AI 资讯

"Show nothing, hold everything." — The Thirty-Six Stratagems, Create Something Out of Nothing Previously on this series: #4: P Walked Into an AI Monitoring POC. P Didn't Run a Single Test. — P found an ACL business card in an abandoned POC archive. P didn't tell anyone. P just pocketed it. White walls. Fluorescent hum. A FortDefender quarterly report sat open on the table, the cover printed in bold: Zero missed detections. 99.97% detection rate. The CTO slid it across. "The day the leak happened," he said quietly, "this system said everything was fine." "Which client?" " MedTech . Medical data breach. Their internal AI monitoring didn't catch it either. The quarterly report called it 'client-side issue.' I don't buy it." P didn't look at the report first. P looked at the CTO's eyes first. "You didn't bring me here to validate his numbers." The CTO didn't deny it. " FortDefender won't give you production access," he said. "Read-only logs. Sandbox. Public docs. You signed the NDA." "What do you want me to do?" "Find what's hiding inside 'everything was fine.'" P nodded. P didn't ask "what if I find it" — P knew the answer. "One condition: full internal penetration test access. No advance notice to anyone." The CTO was quiet for three seconds. "Done." P stood up. The CTO added one more thing as P turned: "I've heard about the FirmCore thing. That's why I called you." P didn't look back. Week One FortDefender 's public documentation was beautiful. Architecture diagrams. Whitelist rules. Alert thresholds. Response times. All in a technical whitepaper so polished you'd think it was written to raise funding. P spent three days reading every page. In the sandbox, P ran three rounds of tests. FortDefender 's detection system hit every single one. The 99.97% wasn't a lie — at least not inside the sandbox. But P noticed something. FortDefender 's whitelist rules were too complete. They covered everything — down to "penetration tests with valid internal certificates" being pre-

Forterra has deployed more than 100

My Downloads folder had been left unkept for a really long time and cleaning it up using Finder was quite cumbersome. So I started creating a simple app to help me filter out and delete or move the files in the folder. It started out very basic and the filtering options genuinely helped me clean out the Downloads folder, then as I thought of more features I would like to see in a file manager I started to add them. Some of the features are: - Fuzzy go to folder/file where you only need to write

Aaron Erickson explains how NVIDIA designs and tests purpose-built AI agent hierarchies. For senior developers and architects, he outlines why balancing deterministic tools with agentic discovery is crucial. Discover how to leverage rare context, implement LLM-as-a-judge test pyramids, and avoid the paradox of choice to build highly reliable, production-grade AI systems at scale. By Aaron Erickson

When people talk about hackathons, they talk about the demo. The pitch, the UI, the "aha" moment on stage. Nobody really talks about the person who spent the whole weekend making sure the data didn't fall apart. That was me on AidStream, a blockchain-based aid distribution platform we built in a weekend and trust me it wasnt that easy as it seems. At a normal project, you can revisit your data model whenever.But during a hackathon you cant since when teamamtes start working on top of your tables it means both codes may start breaking . Serverless Postgres was the right choice for a hackathon: no local DB setup, no "wait, whose laptop has Postgres installed" problem. Everyone could connect to the same instance immediately. The gotcha was connection limits — with multiple people hitting the same database while testing features simultaneously, we ran into connection issues at the worst possible time (an hour before demo). So next time you watch a hackathon demo go off without a hitch, remember — someone probably spent the whole weekend quietly making sure the database didn't have a say in it. If you're the one holding the schema together at 2am, know this — it's not the flashy role, but it's the one that decides whether anyone else's code even runs.

