标签：#work

Un’area interna che sembra una lavagna di ragionamento: non è coscienza, ma è un indizio forte su come emergono controllo e pianificazione nei transformer. Negli ultimi anni ci siamo abituati a pensare ai modelli linguistici come a enormi “scatole nere”: un prompt entra, un testo esce, e nel mezzo c’è un mare di matrici difficili da ispezionare. Ma c’è una novità interessante: alcune analisi suggeriscono l’esistenza di una piccola regione interna, relativamente organizzata, che funziona come uno spazio di lavoro per concetti . Un posto dove il modello “tiene a mente” qualcosa prima di produrre la risposta. È un’idea che fa scattare subito l’associazione più pericolosa (e più abusata) del momento: coscienza . In realtà, il punto non è stabilire se un LLM sia cosciente; il punto è molto più concreto e utile per chi sviluppa: se esiste un’area interna che concentra il ragionamento controllabile , allora possiamo capire meglio cosa guida certe risposte e come intervenire su errori, allucinazioni e comportamenti indesiderati. J-Space: una “lavagna” interna per il ragionamento L’idea chiave è questa: dentro il modello emergerebbe un piccolo insieme di pattern neurali “coerenti” (chiamiamoli J-Space ) che si comporta come una lavagna. Su questa lavagna compaiono concetti (non necessariamente parole che verranno stampate). Questi concetti influenzano la catena di ragionamento . Molte altre abilità—fluency, grammatica, stile, completamento locale—sembrano invece scorrere “automaticamente” altrove. Se questa separazione regge, spiega un fenomeno che tutti abbiamo osservato: modelli capaci di scrivere in modo impeccabile, ma fragili nel ragionamento o incoerenti quando devono mantenere vincoli. Il test più interessante: sostituire un concetto e vedere il ragionamento obbedire Un esperimento illuminante consiste nell’individuare un concetto attivo nello spazio di lavoro e sostituirlo con un altro, senza cambiare né prompt né output manualmente. Esempio (semplificato): Domanda:

Introduction: Unveiling littlebag Meet littlebag , a reactive UI framework that defies conventional expectations by packing essential features into a mere 343 bytes (minified and brotlified). This isn’t just a technical curiosity—it’s a proof of concept that challenges the notion that UI frameworks must be bloated to be functional. littlebag includes: Reactive state management via state and effect , enabling dynamic updates without manual DOM manipulation. An html element factory that inherently supports reactivity, reducing boilerplate code. Conditional rendering with keyed , allowing efficient updates to specific UI segments. Reactive lists using each , simplifying the handling of dynamic data collections. TypeScript declarations , ensuring type safety and developer productivity. The framework’s size is achieved through aggressive tree-shaking and code minimization , stripping away all non-essential logic. However, this comes at a cost: performance limitations due to the absence of optimizations like virtual DOM diffing or batch updates . Each reactive update triggers direct DOM manipulation, which can lead to layout thrashing —a mechanical process where frequent reflows and repaints cause frame rate drops, making the UI feel sluggish. Inspired by VanJS (1 kB) and its dependency on an additional 1.2 kB library (Van X), littlebag aims to eliminate such overhead. Yet, its current state is experimental. Without user feedback, it risks remaining a niche project, failing to address its performance bottlenecks or evolve into a viable alternative to larger frameworks. The creator’s plan to add Server-Side Rendering (SSR) hinges on community interest, but SSR itself introduces complexity—requiring a custom DOM implementation to avoid client-side hydration costs. If users engage, littlebag could become a lightweight SSR solution; if not, it may stagnate as a curiosity. The stakes are clear: littlebag’s utility depends on whether it can balance its minimalism with practical

