标签：#AR

The mission to Phobos, Japan’s first Mars probe launch in 28 years, may reveal new information about our closest planetary neighbor.

Onur Satici explains how Vortex, an open-source columnar file format under the Linux Foundation, revolutionizes high-throughput data loading. He details how cascading lightweight encodings, layout-based segment pruning, and zero-copy memory pipelines eliminate CPU/NVMe bottlenecks to stream S3 data straight to GPUs at speeds up to 60 Gbps without requiring upfront data reprocessing. By Onur Satici

This eMag examines how architects can lead with clarity in a rapidly evolving engineering world, distilling industry insights into field-tested practices for teams. Together, these stories reveal a core theme: the technology leader’s role is expanding from building systems to guiding how tech behaves and learns, while enabling engineers and organizations to bring out their best. By InfoQ

Homeland Security Investigations agents hit the outdoor retailer with a controversial subpoena as part of a dragnet search for the identities of protesters who entered a Minnesota church in March.

Macs are fantastic computers, but you’ll need one of these great displays to complete your work-from-home setup.

Hello, I'm Maneshwar, and I'm building LiveReview — a blast-radius aware AI code review built for...

Job seekers are trying to game the application process using AI. It’s not working, and not for the reasons you might think.

Ugreen, known for its phone power banks, chargers, and NAS storage solutions, is moving into the smart home - in a big way. This week at the IFA tech show, the company launched its HomeAgent smart home platform that combines security camera storage, on-device AI, and smart home control in one system, managed by a […]

You have an orders topic on a Kafka cluster, its values encoded with Avro against a schema in the Schema Registry . You want the orders worth more than fifty euros on a topic of their own, and you have decided to do it with Kafka Streams — a JVM library, your code, your deployment. The schema has five fields: { "type" : "record" , "name" : "Order" , "namespace" : "com.alginte.demo" , "fields" : [ { "name" : "orderId" , "type" : "string" }, { "name" : "customerId" , "type" : "string" }, { "name" : "item" , "type" : "string" }, { "name" : "quantity" , "type" : "int" }, { "name" : "priceEur" , "type" : "double" }]} You want one line of logic over them: quantity * priceEur > 50 . Here is everything standing between that line and a topic of big orders. Seven steps The route Confluent's own examples take, and many projects with them: Get the schema out of the registry and into your repository as an .avsc — or, if your team owns the schema in the repository and publishes it to the registry, the other way round. Whichever copy you call the source, there are now two that can disagree. Add the code generator to your build. Configure it — source and output directories, and the string type. Build , producing Order.java under target/generated-sources . Write the topology against the generated class. Package the application, with the schema, the class and the serde. Deploy it somewhere that runs a JVM. Steps 2 and 3 are this, once — in Maven, though Gradle's equivalent has the same shape: <plugin> <groupId> org.apache.avro </groupId> <artifactId> avro-maven-plugin </artifactId> <version> 1.12.1 </version> <executions><execution> <phase> generate-sources </phase> <goals><goal> schema </goal></goals> <configuration> <sourceDirectory> ${project.basedir}/src/main/avro </sourceDirectory> <!-- without this, string fields generate as CharSequence, not String; Confluent's own examples set it for the same reason --> <stringType> String </stringType> </configuration> </execution></executio

Battlefields in Ukraine are littered with the remnants of drones, which are now firmly established as a critical weapon of modern warfare. But behind all that wreckage, there’s a new gold mine for the defense sector. The data drones generate will far outlast the wars in which they are used to fight, increasingly becoming part…

AI engineering sounds fancy. New terms are everywhere: agentic development, AI-native engineering, spec-driven development, and now AI harness engineering. Underneath all the terminology, though, something genuinely useful is happening. AI can now help with requirements, challenge a PRD, explore UX ideas, reason about architecture, create implementation plans, write code and validate the result. The obvious question is what AI can do. The more interesting question is whether the way we build software is ready for it. The workflow is changing A workflow we've been exploring breaks development into five stages: requirements, refinement, planning, build and validation . The stages themselves aren't new, but AI can now participate in each one. It can take existing product inputs, help clarify the problem, question assumptions, identify gaps in a PRD and then turn a well-defined requirement into a plan and eventually implementation tasks. This puts more emphasis on the quality of the requirements. A human involved in a project might understand what “improve the experience” means because they've had several conversations about it. An agent doesn't have that shared history. It needs the problem, scope, constraints, edge cases and expected outcome to be explicit. That doesn't mean writing enormous specifications; it means using AI to help make the requirements precise before we start building. AI can actually be a useful, slightly annoying reviewer here, asking what happens when something fails, whether a requirement is testable, whether two parts of the document contradict each other and what we haven't considered yet. It can also help compare different versions of a PRD or have one model review another's output, making gaps easier to spot. The important part is that AI is helping us uncover ambiguity, not making the decisions for us. Maybe coding isn't the bottleneck This becomes more interesting when we look at where teams actually spend their time. Complex work can invo

