标签：#t

If you are an enterprise architect working on Microsoft Entra and AI agents, your first overdue job is not another policy wizard, another dashboard, or another governance steering committee. It is schema design. Specifically, it is deciding how you classify non-human identities with custom security attributes in Microsoft Entra . Not eventually. Up front. I keep seeing the same pattern across customers of every size: teams move quickly on agent experimentation, they onboard identities, they test controls, and then they realize they have no consistent attribute language for policy scope. At that point, every policy becomes a naming convention problem in disguise. That is backwards. The control plane starts with classification Custom security attributes are not decorative metadata. They are tenant-scoped key-value classifications you can assign to users, enterprise applications (service principals), and agent identities that are modeled as a service principal subtype, with dedicated role and permission boundaries for who can define and assign them ( overview , Graph model , agent identity service principal model ). That alone should change how architects think about them. This is not "nice to have taxonomy." This is policy input. Microsoft Entra Conditional Access for agents supports attribute-driven targeting with custom security attributes, and policy evaluation happens during token issuance and refresh, not just at policy authoring time ( Conditional Access for agents ). In other words: if your classification is sloppy, your runtime decisions are sloppy. Why agents raise the stakes You can say "an agent identity is still a service principal" and be technically correct. Microsoft Entra Agent ID is built on service principal infrastructure ( agent identities, service principals, and applications ). You can also miss the point. Agent identity introduces a blueprint-centered model where one blueprint can represent many agents, where blueprint-level policy decisions can

Every morning, an online store receives the previous day’s orders from a marketplace partner. The file comes in JSON format. The company needs to add those orders to its main MongoDB orders collection. The sales manager also needs a CSV report that can be opened in Excel. That sounds like a small task. Import the file, copy the documents, export the report. But in practice, a few things can break the process. A date can be imported as a string. A field can have the wrong name. One batch may use total , while the main collection uses totalAmount . A temporary collection can keep old records and trigger duplicate key errors. A CSV export can create null values because the mapping points to fields that do not exist. And then there is customer data. The manager may need the sales numbers, but they probably do not need real customer names or internal customer IDs. This article walks through a real daily workflow: Import marketplace JSON ↓ Store the batch in a temporary MongoDB collection ↓ Copy the orders into the main orders collection ↓ Mask customer fields during export ↓ Create a CSV report The goal is not just to move data from JSON to CSV. The goal is to make the process repeatable, easier to check, and safer to share. The workflow The workflow has three jobs: Import Yesterday Orders ↓ Add Orders to Main ↓ Export Daily Sales Report The important part is the parent relationship between the jobs. Add Orders to Main depends on Import Yesterday Orders , so it only runs after the JSON file is imported successfully. Export Daily Sales Report depends on Add Orders to Main , so the CSV is created only after the main orders collection has been updated. This prevents the report from being generated when data is missing or incomplete. The incoming JSON file The partner sends a file with yesterday’s completed orders. A single order looks like this: { "orderId" : "ORD-2026-07-201" , "customerId" : "CUST-1003" , "customerName" : "Sofia Rossi" , "orderDate" : "2026-07-21T08:20:00

