标签：#war

Xteink makes its pocket-sized e-reader even better with a touchscreen and front light.

GitLab has introduced a new approach to Green DevOps, demonstrating how software engineering teams can measure the carbon emissions generated by their CI/CD pipelines. By Craig Risi

Judge grants restraining order, saying merger "likely to violate antitrust laws."

The lawsuit from the states alleges that the deal would harm movie theaters, basic cable distributors, and audiences.

Flock Safety sits right at the center of the debate over where the line should be drawn between privacy and public safety. That’s why we’re bringing Flock’s founder and CEO Garrett Langley to the stage to speak about those very issues.

Governments look at banning ransom payments in face of increasingly sophisticated threats.

InfoQ has opened enrollment for three five-week online certification cohorts starting in August, each led by a senior practitioner applying QCon talk frameworks to participants' own work: architecture with Luca Mezzalira, engineering leadership with Michelle Brush, and AI security and privacy with Katharine Jarmul. By Artenisa Chatziou

.The V8 engine speeds up JavaScript by dynamically compiling frequently run bytecode into optimized native machine code. However, if you pass inconsistent argument types to these optimized functions, V8 panics and deoptimizes back to bytecode. Keeping your functions monomorphic (single-typed) prevents this costly deoptimization loop, ensuring maximum runtime execution speed. If you’ve spent as much time digging into V8 execution flags as I have, you quickly realize that JavaScript is constantly rewriting itself under the hood. We like to think of JavaScript as a dynamically typed scripting language. But at runtime, engines like V8 are working tirelessly to turn your code into a highly optimized, statically typed powerhouse. When we violate that type stability, we pay a massive performance tax. How does the V8 engine optimize JavaScript at runtime? V8 uses a multi-tiered compilation pipeline that starts with an interpreter for fast startup times, then upgrades hot functions to optimized machine code using a JIT compiler. By tracking runtime type patterns, the engine can safely make assumptions to skip expensive dynamic lookups. When I look at V8’s execution pipeline, I see two primary systems working in tandem: Ignition (the interpreter) and TurboFan (the JIT compiler). Initially, Ignition compiles your raw JavaScript into bytecode so your app can boot instantly. As this bytecode executes, V8 allocates a data structure called a Feedback Vector for each function. Inside this vector are Feedback Slots (managed by Inline Caches, or ICs). These slots act as recorders, capturing the exact types (or "shapes") of the variables passing through your code. Once a function runs frequently enough to cross an execution threshold, V8 marks it as "hot" and hands it to TurboFan. TurboFan reads those feedback slots, assumes the types will remain identical in the future, and compiles a highly streamlined, native machine code version of that function. What happens when you pass differe

Scan a menu, pay a bill, onboard a smart plug, and you are using a piece of technology that was never meant for any of those things. The QR code was invented in 1994, and its original job was tracking car parts on a factory floor. Understanding why it was built the way it was explains why it now shows up on nearly every connected device. Who invented the QR code The QR code was created in 1994 by a team led by engineer Masahiro Hara at Denso Wave, a subsidiary of the Toyota group in Japan. At the time, the automotive industry ran on standard one-dimensional barcodes, the striped labels still seen on grocery products. Those barcodes held very little data, usually around 20 characters, and a busy assembly line often needed a worker to scan ten different labels on a single box of components. It was slow, and it was error-prone. Hara wanted a code that could store far more information and be read much faster. His answer was to go two-dimensional: instead of encoding data only in the width of vertical bars, a QR code (short for "Quick Response") stores data across a grid of black and white squares, packing in thousands of characters in a fraction of the footprint. The board game that shaped it The most famous detail of the QR code's origin is where Hara found his design inspiration. He was reportedly playing the board game Go on a lunch break, staring at the black and white stones arranged on the grid, when the idea of encoding information in a two-dimensional matrix of light and dark cells clicked into place. The harder problem was speed. A scanner needs to find the code and figure out its orientation before it can read anything, and in a factory a label might be rotated any which way. Hara's team solved this with the three distinctive square markers in the corners of every QR code. Those "position detection patterns" use a ratio of black to white areas that almost never occurs by chance in printed material, so a scanner can instantly locate the code and work out its an

On the latest episode of Equity, we debate whether Apple's lawsuit will cast over OpenAi's much-discussed plans to get into hardware and go public.