I am interested in agentic coding for the same reason I care about good engineering process in general: I want work to move forward in a way that is inspectable, repeatable, and resilient once the task gets messy. A lot of AI-assisted coding still feels like improvisation. You ask for something, get a result, adjust the prompt, try again, and hope the useful reasoning is still somewhere in the scrollback. That can work for tiny edits. It gets much less convincing when the task starts touching architecture, tests, review, or pull requests. What I want instead is a workflow where the model helps me think and execute, but inside a structure I can inspect afterwards. I want artifacts, gates, and something I can resume tomorrow without reconstructing the entire mental state from memory. That is why I use po8rewq/agentic-skills . It gives me a practical way to do agentic coding as an engineering workflow rather than as a long sequence of chat turns. A task moves through requirements, architecture, implementation, checks, review, and pull request creation. Each stage leaves something I can read, verify, and challenge. What makes this interesting to me The interesting part is not just that there is a CLI. Plenty of tools have a CLI. What matters to me is that it turns AI-assisted coding into a staged system: requirements force the task to become explicit architecture makes risks visible before code is written implementation happens against a plan instead of against a vague prompt checks and review happen as part of the flow, not as an afterthought runs are resumable, so interruptions do not destroy context That changes the feel of the work quite a bit. Instead of asking "what should I prompt next?", I am usually asking "what stage is this task in, and what should exist before I move on?" Where this really clicked for me was when I noticed I was spending less energy trying to preserve context in my head and more energy evaluating actual outputs. What the repository actually

With this update, users can start a task from their desk, get status updates on their phone, and pick up the finished output later — even if their laptop is closed.

Installing Ubuntu Server 24.04 LTS in an offline mode (no LAN cable or WiFi connected) leaves you with an unmanaged network interface which requires manual configuration post-install. The interface enp4s0 is unmanaged by systemd-networkd and also the service itself is disabled. NOTE: This guide applies to Ubuntu server. On Ubuntu desktop you have the NetworkManager service installed and the steps would be different. To fix the problem follow the steps below: Create a Brand New Netplan Configuration File Look into /etc/netplan . You will probably see the dir is empty. This means the installer completely gave up on configuring the network and didn't create any profiles. Create a new file, e.g. vim /etc/netplan/01-netcfg.yaml . Paste the following configuration network : version : 2 renderer : networkd ethernets : enp4s0 : dhcp4 : true This makes the interface managed by networkd instead of the desktop NetworkManager. Fix permissions The new file needs to be readable only by root so fix it's permissions chmod 600 /etc/netplan/01-netcfg.yaml . Enable network service Enable the network service and make it start on boot: systemctl enable systemd-networkd systemctl start systemd-networkd Run netplan Finally, we need to tell Ubuntu to use our new configuration and activate the network netplan generate netplan apply Network should be up! ip a

Understanding the 550 SPF Check Failed Error The "550 SPF Check Failed" error indicates that a receiving mail server rejected an incoming email. This rejection occurs because the sender's domain failed its Sender Policy Framework (SPF) validation. SPF is an email authentication protocol defined in RFC 7208 . SPF helps prevent email spoofing. It allows domain owners to specify which mail servers are authorized to send email on behalf of their domain. Receiving mail servers perform an SPF check by querying the sender's DNS for an SPF TXT record. If the sending server's IP address is not listed in the domain's SPF record, the SPF check fails. The receiving server then rejects the email based on its configured policy, often resulting in a 550 error. This error protects recipients from unauthorized emails and enhances email security. Initial Diagnosis: Identifying the Root Cause Diagnosing an SPF failure requires examining the bounce message and the domain's DNS records. The bounce message often provides specific details about the SPF failure. Look for phrases like "SPF validation failed," "unauthorized sender," or "IP address not permitted." Common reasons for a 550 SPF Check Failed error include: Missing SPF Record: No SPF TXT record exists for the sending domain. Incorrect SPF Syntax: The SPF record contains errors, making it unreadable or invalid. Incomplete SPF Record: The SPF record does not list all legitimate sending IP addresses or hostnames. DNS Lookup Limit Exceeded: The SPF record requires more than 10 DNS lookups, violating RFC 7208. DMARC Policy Enforcement: A DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) policy ( RFC 7489 ) with p=reject or p=quarantine is in place, enforcing strict SPF failure handling. To begin diagnosis, use our SPF checker to verify your domain's SPF record and its validity. This tool quickly identifies syntax errors and lookup issues. Step-by-Step Troubleshooting and Resolution Resolving SPF failures involves