I've been a die-hard Computer Science fan for as long as I can remember. Right after my 10th standard, I picked up C — that was four years ago. Around the same time, GitHub pulled me in before I even understood what was happening there. I couldn't parse a single line of what people were building, but I could tell something big was going on. That curiosity eventually pulled me into web development, and from there, into almost every corner of tech over the next few years — AI included. Diploma: The Real Lessons Weren't in the Syllabus I just finished a 3-year Diploma in Computer Engineering. Looking back, the biggest lessons weren't in the coursework. They were in hallway conversations — friends and teachers talking about where technology and the market are headed, instead of the usual teenage small talk. Watching how an organization actually runs, what really happens day to day — that taught me more than most subjects did. A Habit I Used to See as a Flaw Here's a pattern about how I work: everything I start, I start from zero — and I don't always go deep. I finish with the basics, then move on. For a long time I saw that as a bad habit. Three years and almost every major technology later, I've changed my mind — it was the fastest way to find out that "a little bit of everything" isn't who I am. What I actually need is to dig into a system until I find the reason it works. Until I do, I can't let it go. Where That Instinct Pointed Me: Cybersecurity That same need to dig eventually pointed me toward something equal parts fun and dangerous — cybersecurity. I'm about three months into this path now, and I'm moving slowly. Not because it's too hard, but because I won't move to the next topic until every dot is connected. Loose ends don't let me sleep. What I've Learned So Far This is still the floor, not the ceiling, but it's real and hands-on: Web authentication attacks — 2FA bypass, broken password-reset logic, username enumeration through timing differences, account lo

I built the pipeline that publishes this site's content in versioned code instead of n8n. Not a philosophical stance against no-code tools, a practical call, and one specific bug is why I still think it was the right one. Why code, not a canvas Four reasons drove it, in order of how much they actually mattered: Review parity. Every change to how a post gets approved or published goes through the same PR review as the rest of the site. A workflow-canvas change doesn't get that by default. Headless operation. Claude Code drives the queue directly, no GUI dashboard sitting between the agent and the task. Existing infrastructure. A Telegram bot already handled approvals; there was no gap a workflow tool needed to fill. One fewer service. Every extra tool in the stack is something else to patch and keep secure. Skipping it was the cheap option, not just the principled one. The bug that proved it On July 20, 2026, a scheduled post silently failed. The Buffer API adapter treated an error response as a normal one, never checked the status, so the X post never actually went out while the pipeline marked it published. Nothing threw, nothing alerted, the queue just quietly lied about what had shipped. I found it the way you'd expect: read buffer.py , saw exactly where the status check was missing, fixed one line. Cheap once you can see it. That's the part I can't picture happening the same way in a workflow canvas. I genuinely don't have a mental model for debugging that failure mode there, a canvas doesn't hand you the same thing a stack trace and git blame hand you in code. You'd be reading node configuration and hoping the tool's own logging caught the edge case, instead of reading the exact line that skipped a check. What this is actually about It isn't code versus no-code as a philosophy. It's about legibility when automation is wrong in a way that doesn't throw an error. A silent-fail bug is the worst kind, because nothing tells you to go look. The only thing that saved

RugOne's newest ruggedized phone has a waterproof action cam that you can remove.