This week's releases cluster around a theme: reducing the overhead that compounds in production agentic systems. Gemini 3.6 Flash ships with measurable token reduction and a price cut, Vercel's AI Gateway gets service tier routing for latency-cost tradeoffs, and Python cold starts quietly drop by half with zero code changes required. Nothing experimental here—most of this is worth touching immediately if you're already in these ecosystems. Gemini 3.6 Flash cuts output tokens by 17% Google's 3.6 Flash reduces output token usage by 17% versus 3.5 Flash while lowering cost to $1.50/1M input and $7.50/1M output. The improvement is most pronounced on coding and web tasks, which happen to be the workload profile of most production agents. The companion model, 3.5 Flash-Lite, trades some quality for throughput—350 output tokens/sec—at $0.30/$2.50 per million tokens. Token efficiency isn't a vanity metric in agentic systems. Multi-step workflows compound output costs: every intermediate reasoning step, tool call response, and context accumulation multiplies what you pay. A 17% reduction per model call can translate to significantly more than 17% savings across a full agent loop, depending on how many hops your workflow runs. The throughput number on Flash-Lite matters too—if you're running high-volume document classification or search reranking, 350 tokens/sec opens architectures that weren't cost-viable before. The API swap is a single parameter change. No migration friction, no new authentication surface. Ship it now if Gemini is already in your stack and you're paying attention to inference costs. Replace 3.5 Flash with 3.6 Flash for general agentic tasks; move high-throughput, lower-stakes subtasks to Flash-Lite. Gemini 3.6 Flash and 3.5 Flash-Lite on AI Gateway Both new Gemini models are immediately available through Vercel's AI Gateway, callable via the unified AI SDK with the same cost tracking, failover, and routing you'd use for any other provider. Model selection

Most bibliography failures show up the night before arXiv or the journal deadline: placeholder DOIs, year pasted into volume= , inverted page ranges, invented case reporters. The fix is a paper repo that fails closed from day one . One command pip install https://github.com/SybilGambleyyu/citesure/releases/download/v0.5.68/citesure-0.5.68-py3-none-any.whl citesure init my-paper cd my-paper citesure gate . --preset ci citesure gate . --preset arxiv citesure init writes refs.bib , pre-commit hooks ( gate --preset ci + soft-lint), .github/workflows/citesure.yml , and a short CITESURE.md for coauthors. Empty bibliographies skip hard-ID floors until entries appear. What the gate checks Soft-lint — placeholder number/issue, inverted pages, year-like volume/month/edition, unsafe keys, all-caps titles, missing venues, duplicate DOIs/titles Health — hard-ID coverage floors Promote dry-run — DOIs still buried in url= Live verify — Crossref, doi.org, arXiv, PubMed, Europe PMC, DataCite, OpenAlex, CourtListener Domain packs Fifty-five live-clean packs (demography, sociology, political science, anthropology, ML, law, ecology, …): citesure packs --gate-all citesure packs --run anthropology-classics Evidence: 256/256 integrity · 209/209 claim pairs · 55 packs. Source: github.com/SybilGambleyyu/citesure · Demo: citesure.sybilgambleyyu.workers.dev

Ethereal Bytecode for the Network: Unlocking XDP's Magic! Hey there, fellow tech enthusiasts! Ever felt like the traditional networking stack in your Linux kernel was a bit… sluggish? Like it was taking the scenic route when you needed it to be a supersonic jet? Well, let me introduce you to a superhero that swoops in and turbocharges your network packet processing: eBPF, specifically in the context of XDP (eXpress Data Path). Forget the days of wrestling with complex kernel modules or praying for better hardware offload. eBPF and XDP offer a revolutionary, in-kernel, safe, and incredibly efficient way to program packet processing at the very edge of your network interface. Think of it as giving your network card a tiny, super-smart brain, capable of making lightning-fast decisions before the packet even bothers the main kernel stack. Pretty cool, right? So, buckle up as we dive deep into the wonderful world of XDP and eBPF, demystifying its power and showing you why it's becoming the darling of modern networking. 1. The "What's the Big Deal?" Section: Introduction to XDP & eBPF Imagine a bustling highway (your network). Traditional networking is like having every car stop at a toll booth, get inspected, and then directed by a central traffic controller. This works, but it can get congested. XDP, on the other hand, is like having intelligent on-ramps where some cars can be instantly identified, rerouted, or even rejected before they even hit the main highway. eBPF (extended Berkeley Packet Filter) is the technology that makes this possible. It's a powerful, sandboxed virtual machine that runs within the Linux kernel. Unlike traditional kernel modules, which can potentially crash your entire system if written incorrectly, eBPF programs are rigorously verified by the kernel for safety and correctness before they are allowed to execute. This means you get the power of kernel-level access without the existential dread of a kernel panic. XDP (eXpress Data Path) leverages

With “blessings” from the original Jibo founders, iKairos is a wearable or desk-mounted “AI journal” that turns your family moments into AI images and video.

