标签：#AR

Anthropic's popularity with business users is growing so well that the latest beef with the government might actually boost it, data from Ramp suggests.

Partner tells Ars that HPE should be giving out more free VM Essentials licenses.

There is a comparison that the artificial intelligence industry had kept out of the public conversation until now. Satya Nadella brought it up this Sunday in a post on X that garnered over a thousand responses in just a few hours. The metaphor he used is "industrial offshoring" . Just as the first wave of globalization hollowed out industrial economies, wiping out factory jobs and decades of competitive advantage with consequences we still feel today, artificial intelligence threatens to do the same to corporate knowledge. The Silent Drain of Expertise The mechanism Nadella describes is concrete. If an organization hands over its workflows, its domain knowledge, and the accumulated judgment of its teams to external AI models, those models absorb it. What was once a unique advantage, now could become a generic capability available to everyone. There are no layoffs or plant closures. The hollowing out happens silently, in every usage cycle, in every operation the model records and leverages. Where there was once exclusive know-how, there is now a standard resource. "You can outsource a task, or even a job. But you can never outsource the learning." Microsoft CEO Warns That AI Winners Could Hollow 'Entire Industries' - Business Insider AI models are hoovering up corporate knowledge, and that's leaving one big loser, says Satya Nadella. businessinsider.com The Invisible Asset / The Identity This warning is not directed at employees but at executives. The risk Nadella identifies is not the loss of an individual position, but the erosion of the organisation's collective intellectual property, its processes, and the judgment a team spends years building. To name this, he introduces a term that was not in the business management vocabulary until now: "Token Capital" . This represents the layer of agentic capability that a firm builds and owns when it connects its real workflows with the AI models it uses. It is not software or a database. It is a system that learns with eve

The promise of agentic AI coding was a tireless partner, an assistant that could take a feature request and run with it while we focused on the hard problems. The reality, for most professional engineering teams, has been different. The reality is a brilliant but distractible intern you have to constantly supervise. The reality is spending 20 minutes writing the "perfect prompt," only for the AI to ignore a critical constraint, use a deprecated pattern from your codebase, and confidently break three other features. The reality is the "babysitting tax." It's the cognitive overhead of constantly reviewing, reverting, and re-explaining. And it's negating the incredible potential of these tools. At BrainGrid, we believe the problem isn't the agent—it's the plan. Or the lack thereof. In our rush to generate code, we've skipped the most critical step: creating a shared, deep, and unambiguous understanding of what we're actually building. "Vibe coding" doesn't work in a multi-tenant system where permissions are non-negotiable, or at least not with peace of mind. It doesn't work in a complex fintech application where money is on the line. And it certainly doesn't work in a four-year-old codebase with layers of tech debt and unwritten rules. The bottleneck in software development is no longer just the speed of writing code. The bottleneck has shifted to the speed of creating a reliable plan. BrainGrid is the AI-powered planning platform built to solve this new bottleneck. It's designed to provide the structure and guidance—the "babysitting plan"—that turns powerful but unreliable coding agents into predictable and effective teammates. Here's how: We Give the Agent a Map BrainGrid starts by deeply analyzing your entire codebase—its architecture, data models, and dependencies. It provides the persistent context that agents desperately need but currently lack. We Help You Define the Destination Our requirements agent acts like a seasoned tech lead, asking you and your team clar

The most important design decision in an email classifier isn't the model — it's the label set, and here's the one I keep coming back to: You triage email into one of four categories: URGENT — production incidents, executive requests; reply within 1 hour ACTION — code reviews, meeting follow-ups; reply same day FYI — informational, no response needed NOISE — newsletters, marketing, automated notifications From: {sender} Subject: {subject} Snippet: {snippet} Return ONLY the category name. Nothing else. That's the working prompt from the Nylas email triage recipe , and almost every line encodes a taxonomy-design lesson worth unpacking. Most people building email agents obsess over model choice and prompt phrasing. The recipe's quiet thesis is that the label set itself does the heavy lifting — get the taxonomy right and a cheap model classifies well; get it wrong and no model saves you. Why four is the magic number The recipe states it flatly: four is the right number. Three loses fidelity — everything important collapses into one overloaded bucket and you've built a binary classifier with extra steps. Five and the model starts confusing categories, because the boundaries between adjacent labels get too thin to express in a definition. Notice what makes these four work. They aren't topics — they're response obligations . URGENT means "reply within the hour," ACTION means "reply today," FYI means "no response needed," NOISE means "archive." Each label maps to exactly one behavior. That's the test I'd apply to any email taxonomy: if two labels lead to the same action, merge them; if one label leads to two different actions depending on content, split it. The same principle shows up in the sales context. The Agent Accounts overview describes an outreach agent classifying replies as interested / not now / unsubscribe — three labels, because the workflow has exactly three branches: book the meeting, schedule a follow-up, stop emailing. The taxonomy is the decision tree, fla