Learning software engineering in the past was a straight forward process, you learn the programming language, you build projects in your portfolio, apply to companies, get a job and life goes on. Doing that in the current times might be a little bit different, as when applying for jobs, you can see some new requirements other than your programming skills and portfolio project such as Prompt Engineering, Work with Agents, Claude Code, and others. You may ask yourself, what are those? And if I am new to Software Engineering, will that change my learning path? Lets discuss all this below. Software Engineering in the Past For a long time, the path into software engineering was clear. You picked a language, maybe Java, Python, or JavaScript. You spent a few months learning the syntax, then the fundamentals: data structures, algorithms, how a database works, how the web sends and receives data. After that, you built things such as A todo app, weather app, clone of a website you liked. These projects went into a portfolio, usually a GitHub profile and a simple personal site. Then you applied to companies, passed a technical interview, and started your first job, so the skills you needed were stable, if you learned React in 2018, React was still useful in 2021. Tools changed, frameworks came and went, but the core idea stayed the same: you write the code, you understand what you wrote, and you fix it when it breaks. When Did AI Start Becoming Something Required The shift did not happen in one day. It came in steps. The first step was autocomplete , around 2021, tools like GitHub Copilot started suggesting the next line of code while you typed. Most developers saw it as a nice helper, nothing more. It saved you from writing boilerplate, but you were still the one thinking. The second step was chat , when ChatGPT and Claude became popular, developers started using them to explain errors, review code, and write small functions. Still a helper, but a much stronger one. At this

This is the workflow I follow before I use AI agents to implement any feature or bug fix. 🧭 Requirements/Specification ↓ Design/Architecture ↓ AI Code Generation ↓ Human Review ↓ Build & Static Analysis ↓ Testing & Validation ↓ Defect Resolution ↓ Security & Compliance Review ↓ Release ↓ Production Monitoring vs Claude Code ↓ Implements feature ↓ Codex QA Agent ↓ Runs application ↓ Tests happy path ↓ Tests edge cases ↓ Tests error handling ↓ Produces QA report This will resolve the self-review bias, confirmation bias, or AI-to-AI bias. 1️⃣ Understand Before Writing Code Before touching any code, I try to understand what I'm building and why . I usually start by reading: specs/<module>/<TICKET>-<slug>.md plan/<module>/<TICKET>-<slug>.md status.md Then I review the project conventions: specs/CONVENTIONS.md specs/conventions/core-porting.md Finally, I read the existing implementation (entities, services, mappers, etc.) so my changes follow the existing architecture instead of introducing a new style. 💡 Pro-Tip Good code fits into the codebase. Great code looks like it was always there. 2️⃣ Plan the Change Once I understand the requirements, I identify which architectural layers are affected. I always respect the dependency order: Schema / Entities / DAOs ↓ Mappers / DTOs ↓ Service Layer ↓ Application Layer ↓ Controllers I don't jump ahead of dependencies. If a change is complicated or ambiguous, I document the approach before writing code. --- ## 3️⃣ Write the Code While implementing, I follow the repository's rules. Some examples: | Rule | Detail |---|---|---| | DTOs | Generated from `schema.yml` — never handwritten | | Status values | Sourced only from the Core Porting specification | | Traceability | Every ported behavior includes a source citation | Citation formats I use: - `← Source <path>` - `← PS §...` - `← BR-###` Beyond repository rules, I also try to: - ✅ Match existing naming conventions - ✅ Keep comments minimal and meaningful - ✅ Make small, focused chang

In 1898, years before radio broadcasting existed and decades before anyone used the word "electronics," Nikola Tesla stood in front of a crowd at Madison Square Garden and did something that looked like magic. In a large pool of water sat a small iron-hulled boat. With no wires connecting them, Tesla sent commands through the air and the boat obeyed, turning, stopping, and blinking its lights on demand. Spectators were so unprepared for the idea that some accused him of hiding a trained monkey inside the hull, or of controlling it with his mind. What Tesla had actually built was the first wireless remote control, and it is the direct ancestor of every connected device we make today. A machine that took commands through the air Tesla called his invention a "teleautomaton," from the Greek for "remote" and "self-acting." The boat carried a radio receiver, a set of relays, and a battery driving its motor and rudder. From a control box on the side of the pool, Tesla transmitted radio signals that the receiver decoded into physical actions. Press a control, and a coherer-based circuit closed a relay, which in turn stepped the boat's steering and switching mechanism to a new position. The patent behind the demonstration, US Patent 613,809, "Method of and Apparatus for Controlling Mechanism of Moving Vessels or Vehicles," was granted in November 1898. Read today, it is startling how modern the thinking is. Tesla was not just wiggling a boat around a pool for show; he was describing a general system for sending control signals to a remote machine and having that machine act on them without a human physically present. That is the exact problem statement behind modern IoT , just with vacuum-era hardware. Why nobody knew what to do with it Tesla saw enormous potential. He imagined remotely piloted vessels, automated vehicles, and machines that could carry out instructions from miles away. He even pitched the concept to the US military as a radio-controlled torpedo. The receptio