I was implementing a feature where the session container would track a lastActivity timestamp, updated on every authenticated request. Standard stuff. I wrote it, tested it locally with curl, and noticed something odd: I kept getting a new Set-Cookie header value on every response. Not occasionally. On every single one. A week later I was sending a pull request to mezzio/mezzio-session-cache . The Setup: Two Backends, One Session Our system had a constraint: two backend applications, written in different languages, sharing a single user session. One was the main PHP/Mezzio app. The other was a service in a different stack that needed to read from, and update the lastActivity timestamp on, the same session container. There are a few ways to make polyglot session sharing work. We landed on a shared cache backend (Redis) with a well-defined session structure. Both apps could read and write through their own libraries, as long as they agreed on the storage format and the cookie name. The session ID was the contract. That contract is the part that quietly broke. A Missing Escape Hatch My first instinct was the usual list of suspects. Was something calling regenerateId() in a middleware I didn't know about? Was there a logout being triggered somehow? Was a misconfigured cache layer evicting and recreating sessions? After a bit of digging through the call stack, I ended up in the library itself. And there it was: CacheSessionPersistence was regenerating the session ID whenever the session data changed . Not on login. Not on privilege escalation. On every write . That's when the real question hit me: why on earth would a library do that by default? Reading Code Before Changing It When you find behavior that surprises you in someone else's code, the wrong move is to immediately label it broken. The right move is to assume the maintainers had a reason, and find out what it was. The reason, in this case, is session fixation . Session fixation is a class of attack where an atta

"Cheapest residential proxy" is a search query with a hidden trap: the lowest price per GB and the lowest cost per successful request are not the same number. This post breaks down ten budget-to-mid-tier residential proxy providers from a cost-and-reliability angle, plus a script for measuring the metric that actually matters before you commit real traffic. The trap: price per GB vs. cost per success A proxy at $0.50/GB that fails half your requests is more expensive than one at $1.40/GB with a 98% success rate, because you're paying for retries, wasted bandwidth, and engineering time spent debugging "random" failures. Before comparing sticker prices, calculate: real_cost = traffic_price + failed_request_overhead + retries + setup_time + support_delays Concretely, here's a quick way to model it: def cost_per_success ( price_per_gb , success_rate , avg_response_kb = 50 , retry_overhead = 1.3 ): """ price_per_gb: advertised price success_rate: 0.0-1.0, measured against YOUR target site, not the vendor ' s claim retry_overhead: multiplier for bandwidth wasted on failed/retried requests """ effective_price = price_per_gb * retry_overhead gb_per_request = avg_response_kb / ( 1024 * 1024 ) cost_per_request = gb_per_request * effective_price return cost_per_request / success_rate # Example: cheap provider, mediocre success rate print ( cost_per_success ( 0.50 , 0.75 )) # looks cheap, isn't once failures are priced in # Example: pricier provider, high success rate print ( cost_per_success ( 1.40 , 0.98 )) # often cheaper in practice Run this with your own measured success rate (see the test harness further down), not the vendor's advertised uptime number. What to actually compare Before looking at price, check whether the provider covers: IP pool size and quality (pool size alone tells you nothing about freshness or block rate) Country vs. city-level targeting Sticky session support (for anything stateful) Rotation controls (for scraping/data collection) HTTP(S) and SOCKS5

For years, developers have faced the same dilemma when implementing complex search APIs: GET is the correct semantic choice for read-only operations, but query parameters can become extremely long and difficult to manage. POST allows sending a request body, but it's intended for operations that may change server state, making it a poor semantic fit for searches. To bridge this gap, the IETF has introduced a new HTTP method: QUERY (RFC 10008). Why was QUERY introduced? Modern APIs often require complex filtering: nested JSON filters GraphQL-like requests advanced search criteria large lists of IDs geospatial or analytical queries Encoding all of this into a URL is cumbersome and can exceed practical URI length limits. Developers have traditionally worked around this by using "POST" for read-only searches. The problem is that "POST" doesn't express the intent of the request very well. The new QUERY method solves this by allowing clients to send a request body while keeping the operation explicitly safe and idempotent. Key benefits ✅ Request body support Unlike "GET", "QUERY" allows sending structured request data in the message body, making complex searches much easier to model. ✅ Safe by design Like "GET", a "QUERY" request must not modify server state. It clearly communicates that the request is read-only. ✅ Idempotent Repeating the same "QUERY" request produces the same result without additional side effects, allowing clients and intermediaries to safely retry requests after transient failures. ✅ Cache-friendly Unlike the common "POST"-for-search pattern, "QUERY" is designed to work with HTTP caching, enabling better performance and more efficient network usage. ✅ Better API semantics Instead of overloading "POST" for read operations, APIs can now express their intent more accurately: "GET" → simple resource retrieval "QUERY" → complex read operations with a request body "POST" → operations that create or modify state Example Instead of forcing everything into a lo

