure mode as pasting a wall of logs and asking "is anything wrong?" The model is too polite to skip things. You need to tell it to. The format that actually works: JSON terraform show -json tfplan outputs a structured representation of the plan that's much easier to reason about than the text format. Two reasons: The "actions" field is explicit. Each resource_change has a change.actions array — ["create"] , ["delete"] , ["update"] , or ["delete", "create"] for replace. No ambiguity. You can filter before pasting. With jq , you can extract only the dangerous changes, drop the noise, and feed a 20-line summary into the AI instead of a 400-line plan. Try this: terraform plan -out = tfplan terraform show -json tfplan > plan.json # Get just the dangerous changes jq '[.resource_changes[] | select(.change.actions | contains(["delete"])) | {address, type, actions: .change.actions}]' plan.json That's the AI's input. Compact, unambiguous, and pre-filtered to the changes that need a human decision.

A former software manager claims Wisk rushed software testing ahead of a crucial 2025 flight test.

What happens when a machine no longer needs to be trained to see something new? That's the quiet question sitting underneath this week's news, buried next to a less invasive brain implant and a handful of robots getting tougher for the real world. Neuralink says it's completed its first "transdural" brain implant, a surgical approach built to reduce trauma during the procedure. As someone who spends a lot of time thinking about how you get sensors close to a human eye without hurting anyone, I find these less-invasive-implant strategies worth watching, because the surgical-risk problem is basically the same one we wrestle with in ophthalmic hardware. Vision is getting less invasive too, in its own way. Roboflow rolled out text-prompt object detection built on SAM3 (Meta's latest segmentation model): you type the class of object you want "forklift," "cracked tile," whatever, and it returns boxes and masks without you collecting a single training image first. That's a real shift. For most of computer vision's history, teaching a model to recognize something new meant labeling hundreds of examples before you could even start; this collapses that step into a sentence. The same week brought several applied builds using the same detect-then-orchestrate pattern: a drone system that patrols for intrusions, a pipeline that inspects transmission lines for damaged cables, and an airport tool that spots foreign debris on the tarmac. The Robot Report's roundup of June's biggest robotics stories leaned heavily on humanoid robots companies going public, new deployments, and production milestones stacking up faster than would have seemed plausible a few years ago. Apptronik unveiled its Apollo 2 humanoid alongside a dedicated data-collection facility built so the robot keeps learning after it's deployed, not just during initial training which quietly answers one of the harder questions in robotics: how do you keep a system improving once it's out of the lab? X Square Robot raised e

I needed faster edits for technical diagrams, and a lower recurring overhead for recurring visuals. I stopped asking for new images for everything. That change started the moment I replaced "generate now, tweak later" with a fixed 8-tool matrix. TL;DR: I moved recurring illustration work into seven scriptable stacks + one 3D stack and kept image-generation AI only as a fallback. Why I rewrote this workflow When I edited an article recently, I was spending too much time redoing the same visual shape in slightly different versions. The same chart logic should not need prompt guessing each time. I asked myself: Can this be represented as text or code? Can I regenerate it exactly when requirements change? Do I need raw design freedom, or do I need deterministic structure? If the answer was mostly "text/code + deterministic output," I did not open an image-generation model first. I also kept one practical boundary: this was not an academic tool roundup. This is a log of what I actually used and in what context. The number that changed my mind: an 8-tool decision matrix The number I now defend is exactly 8 . Instead of inventing synthetic savings, I evaluate every new illustration request against this matrix. Tool Best fit Why I pick it Mermaid flow, sequence, architecture notes fastest in markdown-native writing PlantUML UML-heavy docs strict structure when Mermaid gets too loose Markmap map-style summaries converts headings directly Graphviz dependency and direction graphs compact graph semantics matplotlib numeric visualizations source-of-truth from data tables Pillow labels, badges, annotations deterministic pixel edits in Python D3.js node/link or hierarchy interactions data-driven relationship rendering Blender 3D explanatory graphics stronger structural clarity for complex scenes This is the exact set I now reach for before any image-generation request. What happened first: practical snippets I am including small runnable snippets I can reuse. 1. Mermaid for determ

Clicking on the links now reveals blank pages and empty PDFs. "Intellectually, it’s not acceptable.”

Have you noticed how every demo of "an AI agent" looks impressive in the video and falls apart the moment you ask a sharper question? The agent confidently does the wrong thing. It forgets what it just decided. It tries to call a tool that doesn't exist. It loops forever rewriting the same file. It calmly tells you the deployment succeeded when it didn't. These aren't failures of the model. They're failures of the workflow around the model. Because that's all an agent really is: a software workflow where a language model can pick the next step and call tools. The "intelligence" sits in the prompt and the orchestration around it, not in some secret agent-flavoured fairy dust. Strip the word "agent" away and you've got five pieces of plumbing: planning, tool use, memory, constraints, verification. Every production-grade agent stands or falls on those five. This is a long walk through each one. Not the marketing version. The kind of detail you actually need before you ship something that talks to your database. The Loop You're Actually Building Before we touch any pillar individually, hold the whole loop in your head. A useful agent does roughly this on every turn: Read the goal (and whatever memory is relevant to it). Decide the next action: answer directly, call a tool, ask a clarifying question, or stop. If it called a tool, observe the tool's result and feed it back in. Update memory if anything is worth remembering. Check constraints: are we over budget, out of iterations, touching something off-limits? Verify the output before declaring success. Loop until done or stopped. That's it. Every framework (LangGraph, OpenAI Agents SDK, Claude Agent SDK, smolagents, whatever ships next month) is a different shape of the same loop with different defaults. agent-loop.ts async function runAgent ( goal : string , ctx : AgentContext ) { const state = ctx . startState ( goal ); for ( let step = 0 ; step < ctx . maxSteps ; step ++ ) { const decision = await ctx . model . decid

At the right point of the orbit and stellar cycle, the star's chromosphere brightens.