After showing off several smart home firsts at CES, Aqara has returned to IFA with a major lineup of smart lighting compatible with both Zigbee and Thread. One of these new devices is the Floor Lamp T1, which trades the look of a typical lamp for an LED-equipped pole attached to a base. The lamp […]

Intro There's a pitch behind every "AI writes your tests too" workflow: more coverage, less manual toil, a safety net that used to take a sprint now takes minutes. The pitch skips over what that safety net is actually made of. When the same model writes the implementation and the test suite, you haven't added a second, independent check. You've asked one reviewer to grade its own homework and handed you the green checkmark as if someone else had signed off. The blind spot loop A model reasons about a function once, forms an implicit set of assumptions (input shapes, timezone handling, what counts as "empty"), and writes the implementation against those assumptions. Ask the same model to write tests for that function, and it doesn't re-derive correct behavior from scratch. It writes tests against the same assumptions it just used to write the code. If it assumed dates always arrive as ISO strings in UTC, the implementation assumes that, and the tests assume it too. The suite goes green. The assumption is still wrong. Tests that pass for the wrong reason (Illustrative, not a specific case, but recognizable to anyone who's shipped an AI-generated suite.) Picture a discount-calculation function where the model assumes quantities are always positive integers. The implementation skips a negative-quantity check. The generated tests exercise 1, 5, and 100, because those are the "normal" values a model reaching for plausible test data will reach for. Nothing ever asks what happens at -1 or 0, because neither pass, the code or the tests, ever considered them worth asking about. Coverage tooling reports 100% on this function. The bug ships anyway. Coverage becomes a false signal High line or branch coverage from an AI-authored suite tells you the code paths were exercised, not that the right inputs exercised them. A suite can hit every line of a function and still never send it a null, an empty array, a duplicate key, or a value at a type boundary, if the author, human or mode

Benchmark scores: https://preview.redd.it/dgumcg67ggnh1.png?width=1378&format=png&auto=webp&s=fae8fb006ef46fcdebb0876717fc977a905baa89 https://openai.com/index/gpt-6-astra/ Above, GPT-6 uses a harness for ARC-AGI-3, and is at about 60% without one: https://preview.redd.it/bym9wajephnh1.png?width=615&format=png&auto=webp&s=72cb425fb037ce68a68dcb433e7748b27dc96c41 Prior to the launch, OpenAI President Greg Brockman said "I think it’s not unreasonable to feel that we are now in the AGI era". GPT-6 is now joining a growing list of models that greatly exceed the human baseline on GDPval-AA v2: https://preview.redd.it/to7tdvbn4inh1.png?width=1419&format=png&auto=webp&s=02c413ab031cd943087684c5c573ce1e524b917d If we have AGI, why do human knowledge/remote workers still have jobs? Is it just a matter of time until the economy replaces a large number of humans with LLMs, or are LLMs lacking something that these benchmarks fail to measure? submitted by /u/we_are_mammals [link] [留言]

jQuery, created by John Resig and released in 2006, is a JavaScript library that simplifies HTML manipulation, event handling, animation, and Ajax. It enabled easier web development by providing an accessible API across browsers. While its use has declined with the rise of modern frameworks, jQuery remains prevalent on a significant portion of websites today. By Daniel Curtis

Short answer: for marketplace password recovery, choose the delivery setup that can prove what happened to every message, then keep the suppression decision in your own system. Inbox placement matters, but an evidence trail is the decision axis. A custom sending domain with aligned DKIM and SPF, bounce events, and exportable history gives an auditor something better than a green dashboard. The decision note: which delivery shape leaves evidence? Delivery shape Evidence you can normally retain Best fit Trade-off Managed transactional service Webhooks, message ids, DNS guidance Teams that need mailbox feedback quickly Retention and event detail vary by contract Cloud notification primitive Basic accepted or failed status Small systems with an existing mail pipeline Bounce reason and suppression semantics may be thin Self-hosted MTA Full local logs and routing policy Data-residency teams with on-call capacity Reputation, feedback loops, and maintenance become yours My default is the first shape, with a local ledger beside it. The transport can change; the account-recovery policy should not. That split also makes a provider review concrete: ask for a sample event export, its retention period, and the fields that connect a bounce to a reset request. The catch is operational capacity. A self-hosted stack is not suitable for a marketplace that cannot staff reputation incidents, while a managed service is a poor fit when its export cannot satisfy your retention or residency rules. Keep the cloud primitive for low-volume internal tools, not as an automatic answer for customer recovery. What must a password reset email evidence trail capture? Begin with the reset request. Store a hash of a random, single-use token, its expiry, the account identifier, and the request time. OWASP recommends a consistent response for existing and non-existing accounts, rate limiting, and invalidation after use; those controls prevent delivery telemetry from becoming an account-enumeration signal