Understanding DMARC and the 'p=none' Policy DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance), defined in RFC 7489, is an email authentication protocol. It builds upon SPF (Sender Policy Framework, RFC 7208) and DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail, RFC 6376) to provide domain owners with greater control. DMARC instructs recipient mail servers on how to handle emails that fail authentication and provides reporting on these failures. The p=none policy is often adopted as a preliminary step in DMARC implementation. It instructs recipient servers to take no specific action on emails failing DMARC alignment. Its primary function is to enable the collection of aggregate and forensic reports without impacting email deliverability. Many organizations view p=none as a safe, non-disruptive way to begin their DMARC journey. This initial perception, however, overlooks critical security implications. While it offers visibility, p=none provides no actual enforcement against malicious email. The Critical Security Vulnerability of p=none The fundamental flaw of DMARC p=none lies in its complete lack of enforcement. When a DMARC record is set to p=none , recipient mail servers will not block, quarantine, or reject messages that fail DMARC authentication. This includes emails that spoof your domain directly. Threat actors exploit this vulnerability to conduct phishing, business email compromise (BEC), and brand impersonation attacks. They can send emails appearing to originate from your legitimate domain, knowing that p=none offers no protective barrier. The recipient mail server simply delivers the fraudulent message. This policy effectively leaves your domain unprotected against direct domain spoofing. Despite having a DMARC record, your organization remains susceptible to advanced phishing techniques. The security posture of your email ecosystem is compromised. The Illusion of Insight: Data Without Action DMARC p=none does provide valuable data through its repor

Introduction to DMARC and the p=quarantine Policy DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance), defined in RFC 7489 , is an email authentication protocol. It builds upon SPF and DKIM to provide domain owners with the ability to protect their domain from unauthorized use. DMARC enables senders to specify how receiving mail servers should handle unauthenticated emails originating from their domain. It also provides a mechanism for receiving servers to report back to the domain owner about authentication results. DMARC policies dictate the action receiving mail servers should take when an email fails DMARC authentication. The three primary policies are: p=none : Monitor mode. Receiving servers take no action on failed messages but send reports. This is the initial deployment phase. p=quarantine : Receiving servers should treat failed messages as suspicious. They are typically placed in the recipient's spam folder or flagged for further review. p=reject : Receiving servers should outright reject messages that fail DMARC authentication. This is the strongest enforcement policy. Implementing p=quarantine is a critical step towards full domain protection. It allows domain owners to mitigate spoofing and phishing attempts without immediately blocking legitimate, but misconfigured, email streams. This policy provides a balance between security enforcement and minimizing potential deliverability disruptions. Prerequisites for DMARC p=quarantine Implementation Before deploying a p=quarantine policy, proper configuration of SPF and DKIM is mandatory. DMARC relies on these underlying authentication mechanisms and their alignment with the sending domain. SPF (Sender Policy Framework) SPF, specified in RFC 7208 , allows domain owners to publish a list of authorized sending IP addresses in their DNS. Receiving mail servers check the SPF record to verify if an incoming email originated from an authorized server. An SPF record is a TXT record at the root of

In this eMag, we try to establish agentic AI architecture as a new type of software architecture that will likely dominate the industry for years to come. The articles, written by industry experts, cover various elements and aspects of agentic AI architecture. We aim to present the latest trends and developments shaping the new type of architecture as it enters the mainstream. By InfoQ

Why Workflows Need a Dedicated Evaluation Framework Traditional software testing covers code correctness. Workflows add two layers of uncertainty: LLM output is non-deterministic : the same input can produce different results across runs Cross-step dependencies : a Phase 3 problem may only surface at Phase 7, making the debugging chain long Without an evaluation framework, every workflow change requires a full end-to-end run: slow, expensive, incomplete coverage. Three-layer testing decomposes the problem. Three-Layer Evaluation Structure Layer 3: End-to-end tests (Workflow level) Full pipeline from trigger to completion Test cases: eval/cases.yaml Metrics: completion rate, Phase 4 avg rounds, gate trigger rate Layer 2: Integration tests (Phase level) Cross-step data flow is correctly passed Cross-phase routing logic fires correctly Layer 1: Unit tests (Step level) Each subagent's output matches its output contract No real LLM calls — validates JSON schema only Test priority: Layer 1 should be the most numerous and fastest — catches contract violations in seconds. Layer 3 is the slowest and most expensive — run it only when changes affect the main pipeline. Layer 1: Step-Level Unit Tests Unit tests verify that subagent output files match the declared schema. No real LLM calls needed. # tests/unit/test_phase3_output.py import json from pathlib import Path def test_analysis_output_schema (): """ Phase 3 output must conform to analysis_final.json schema """ output = json . loads ( Path ( " test_fixtures/phase3/analysis_final.json " ). read_text ()) assert " passed " in output assert isinstance ( output [ " passed " ], bool ) assert " confidence " in output assert 0.0 <= output [ " confidence " ] <= 1.0 assert " root_cause " in output assert isinstance ( output [ " root_cause " ], str | type ( None )) assert " evidence " in output assert isinstance ( output [ " evidence " ], list ) # on failure, error field must be present and non-empty if not output [ " passed " ]: ass