Disclaimer: I'm currently learning web security through OWASP and PortSwigger Web Security Academy. These are my beginner-friendly notes rewritten as a blog to help reinforce my understanding. If you're just starting out, I hope this makes the topic easier to understand. What you'll learn: In this article you'll learn: ✔ What Broken Access Control is ✔ Vertical Privilege Escalation ✔ Security by Obscurity ✔ Parameter-Based Access Control ✔ Platform Misconfiguration ✔ Horizontal → Vertical Escalation ✔ IDOR ✔ Lessons learned from PortSwigger labs Concept Map: What is Broken Access Control? Broken Access Control happens when a user is able to access data, pages, or perform actions that they are not supposed to . Why should you care? Broken Access Control has ranked #1 in the OWASP Top 10 (2021) because it can expose sensitive data, allow privilege escalation, and let attackers perform actions they should never be able to perform. Think of a website with two types of users: Normal User Admin A normal user should only be able to view their own profile and perform basic actions. An admin, however, can manage users, delete accounts, change settings, etc. If a normal user somehow gains access to those admin features, that's Broken Access Control . In interview terms: Broken Access Control is the failure to properly enforce authorization, allowing users to perform actions beyond their intended permissions. 1. Vertical Privilege Escalation Vertical Privilege Escalation means moving up the permission hierarchy. Example: Normal User ↓ Admin A normal user should never be able to become an administrator. 1.1 Unprotected Functionality One of the simplest forms of Broken Access Control is Unprotected Functionality . Imagine a website has an admin page: /admin The developer removes the Admin button from the normal user's dashboard. Problem solved? No. If a user manually visits: /admin and the server doesn't verify whether they're actually an admin, the page opens. The mistake here

Python's Memory Model Is Not What You Think It Is Ask most Python developers how Python stores a variable and they will say "it stores the value." This is imprecise in a way that causes real bugs and real confusion in interviews. A precise mental model of how Python stores and retrieves data changes how you read and write code. Python does not store values in variables. Python binds names to objects. The distinction sounds philosophical until you trace code that involves mutation, function arguments, or aliasing. Then it becomes the most practically useful concept in the language. Names Are Not Boxes The box metaphor, which says a variable is a box that holds a value, is how most introductory programming courses explain variables. In many languages this metaphor is close enough to accurate that it does not cause problems. In Python it is wrong in ways that matter. A more accurate metaphor: a Python name is a label attached to an object. The object exists independently in memory. Multiple labels can be attached to the same object. Attaching a new label does not move or copy the object. x = [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] y = x print ( id ( x ) == id ( y )) # True (same object, two labels) When you write y = x , you are not copying the list. You are creating a second label that points to the exact same list object. The Four Operations You Must Distinguish 1. Assignment creates a new binding x = [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] x = [ 4 , 5 , 6 ] # x now labels a completely different object The first list still exists in memory until garbage collected. The name x simply stops pointing to it and now points to the second list. 2. Mutation modifies an existing object x = [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] x . append ( 4 ) # the object x labels is modified in place Any other name pointing to the same object will instantly reflect this change because they look at the same memory location. 3. Augmented assignment on mutable types mutates x = [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] y = x x += [ 4 , 5 ] print ( y ) # [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] (same object, mutated) The