On July 3, as a heat wave swept the region, New York State’s grid imported 52 gigawatt-hours of electricity from Canada—enough to meet about 9% of its total electricity demand that day. Some of that power shuttled in on a 339-mile power line stretching from Quebec to Queens called the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE).…

Hear from six pediatricians in measles hot spot Utah, as the US faces infection levels not seen in over three decades and prepares to lose its status as a country that eliminated the dangerous disease.

The bottleneck in a mature SOC is rarely analyst triage; rather, it is the detection-engineering team's ability to keep the rule base aligned with a threat landscape that evolves faster than rules can be written. Learn how multi-agent system for production security operations has reduced mean times to detect and to respond by 40% and compressed the human work required by 12x. By Willem Berroubache

Increase your brand's AI visibility on autopilot Discussion | Link

Permission-first real-time senses for AI companions Discussion | Link

A human-in-loop support agent that tracks customer signals Discussion | Link

A private data-usage meter for your Mac menu bar Discussion | Link

As a backend developer, I have build hundreds of endpoints, so the typical endpoint flow is deeply ingrained in how I think about web applications. But when I started building AI-powered endpoints, I noticed an interesting shift. At first, AI endpoints looked like simple proxy endpoints with some configuration for connecting to a model: API receives request ↓ send prompt to model ↓ receive response ↓ return it to the client And it worked well until I found out that passing a prompt directly from the client was not a good idea. The endpoint could be misused for a completely different purpose, allowing someone else to consume my AI usage credits. Then I realized that the input also needed limits. Sending a large context for a specific task costs more and may produce unexpected results. So when I started looking closer, especially when I needed reliable structured output and predictable application behavior, I quickly realized that it was not that simple. Validation was no longer only guarding execution, it had also become a post-processing step. AI models are probabilistic. Even with the same input, they may return different outputs, omit required information, misunderstand instructions or return something that is technically valid but logically wrong. And because every token has a price, I cannot simply retry the request and hope for a better result. That was when I started questioning whether AI endpoints should be designed in the same way as conventional Web API endpoints. Table of Contents Conventional Web API Endpoint Flow AI-powered Web API Endpoint Flow What This Difference Changes Unpredictable Latency Retry Logic Idempotency and Side Effects Testing AI Endpoints The Output Contract Observability and Cost Summary Conventional Web API Endpoint Flow A conventional Web API endpoint usually follows a similar flow: validate request ↓ execute business logic ↓ return representation The first phase is request validation. We validate the incoming data against property

I'll guide you through Python fundamentals by comparing concepts with JavaScript. Let's start! 1. Hello World & Basic Syntax JavaScript console . log ( " Hello World " ); let x = 5 ; Python print ( " Hello World " ) x = 5 # No semicolon, no let/const Key Differences: No semicolons in Python Indentation matters (replaces curly braces) Comments use # instead of // 2. Variables & Data Types JavaScript let name = " Alice " ; // string let age = 30 ; // number let isStudent = true ; // boolean let scores = [ 95 , 87 , 91 ]; // array let person = { // object name : " Bob " , age : 25 }; let nothing = null ; let notDefined = undefined ; Python name = " Alice " # str age = 30 # int (or float for decimals) is_student = True # bool (capital T/F) scores = [ 95 , 87 , 91 ] # list (mutable) person = { # dict (dictionary) " name " : " Bob " , " age " : 25 } nothing = None # Python's null/undefined Key Differences: Python uses snake_case (not camelCase) True / False capitalized None instead of null / undefined Lists ≈ Arrays, Dicts ≈ Objects 3. Control Flow JavaScript // If-else if ( age >= 18 ) { console . log ( " Adult " ); } else if ( age >= 13 ) { console . log ( " Teen " ); } else { console . log ( " Child " ); } // For loop for ( let i = 0 ; i < 5 ; i ++ ) { console . log ( i ); } // While loop let count = 0 ; while ( count < 5 ) { console . log ( count ); count ++ ; } Python # If-else (indentation instead of braces) if age >= 18 : print ( " Adult " ) elif age >= 13 : # NOT else if print ( " Teen " ) else : print ( " Child " ) # For loop (more like for...of in JS) for i in range ( 5 ): # range(5) = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4] print ( i ) # Iterate over list (like for...of) for score in scores : print ( score ) # While loop count = 0 while count < 5 : print ( count ) count += 1 # No ++ operator in Python 4. Functions JavaScript // Function declaration function add ( a , b ) { return a + b ; } // Arrow function const multiply = ( a , b ) => a * b ; // Default parameters function greet ( n