Seven days of flow. Fixed a peer identity binding issue in py-libp2p, automated my Neovim lockfile merges, and added a massive batch of notes on xv6 and Category Theory. 10 commits and a solid PR in the works. TL;DR I managed to hit a perfect seven-day streak this week, balancing some deep-dive p2p networking work with necessary maintenance on my local environment. The highlight was opening a PR in py-libp2p to tighten up how PeerRecords are handled in the Kademlia DHT. On the side, I spent time automating the annoying parts of my Neovim config and dumping a fresh batch of notes into my knowledge base. 10 commits, 204 lines added, and a much cleaner workflow to show for it. What I Built Neovim Configuration & CI I’m a firm believer that your editor should work for you, not the other way around. My nvim repo saw a lot of action this week—9 commits in total—but most of it was under-the-hood maintenance. I’ve been leaning on Lua to keep things snappy, and this week was about ensuring my plugin ecosystem doesn't rot. I pushed several updates to keep plugins at their latest versions, but the real "quality of life" improvement was adding a chore to auto-resolve lazy-lock.json merge conflicts. If you’ve ever worked on your Neovim config across multiple machines, you know the headache of the lockfile drifting. I set up a flow to prioritize incoming changes, which saves me from manually triaging JSON diffs every time I pull from dev . It’s a small tweak, but it removes a recurring friction point in my daily flow. I also spent time cleaning up the root of the config, with about 37 additions and 33 deletions—refactoring is a constant process when you live in your terminal. The Knowledge Base I also put some serious time into main-notes . I’m currently going deep on a few different subjects, and I use this repo as my "second brain." I added 167 lines of new material across 13 files, covering a pretty diverse range of topics: xv6 (the re-implementation of Unix V6), Category Theo

Even the most advanced enterprise systems are tethered to a costly paradox: manual bottlenecks that introduce critical errors, security risks, and slow innovation. These hidden operational anchors are the friction preventing your organization from realizing its full potential. The Challenge: Manual Bottlenecks in Modern Enterprise Operations In an era defined by cloud-native architectures, microservices, and declarative infrastructure, a persistent and costly paradox remains at the heart of enterprise operations. We have built systems capable of immense scale and resilience, yet they are often tethered to manual, human-driven processes that act as operational anchors. These bottlenecks aren't just minor inefficiencies; they are critical points of failure, introducing latency, human error, and security vulnerabilities into our most important workflows. They represent the friction that slows down innovation, drains resources, and prevents organizations from realizing the full potential of their digital investments. Before we can orchestrate an autonomous workspace, we must first dissect the anatomy of these manual constraints. Identifying the High Cost of Manual Invoice Reconciliation To ground this challenge in reality, consider a ubiquitous and deceptively complex business process: accounts payable invoice reconciliation. On the surface, it seems simple. In practice, it's a classic example of a high-friction, manual workflow that silently bleeds enterprise resources. The typical process is a gauntlet of context-switching and swivel-chair integration: An invoice arrives, often as a PDF attached to an email, with no standardized format. A finance professional must manually open the document and visually identify key data points: invoice number, date, vendor, line items, and total amount. They then pivot to an ERP system like SAP or NetSuite to find the corresponding Purchase Order (PO). Next, they might need to access a separate logistics or warehouse management syste