Introdução O nome do princípio vem do próprio nome do projeto de pesquisa (que remete a Deméter, deusa grega da agricultura — a metáfora era "cultivar" software que cresce de forma incremental e adaptável, não do princípio de acoplamento em si). O projeto Demeter investigava como reduzir o custo de manutenção de sistemas orientados a objetos observando que boa parte das mudanças de software quebrava código muito distante do ponto onde a mudança real acontecia — um efeito cascata causado por classes que conheciam profundamente a estrutura interna de outras classes. Essa observação foi confirmada empiricamente alguns anos depois: em 1994, Chidamber & Kemerer publicaram as famosas métricas CK ( A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design ), nas quais o CBO (Coupling Between Objects) — quão acoplada uma classe é a outras — se tornou um dos preditores mais fortes de defeitos e esforço de manutenção em estudos empíricos posteriores de engenharia de software. Ou seja: a intuição por trás da Law of Demeter (menos acoplamento = menos bugs ao mudar código) tem respaldo em dados de décadas de pesquisa empírica em qualidade de software. Definição Também chamada de "Principle of Least Knowledge" , a formulação clássica é: Um método M de um objeto O só deve chamar métodos de: O próprio O Os parâmetros recebidos por M Qualquer objeto que M crie/instancie internamente Os componentes diretos de O (seus atributos/campos) Variáveis globais acessíveis a O Resumo popular: "use apenas um ponto" — evite código como: pedido . getCliente (). getEndereco (). getCidade (). getNome () Isso é conhecido como "train wreck" (trem de vagões) — cada . é um vagão acoplado ao anterior. Se a estrutura interna de Cliente ou Endereco mudar, todo código que fez essa travessia quebra, mesmo estando em um módulo completamente não relacionado. Porque isso importa na prática? Quando o método M faz objeto.getX().getY().metodo() , ele passa a depender da estrutura interna de X e Y , não só da interface pública d

Every engineer eventually hits this phase: “My design looks okay… but something feels off.” No compile errors. No obvious bugs. But still: responsibilities feel scattered services feel too big entities feel too thin logic feels duplicated boundaries feel unclear This is normal. Because domain modeling is not about getting it right in one attempt. It is about refining structure until the business behavior becomes clear. Step 1 — Start With the Symptom, Not the Code If your design feels wrong, don’t immediately rewrite everything. First identify the symptom: Common symptoms: too many “Manager” services logic repeated in multiple places unclear ownership of rules too many dependencies between modules frequent “if-else explosion” Each symptom points to a specific modeling issue. Step 2 — Check If Invariants Are Scattered Ask: “Where are my business rules living?” Bad sign: Rules inside services + controllers + helpers This leads to: inconsistent behavior duplicated validation broken business guarantees Good design: invariants live close to the entity or aggregate root Step 3 — Check Entity vs Service Confusion A very common issue: Entities become dumb: only fields no behavior Services become overloaded: all logic all rules all decisions This creates: Anemic Domain Model + Fat Services Fix mindset: Entity = owns behavior + protects state Service = coordinates workflows Step 4 — Check Your Aggregate Boundaries Ask: “What must stay consistent together?” If your answer is unclear, you likely have: wrong aggregates or missing aggregates Example problem: Cart and Order sharing logic This causes: inconsistent pricing unclear lifecycle ownership Fix: Cart = intent Order = truth Step 5 — Look for “Hidden Coupling” Hidden coupling happens when: one module depends on internal state of another multiple services modify same data business rules are duplicated across boundaries This leads to fragile systems. Strong design ensures: each domain owns its own truth. Step 6 — Validate Stat

Every team doc tool promises "search everything." Ours did too — and it still didn't answer the question new hires actually ask: not "where is this doc," but "why does this decision look the way it does, and what else does it touch?" We spent the last few months trying to solve that by treating team docs less like a filing cabinet and more like a graph. Here's what we tried, what broke, and what we'd do differently.