Deploy Python Bots on Render Without Sleep Using StayPresent Render is one of the most popular free hosting platforms for small Python projects, but it comes with a well-known catch: free-tier web services spin down after a period of inactivity and require a fresh incoming request to wake back up. For a render python bot — a Discord bot, Telegram bot, or scraper — that "wake up" delay can mean minutes of downtime every time the service goes idle. This guide covers exactly how Render's sleep behavior works, and how to eliminate it using StayPresent . Table of Contents Understanding Render's Free Tier Why HTTP Port Requirements Matter Setting Up StayPresent for Render Health Checks Explained Self-Ping to Avoid Idle Sleep Crash Recovery on Render Full Working Example Best Practices Common Mistakes FAQs Conclusion Understanding Render's Free Tier Render's free web services sleep after roughly 15 minutes without incoming HTTP traffic. Once asleep, the next request has to spin the container back up before it responds, so real users (or a bot's own polling loop) experience a delay. Render also expects your web service to bind to a port it provides via the PORT environment variable — if nothing is listening there, Render's own health checks will consider the deploy unhealthy. [Render Health Check] --HTTP GET--> [Your Service on $PORT] | No response = unhealthy Why HTTP Port Requirements Matter A typical Telegram or Discord bot doesn't open an HTTP port — it just connects outward to Telegram's or Discord's API and waits for events. That's perfectly normal bot behavior, but it fails Render's expectations for a web service. The fix isn't to change how your bot works; it's to run a small HTTP server next to it, purely so Render has something to check. Setting Up StayPresent for Render Install the production extra so Waitress serves the app instead of Flask's development server: pip install staypresent[prod] Then in your entry point (commonly main.py ): import os import staypres

Track Codex and Claude Code and respond from your Notch Discussion | Link

Every day, I see discussions about how AI assistants and Copilot are changing software development. And honestly? I agree. AI is helping us save time, automate repetitive work, and learn faster than ever before. But recently, I've noticed something that concerns me. Some interviewers, managers, and even developers are starting to treat AI-generated answers as the "correct" answers. That's where I think we're making a mistake. 🤔 Does Copilot Know Your Responsibilities? We've all seen responses like: "With 10 years of experience, you should know this." But who decides that? Does Copilot know: The projects you've worked on? The systems you've built? The challenges you've solved? The responsibilities you've carried for the last 10 years? The answer is simple: No. Two developers can have 10 years of experience and possess completely different skill sets. One may be an expert in distributed systems. Another may specialize in frontend architecture. A third may have spent years building enterprise applications. Meanwhile, a developer with only 5 years of experience may know a modern technology that none of them have ever needed. Does that make anyone less capable? Absolutely not. It simply means their journeys were different. 🚨 Experience Is Not a Checklist Let's take a different example. Suppose someone has spent 10 years mastering Figma and has become an exceptional designer. Does that automatically mean they should be an expert in Photoshop, Illustrator, CorelDRAW, Sketch, and every other design tool? Of course not. Their expertise reflects the work they've done and the problems they've solved. The same applies to software engineering. Experience is about depth, not knowing everything. ⚠️ The Risk of Over-Relying on AI Don't get me wrong. I use AI. Most developers I know use AI. And it saves hours of effort. But there's a difference between: ✅ Taking help from AI and ❌ Letting AI think for you When every answer, every opinion, and every decision comes from AI, something