1.6T MoE trained entirely on AI ASICs Discussion | Link

When I wrote about shifting the engineering process left — spec sessions, autonomous agents, humans reviewing output rather than writing code — a question kept coming up. Where does the Product Owner fit in all of this? It’s the right question. And I think the answer is more interesting than “the PO disappears.” Let’s start with acceptance criteria. We invented them to bridge a gap. The team needed to know when something was done. The PO needed confidence that what got built matched the intent. Acceptance criteria were the contract between the two. But if the Spec Session is where intent gets defined — by the whole team, together, before the agent runs — that gap closes. What the team agreed on in the room is the definition of done. The spec is the acceptance criteria. You don’t need a separate validation step because the planning and the agreement happened at the same time. The tighter the loop, the less ceremony you need around it. There’s a caveat though. The spec is a necessary contract. It’s not a sufficient one. Simon Martinelli’s work on the AI Unified Process validates the spec-driven approach technically. But his model is about the artifact — requirements at the center, AI generating everything else from them. How the team actually builds shared understanding before the spec exists isn’t something it addresses. That’s not a criticism. It’s just a different question. A spec written after a real Spec Session — where the team worked through edge cases together, disagreed, got to resolution — is different from a spec written by one person and signed off asynchronously. Same artifact. Different quality of shared understanding. That distinction matters when the agent hits an edge case the spec didn’t anticipate. So what’s actually left for a dedicated PO? Two things. And they’re very different. The first is product thinking — challenging intent, representing user needs, asking why before the agent runs with something. That’s valuable. But it doesn’t require a ded

Part 2 of 2. This tutorial builds on Part 1 — DesignFoundation core . If you haven't added the base package and theme yet, start there. The core package gives you tokens and primitives. DesignFoundationPro adds what comes next — 29 blocks, 47 screens, 18 navigation shells, and 9 runnable composition examples across auth, onboarding, charts, data tables, and full product verticals. The docs claim ~87% fewer lines of code versus building from scratch. That's the bet. This matters even more if an AI coding agent is doing the building. Ask an agent for a CRM screen and a settings screen in the same session and, without guardrails, you'll get two different takes on spacing, two different sidebar behaviors, and a table that's native on Mac in one screen and a scroll view pretending to be a table in the other. Pro ships with that guardrail already in place — more on that in Where to go from here. How the two packages relate Pro sits on top of Foundation and re-exports it. Import only DesignFoundationPro and you get everything from both: YourApp your models, data, routing DesignFoundationPro 29 blocks · 47 screens · 18 shells · 9 examples DesignFoundation tokens · primitives · validation · theme engine · MIT Access: Foundation is MIT and public. Pro is a commercial add-on — repo access is granted after purchase. Licenses are lifetime (no subscription); annual updates are $39/year and entirely optional. Pricing: $149 individual · $449 team (up to 5 devs). Before buying, browse everything in DFPlayground — a free macOS app that lets you preview all 29 blocks, 47 screens, and 18 shells with live theming. Step 1: Add DesignFoundationPro Pro declares Foundation as its own dependency and re-exports it via @_exported import DesignFoundation . Add only the Pro package — Foundation comes with it automatically. The Pro repo URL is provided after purchase — contact nerdsnipe.inc@gmail.com or visit the Pro page to get access. dependencies : [ . package ( url : "https://github.com/NerdS