A human assistant borrows the boss's calendar; a scheduling bot owns its own. That one difference dissolves most of what makes calendar automation miserable. The borrowed-calendar model is how nearly every scheduling tool works today: connect to a person's Google or Microsoft account via OAuth, request calendar scopes, and act on their behalf. It works, but the seams show everywhere. The human's calendar fills with bookings the bot manages. Delegation permissions vary by provider and admin policy. Tokens expire when the person changes their password or leaves the company. And the bot has no address of its own — every invite, every confirmation email, appears to come from a person who didn't write it. Nylas Agent Accounts (currently in beta) invert this. Each account is a real mailbox and a real calendar , provisioned automatically, owned by your application. From a participant's perspective there's nothing special about it — it's just another attendee on the invite. What "owning availability" actually changes When the bot's calendar is its own, availability stops being a permissions question and becomes a query. The agent calls the free/busy endpoint against its own primary calendar, gets back busy blocks for a time window, and proposes open slots. No delegation, no scopes negotiation, no "the admin needs to approve calendar sharing for service accounts." The scheduling-agent tutorial wires the whole loop: a meeting request lands at scheduling@agents.yourcompany.com , a message.created webhook fires, an LLM parses duration and timezone, the agent checks its own free/busy and replies with 3 candidate slots. When the human picks one, the agent creates the event: curl --request POST \ --url "https://api.us.nylas.com/v3/grants/<GRANT_ID>/events?calendar_id=primary&notify_participants=true" \ --header "Authorization: Bearer <NYLAS_API_KEY>" \ --header "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{ "title": "Product demo", "when": { "start_time": 1744387200, "end_time": 174

When was the last time you deleted an email account on purpose? For most teams the answer is never, and that tells you something. We treat mailboxes the way we treated servers in 2008: hand-built, carefully named, kept alive indefinitely because recreating one is painful. They're pets. Meanwhile every other piece of our infrastructure — compute, queues, databases — became cattle: numbered, provisioned by code, destroyed without sentiment when the job ends. Email is finally catching up. With Nylas Agent Accounts (in beta), a mailbox is created with one call and destroyed with another, and that symmetry is the whole point. The full lifecycle in two commands Provisioning, from the CLI: nylas agent account create signup-agent@agents.yourdomain.com Or via POST /v3/connect/custom with "provider": "nylas" — no OAuth, no refresh token, just an address on a domain you've registered. Teardown is equally unceremonious: nylas agent account delete signup-agent@agents.yourdomain.com --yes (The API equivalent is a DELETE on the grant.) The signup automation recipe treats this as a loop: provision a fresh inbox, point a third-party signup form at it, catch the verification email through a message.created webhook, follow the confirmation link, delete the grant. No human inbox involved at any step, and nothing left behind. The middle of that loop is about twenty lines of webhook handler, and the recipe's version filters hard before acting — right grant, right sender, right URL shape: const { grant_id , id : messageId , from } = event . data . object ; if ( grant_id !== AGENT_GRANT_ID ) return ; const sender = from [ 0 ]?. email ?? "" ; if ( ! sender . endsWith ( " @saas-you-care-about.example.com " )) return ; const match = /https: \/\/ saas-you-care-about \. example \. com \/ confirm \? token= [^ " \s < ] +/ . exec ( message . body , ); if ( match ) await fetch ( match [ 0 ]); Nylas fires message.created within a second or two of mail arriving, so the whole signup round-trip typical

I have just finished writing API Artisan: A Guide to Building APIs with Laravel , and I am giving it away for free. Before you commit to 300-odd pages, let me give you the short version: the tips, patterns, and small decisions that separate an API that technically works from one that developers are genuinely happy to depend on. None of this needs more hardware, a different framework, or a bigger team. It needs you to point your attention at the right things. These are the ones I keep coming back to. Start by measuring the right thing Ask most teams how they know their API is good and you get a single question back: does it work? Can I hit this endpoint and get a response? That question is necessary, and it is nowhere near enough. The question I want you to ask instead is whether your API is liveable with. Can a developer read your docs, understand your auth model, make a successful request, and handle an error without contacting support, trawling a forum, or guessing what a status code is trying to tell them? The gap between "works" and "liveable with" never shows up in a sprint retro, but it shows up everywhere else: in support volume, in integration timelines that overrun, and in the quiet moment a developer decides to build around your API rather than with it. Everything else in the book hangs off one mindset shift: an API is a product. It has users. Treat it as an implementation detail and it will behave like one. It will change without warning when your internals change, and it will be inconsistent because different people wrote different parts on different days with different conventions. Write the contract before the code The natural way to build an endpoint is to write the handler, return some data, and document it afterwards if there is time. It feels efficient, and in the short term it is. The problem is what it produces: a contract that was never designed, only discovered. Let me show you the trap, because I have watched it catch good developers. You have

Snap CEO Evan Spiegel sat with us to discuss the Snap Specs, privacy, parental controls and more. Spoiler: He says "computing" a lot.