The homelab started flat. One /24, everything on it. My workstation, the NAS, the Proxmox host, and — over time — a growing list of workloads sharing the same broadcast domain because that was the path of least resistance. For a while, that was fine. A homelab running one workload doesn't need segmentation any more than a house needs an office door. Then I stood up an Akash provider. An Akash provider is, in shape, a Kubernetes cluster that accepts inbound tenant workloads from the internet — real deployments, paying for compute, containers I didn't write landing in namespaces on my hardware. The provider itself is documented at github.com/jjozzietech/akash-provider-ops-public — this piece is about the network underneath it. The containerisation posture itself is fine. I trust the isolation model. But trust isn't a network design. And the network at that moment had the tenant workload cluster sitting on the same subnet as my workstation, my NAS, and my Proxmox management interface. That was the moment I stopped thinking of the rack as a home network with extra boxes, and started thinking of it as a small data centre. This piece is the network design that came out of that shift. I'll cover the layout, the rules that hold it together, and the Nexus and Proxmox configs that anchor it — with the specifics of my own deployment sanitised. It's not a step-by-step replication guide. It's the design pattern, with enough of the shape to be useful and enough restraint to not double as a recon document for my own rack. // the original design The flat layout looked like this: home lan — 192.168.1.0/24 opnsense (perimeter) cisco nexus (dumb L2 switching) proxmox host workload VMs (all on the same subnet) What it got right: zero routing complexity, everything reachable from everywhere, fast to stand up. If you're running one project on a homelab, this is the correct design. Don't over-engineer it. What stopped working, as soon as the second project landed on the rack, was that the

Almost every time I'm working out of a coffee shop, and sometimes at the airport, someone spots the stand my laptop is sitting on and asks, "What is that? Where'd you get it?" It happens enough that I figured I'd just write down what I actually travel with, for conferences or any time I'm not working out of my home office. Some links in this post are affiliate or referral links, which means I may earn a small commission or credit at no additional cost to you. My work travel gear list Roost Laptop Stand . This is the one that starts the conversation. It folds down into something small enough to slide into a bag pocket, and it raises my laptop screen to a much more comfortable height, so I'm not hunched over it all day. Apple Magic Trackpad (White) . I used to use this at my desk too, but work gave me an MX Master 3, and I've since moved on to the MX Master 4. The Magic Trackpad is strictly a travel tool these days. A tiny, folding Bluetooth keyboard. I bought a Jelly Comb Ultra Slim Folding Bluetooth Keyboard years ago and I don't think that exact model is even sold anymore, but the category is the takeaway here: a folding keyboard that fits in a jacket pocket is genuinely great to have on hand. An Anker 25,000mAh laptop power bank with three USB-C ports capable of delivering up to 100W. This one's big enough to actually charge my MacBook when I'm away from an outlet, rather than just topping up my phone. An Anker 727 Charging Station . This is basically my travel power hub: two USB-C ports, two USB-A ports, two AC outlets, and a detachable five-foot extension cord, all in something about the size of a phone. It can charge up to six devices at once and delivers up to 100W, so when I have access to an outlet, I use it for my MacBook, phone, watch, AirPods, and anything else that needs power. I leave the regular Mac power brick at home and bring this, the power bank, and my MagSafe cable instead. It looks like this exact model is currently unavailable, but it's worth s

If you've ever tried to build a simple command/telemetry protocol between a PC and a fleet of SDR receivers, sensors, or embedded devices, you know the usual options aren't great: Roll your own binary format — fast, but you end up writing and maintaining custom serialization code for every device type, and debugging mismatched structs across machines is painful. Protobuf / FlatBuffers — robust, but require you to define your message layout in a schema file upfront, run a code generator as part of your build, and commit to a fixed structure. Adding a new device type or a new parameter means editing the schema, regenerating, recompiling everything. JSON over the wire — easy to debug, but heavy for anything real-time or bandwidth-constrained. I ran into this while working on a multi-SDR receiver system and ended up writing MessageFrame — a small C++17 library that lets you build structured messages dynamically, without any schema files or code generation. The basic idea Instead of defining a struct for each device type, you address each parameter with two strings — a device name and a parameter name — and the library handles the rest: // One message, multiple devices, assembled at runtime msgframe :: MessageFrame msg ( MSG_TELEMETRY , TYPE_PERIODIC , src = 1 , tgt = 2 ); msg . add ( "sdr_1" , "rx_gain" , VALUE ( 30.0 )); msg . add ( "sdr_1" , "center_freq" , VALUE ( 915'000'000.0 )); msg . add ( "sdr_1" , "sample_rate" , VALUE ( 2'000'000.0 )); msg . add ( "sdr_2" , "rx_gain" , VALUE ( 25.0 )); msg . add ( "sdr_2" , "lock_status" , VALUE ( true )); msg . add ( "psu_1" , "voltage" , VALUE ( 12.04 )); msg . add ( "psu_1" , "temp_c" , VALUE ( 47.3 )); // Attach raw IQ data alongside the parameters std :: vector < uint8_t > iq_buffer = { 0x01 , 0x02 , 0x03 , 0x04 }; msg . add_attachment ( "raw_iq" , std :: move ( iq_buffer )); // Serialize into a buffer, send over whatever transport you use std :: vector < uint8_t > out ; msg . serialize ( out ); send_udp ( out . data (),