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations are often presented as simple governance systems: token holders create proposals, vote, and execute decisions on-chain. In practice, building a production-grade DAO is far more difficult. A DAO is not only a smart contract. It is a distributed coordination system that combines governance logic, treasury security, token economics, identity, off-chain infrastructure, and human decision-making. A failure in any one of these layers can compromise the entire organization. Below are some of the most important technical problems DAO developers must solve. 1. Governance Attacks Through Borrowed Voting Power Many DAOs calculate voting power based on the number of governance tokens held at a specific moment. This creates a serious attack surface when tokens can be borrowed through lending protocols or flash loans. An attacker may temporarily acquire a large amount of voting power, submit or approve a malicious proposal, and return the borrowed assets shortly afterward. The standard defense is snapshot-based voting power. Instead of checking a user’s current balance, the governance contract reads historical balances from a previous block. function getVotes( address account, uint256 blockNumber ) public view returns (uint256) { return token.getPastVotes(account, blockNumber); } However, snapshots alone do not solve every problem. Developers should also consider proposal delays, minimum token-holding periods, quorum requirements, and vote-delegation risks. 2. Dangerous Proposal Execution The most sensitive part of a DAO is usually the executor. A successful proposal may call arbitrary contracts, transfer treasury assets, upgrade protocols, or change governance parameters. If proposal calldata is incorrectly validated, a governance action can execute unintended operations. A DAO should clearly separate: Proposal creation Voting Proposal queuing Timelock execution Emergency cancellation Using a timelock gives token holders and security teams

AI coding tools can now write features, edit multiple files, debug code, run commands, and generate tests. But while researching how developers use these tools, I keep seeing the same question: Are AI coding tools actually saving us as much time as they should? The models are becoming more capable, but developers still seem to spend significant time managing context, checking changes, watching usage limits, choosing models, and explaining the same project information again. I’m trying to understand whether these are widespread problems or just isolated experiences. The Problems I'm Investigating Context and Memory Long AI coding sessions can sometimes lose direction. The AI may forget earlier decisions, misunderstand project conventions, suggest previously rejected approaches, or require the developer to explain important context again. This makes me wonder: Should project knowledge disappear when a chat session ends? Would it be useful if the development environment could preserve relevant architecture decisions, coding conventions, previous bugs and fixes, failed approaches, current tasks, and next steps? Agent Reliability Writing code is only one part of development. An ideal agent workflow might look more like: Understand → Plan → Edit → Run → Test → Fix → Verify But how autonomous should that process be? Should the agent complete the entire loop independently, ask before risky actions, or wait for approval at every major step? Models, Usage, and Cost Developers now have access to many models, but choosing between them can become another task. Should developers always choose models manually, or should the development environment select an appropriate model based on task complexity, quality requirements, privacy, speed, and budget? Usage limits are another concern. Some developers report difficulty predicting how quickly their allowance is being consumed. Would real-time usage visibility, spending limits, local model support, or BYOK actually improve the experien

Introduction AI governance is often framed around risk, ethics, safety, and international cooperation. These are essential, but they are not sufficient. Governance only becomes real when countries have the computing infrastructure required to run, monitor, and maintain modern AI systems. Without compute, governance is theory. With compute, governance becomes capability. This article explores the missing execution layer in global AI governance — and why bridging the AI divide requires far more than policy alignment. The Hidden Dependency: Governance Assumes Infrastructure Most governance frameworks implicitly assume that nations already have: access to high performance compute reliable data pipelines secure storage operational tooling energy capacity connectivity skilled operators But this assumption is false for the majority of the world. The global AI divide is not primarily about access to models. It is about access to the infrastructure required to run them. Governance frameworks that ignore this reality risk becoming aspirational rather than actionable. The Execution Layer: Where Policy Meets Reality The execution layer is the part of AI governance that turns policy into practice. It includes: compute infrastructure data ingestion and processing pipelines monitoring and evaluation tooling human in the loop operational workflows maintenance and lifecycle management energy and cooling requirements secure deployment environments This layer is rarely discussed in governance conversations, yet it is the foundation upon which all responsible AI depends. Without an execution layer, governance collapses into paperwork. The Real Global Divide Isn’t About Models — It’s About Compute There is a persistent misconception that the AI divide is about access to large models. In reality, the divide is driven by: insufficient compute unreliable infrastructure lack of operational capacity limited data availability absence of secure environments dependency on external providers A c