Next.js 16 shipped Cache Components - the feature that finally lets a single route mix static HTML, cached data, and per-request dynamic content without splitting it into separate pages. It is Partial Prerendering (PPR) made stable, plus a new use cache directive that replaces the old unstable_cache and the awkward route-segment config flags. This guide covers what changed, the three content types you now think in, and the runtime-data rule that trips up almost everyone on day one. What actually changed If you were using the experimental PPR flag, it is gone. Cache Components is a single config switch, and it turns on the whole model - static shell, cached segments, and streamed dynamic content in one route. // next.config.ts import type { NextConfig } from ' next ' const nextConfig : NextConfig = { cacheComponents : true , // replaces experimental.ppr } export default nextConfig Once it is on, every piece of your route falls into one of three buckets. The whole mental model is learning which bucket each component belongs in. The three content types Static - synchronous code, imports, and pure markup. Prerendered at build time and served instantly from the CDN. Your header, nav, and layout shell. Cached - async data that does not need to be fresh on every request. Marked with use cache . Think product lists, blog posts, dashboard stats. Dynamic - runtime data that must be fresh (cookies, headers, per-user state). Wrapped in Suspense so it streams in after the shell paints. import { Suspense } from ' react ' import { cookies } from ' next/headers ' import { cacheLife } from ' next/cache ' export default function DashboardPage () { return ( <> { /* Static - instant from the CDN */ } < header >< h1 > Dashboard </ h1 ></ header > { /* Cached - fast, revalidates hourly */ } < Stats /> { /* Dynamic - streams in with fresh data */ } < Suspense fallback = { < NotificationsSkeleton /> } > < Notifications /> </ Suspense > </> ) } async function Stats () { ' use cache ' cacheL

Seu agente escreveu o teste. O Cursor sugeriu três casos extremos que você não havia pensado. O Copilot preencheu o corpo da requisição, e o Claude executou tudo uma vez e reportou “verde”. A pergunta é justa: se o agente faz tudo isso, a IA pode substituir completamente o teste de API? Experimente o Apidog hoje Não. A IA não substitui o teste de API, mas já substitui boa parte da autoria dos testes. Agentes elaboram casos, sugerem cenários extremos e geram payloads com eficiência. Porém, eles não garantem execução idêntica em cada commit, não bloqueiam merges com um resultado confiável e não decidem se um contrato está correto. Para isso, você precisa de uma ferramenta determinística e de revisão humana. Essa separação responde a uma dúvida maior: você ainda precisa de uma ferramenta de API na era dos agentes de IA ? Sim — mas o papel da ferramenta mudou. Use agentes para acelerar a autoria e ferramentas determinísticas para validar, executar e bloquear regressões. Onde este artigo difere do guia prático Se você procura instruções para gerar testes com agentes, consulte o guia sobre como usar agentes de IA para teste de API . Este artigo trata de outra pergunta: quais partes do fluxo você pode delegar a um agente e quais precisam continuar em uma suíte determinística? Uma implementação prática separa o trabalho assim: O agente lê a especificação e cria um rascunho de testes. Um desenvolvedor revisa cenários, asserções e regras de negócio. Um runner headless executa a suíte no CI. O pipeline bloqueia o merge usando o código de saída do runner. Quando algo falha, você inspeciona a requisição e a resposta reais. O que a IA faz bem em testes de API hoje Agentes removem trabalho repetitivo de autoria. Use-os principalmente para criar e expandir artefatos de teste. Elaborar uma primeira suíte a partir de uma especificação Entregue ao agente um endpoint, uma definição OpenAPI ou uma resposta de exemplo. Ele pode gerar rapidamente: verificações de status HTTP; asserções de