Why some records should be created by your system, not your users, and how to do it safely in .NET. A support ticket lands on your desk: "The Teams page is empty. I added a member, but no team shows up." You check the API. It's behaving exactly as written: { "items" : [], "totalCount" : 0 } Nothing is broken. And that's the problem. The system is faithfully returning nothing, because the row that the page reads from was never created. Somewhere in your design, you assumed a human would create it first. This article is about a small, recurring design decision that quietly causes empty dashboards, confused users, and "is this a bug?" tickets: who is responsible for creating derived records the user, or the system? and how to let the system do it without introducing duplicate rows or race conditions. The problem Let's use a fictional product: a collaboration tool called Loop . In Loop, the important entities are: An Organization (a paying customer). A Member (a person invited into an organization under a plan). A Team a grouping that members belong to, keyed by (OrganizationId, PlanCode) . The admin dashboard lists Teams . Each team card shows a member count. Here's the catch in the original design: creating a Member wrote a member row. Creating a Team was a separate, manual step an admin was expected to do first. If an admin invited members without first creating the matching team, the dashboard showed nothing even though the members clearly existed. From the user's point of view, they did everything right. From the system's point of view, a required row simply didn't exist. Why it matters The Team record isn't independent information. It is fully derivable from the first member invited under a plan. When one entity's existence is implied by another, forcing a human to create it manually is a design smell. It leads to: Empty states that look like outages. Users can't tell "no data" from "misconfigured." Support load. Every skipped step becomes a ticket. Silent data dr

Before a young Athenian took his full place in the city, he spent two years in the ephebeia. Training happened in the gymnasion, organized by tribe, the same tribes that would later send him to represent them in the Boule itself. Nobody handed him full standing first and hoped the judgment would follow. This should have been post seven. It’s showing up as sixteen because the gap only became visible once the room was real enough to test against. The Agora described what a Spec Session does. It never asked whether everyone walking into that room shares an accurate picture of what the agent can actually do. Most rooms don’t. Someone watched a demo and thinks the agent can do anything. Someone else got burned by a bad output three weeks ago and doesn’t trust it with anything real. Nobody’s intuition has been tested against the same tasks, and the spec that comes out of that room ends up too ambitious or too conservative depending on whose untested belief happened to speak first. That gap has a name in Athens. The gymnasion existed because nobody was handed a place in the city first and expected to develop judgment on the job. The ephebeia ran two years, training built around a specific fact. Physical readiness and civic judgment weren’t taught in separate places. They happened in the same space, under the same supervisors, organized by the same tribal groupings that would later structure how the city actually governed itself. The same word, gymnasion, ended up naming both the training ground for eighteen-year-olds and the buildings where Plato and Aristotle did their most serious thinking. Academy and Lyceum were gymnasia first. Nobody separated the trial from the reflection. The trial was how the reflection got earned. That’s the part worth taking seriously. Testing a tool and understanding a tool were never two different activities. The testing is how the understanding gets built. A team that reads documentation about what an agent can do has a description. A team tha

Suspect-condition workflows are deceptively simple to prototype and surprisingly hard to make defensible . Anyone can flag "this member might have HCC X." Building a system whose output survives a RADV audit is a different problem. This is a walkthrough of the three stages and the engineering decisions that matter at each. Stage 1: Identify Identification is pattern detection over a member's clinical record — labs, medications, prior diagnoses, utilization. Model it as a set of rules or features that emit candidate HCCs: def identify_suspects ( member ): suspects = [] if member [ " labs " ]. get ( " a1c " , 0 ) >= 9.0 and " insulin " in member [ " meds " ]: suspects . append ({ " hcc " : " HCC38 " , " trigger " : " a1c>=9 + insulin " }) if member . get ( " egfr " ) and member [ " egfr " ] < 30 : suspects . append ({ " hcc " : " HCC326 " , " trigger " : " egfr<30 " }) return suspects The temptation is to maximize recall here — flag everything. Resist it. Every unvalidated suspect you generate is downstream work and downstream risk. Stage 2: Validate (the stage that actually matters) Validation attaches evidence to each suspect and scores its defensibility. This is the difference between a documentation opportunity and an audit liability. def validate ( suspect , member ): evidence = collect_evidence ( suspect [ " hcc " ], member ) # labs, rx, prior dx suspect [ " evidence " ] = evidence suspect [ " confidence " ] = score_evidence ( evidence ) suspect [ " defensible " ] = suspect [ " confidence " ] >= 0.7 return suspect Key design rule: a suspect with an empty evidence array should never reach a coder. Make that a hard gate, not a soft warning. Under CMS-HCC V28 and current audit posture, a captured-but-unsupported diagnosis can be extrapolated across a contract into a real clawback — so "defensible by default" is the right engineering stance. Stage 3: Capture Capture routes validated suspects to the right human with the evidence inline, so the clinician or coder can

From AI workflows to battery life and security, here's what it's really like to live with Vertu's luxury foldable every day.