I connected one client to a blocking TCP server and held the socket open without sending a single byte. Then I connected a second client and sent it a line of text. The second client sat there for 1.51 seconds with no reply. It got its echo back one millisecond after I closed the first connection. That 1.51 seconds is the reason the other six versions of this server exist. Last week I wrote up why I rebuilt this server seven times : framework knowledge resets every few years, the layer underneath it compounds. That piece stayed at the level of outcomes. This one goes the other way, down into the code and the numbers. The claims that matter here are the kind you can read a hundred times without being able to derive them. "select is O(n)." "epoll only hands you the ready fds." I had read both for years. I wanted to make my own machine say them out loud. The target the whole exercise is built around is Dan Kegel's old C10K problem : how do you serve ten thousand clients at once on one server? Each of the seven versions hits a wall, and the wall is what names the next one. The whole thing is one echo server written seven times, no libraries beyond libc, on GitHub . Every number below is from running it on macOS (Apple clang 21, darwin 25.4) on 2026-06-29. The binaries are built with AddressSanitizer and UBSan on, so read the absolute microseconds loosely. The structure is what holds. Phase 01: blocking, and the 1.5 second stall The first server is the one everybody writes first. Accept a connection, talk to it, close it, accept the next. for (;;) { int client_fd = accept ( server_fd , NULL , NULL ); if ( client_fd == - 1 ) { perror ( "accept" ); continue ; } handle_client ( client_fd ); close ( client_fd ); } handle_client loops on read until the client hangs up. Both accept and read block: when there is nothing to do, the thread sleeps in the kernel. That is good for idle cost and fatal for everything else. While the server is parked in read waiting on client A, client

On Sunday night, the sold-out 2026 AI Engineer World's Fair kicked off its orientation at Moscone...

For the last few years, many enterprise AI conversations have started with the same question: “Where can we add an AI copilot?” It is an understandable starting point. Copilots are familiar. They sit inside existing tools, help users draft content, summarize information, search documents, write code, or answer questions. For teams experimenting with AI, they feel safe. But after 10 years of building mobile apps, web platforms, AI systems, internal tools, and enterprise-grade products, I have learned something that sounds simple but changes the whole strategy: The workflow is the product. Not the chatbot. Not the prompt box. Not the model. Not the dashboard. The workflow. Enterprise AI only becomes valuable when it changes how work actually moves across people, systems, approvals, decisions, and data. That is why companies now need to move beyond standalone copilots and toward AI workflow automation, enterprise AI agents, and agentic workflows that are designed around real operational outcomes. Copilots Help. Workflows Transform. An AI copilot is useful when a person needs assistance inside a task. It can draft an email, summarize a meeting, search policy documents, or help an engineer understand code. These are valuable use cases. But they usually improve a single moment of work, not the complete business process. A workflow, on the other hand, connects the full chain. For example, consider enterprise customer onboarding. A copilot may summarize the sales call. A workflow system can take that summary, extract requirements, identify missing information, create onboarding tasks, notify customer success, update the CRM, generate a kickoff plan, check billing setup, and flag delivery risks. That is a very different level of impact. AI Copilot AI Workflow Automation Assists one user Coordinates work across teams Responds when asked Triggers actions automatically Works inside a tool Connects multiple systems Improves productivity Improves operating performance Helps with

Monday’s final presentation was perhaps the most unusual one of the day in that it focused more on...