Last quarter our OpenAI bill went from $620 to $2,480 in 23 days. No new features shipped. No traffic spike. Zero error alerts. Deployment logs were clean. Just a number climbing in silence while five engineers stared at dashboards that gave us totals and nothing else. This is what we found. And why "cost monitoring" is completely the wrong mental model. The dashboard that answers the wrong question First thing I did was open the OpenAI usage dashboard. It showed me a total. A graph going up. A model breakdown. I knew we spent $2,480. I still had no idea which feature spent it, which service triggered it, or which user was responsible. The dashboard was answering "how much" while we were desperately asking "what caused it." Those are completely different questions. Almost every cost tool on the market only answers the first one. That distinction matters more than most engineering teams realise until they are staring at a bill like ours. Three features, zero visibility We had three features hitting GPT-4o: A document summariser, triggered manually by users An inline suggestion engine, triggered on keystrokes A batch report generator, triggered on export Any one of them could be the problem. Or all three. Or one specific tenant hammering one endpoint in a loop nobody noticed. Without attribution at the feature, service, and user level, we were just guessing. So I did what most engineers do: optimised the feature that felt most expensive. Added caching to the one that ran most often. Two weeks later the bill was still climbing. Guessing at cost problems without attribution data is exactly like debugging a performance issue without a profiler. You move things around and hope. 48 hours of real data A teammate dropped CostReveal in our Slack. I set it up that evening. The Node.js SDK wraps your existing provider calls. You instrument each one with a feature name, service context, and user or tenant ID. That is the entire integration for the base case: import { CostReveal

Trump admin green-lighting $111B deal "reeks of corruption," Sen. Warren says.

What Recruiters Can't See On My GitHub If you spend about 30 seconds looking at my GitHub profile, you might think I'm all over the place. React. Python. Healthcare. AI. Scrapers. Automation. Marketing tools. Job bots. Honestly, that's something I've worried about. I have over 100 repositories. Recruiters can see most of them, but not all of them. Some are private because they're client work. Some are private because they're unfinished. Some are private because they contain ideas I've spent years developing and I'm not quite ready to throw the blueprints onto the internet. From the outside, it can look random. But recently I realized something. All of those projects are solving the same problem. I hate repetitive work. My GitHub is here: https://github.com/ashb4 The Job Application That Broke Me I've applied to thousands of jobs over the years. Thousands. And one thing has always driven me absolutely insane. You upload your resume. Then the company immediately asks you to type your entire resume into fifteen different boxes. Your work history. Your education. Your skills. Everything. The computer already has the information. The resume is right there. Yet somehow I'm sitting on page seven of an application retyping information that already exists. It feels inefficient. It feels stupid. And most of all, it feels like a waste of time. Eventually I got annoyed enough to start building tools to help. Then I Noticed a Pattern At first I thought I was building unrelated projects. A job application helper. A content scheduler. A healthcare platform. An AI framework. A browser automation system. But when I stepped back, I noticed the same motivation behind almost all of them. Every project started with some version of: "There has to be a better way to do this." Take PostPunk. Most people see a social media scheduler. I see hours of repetitive posting that I never want to do again. I like creating content. I do not like manually posting the same content everywhere. So I buil

These might not be the most popular or well-known Apple Watch features, but we think they're worth using and setting up.

Google’s Android 17 update includes highlights like new floating “Bubble” app windows for easier multitasking, a Screen Reaction recording mode, and a 50/50 split gaming mode for foldable phones. Meanwhile, Wear OS 7 brings Live Updates, better battery life for smart watches, and prepares connections for new Android XR smart glasses that will launch this […]

Qualcomm's CEO said today that the company is working on over 40 new AI hardware designs

Pentagon also claims 1.5 million personnel are using generative AI tools.

Nimble’s thoughtfully designed SharePower is a modular power bank you can share with a friend.

A pair of prototype Ray Ban Meta glasses at AWE 2026 show that NFC charging can achieve similar performance to the pogo pins common in smart glasses today.

The company is taking paid reservations for a launch later this year.

For over a decade now, Snap has been working on this device. Now the glasses are finally here. So what stands out on first impression?