标签：#AR

QCon AI New York 2026 (Dec 15-16) has opened registration at The Westin Jersey City Newport. Six tracks on production AI, chaired by Eder Ignatowicz with Faye Zhang and Wes Reisz. First sessions announced in August, full program by November. By Artenisa Chatziou

The next time you’re locked out of your Google account, you can use your face as part of the account recovery process.

Teams treat "externalize the rules" as two different decisions depending on the stack. In Node, it's "which npm package handles conditionals." In Java, it's "do we adopt Drools." Both framings are wrong in the same way — they turn an architecture decision into a product decision before anyone's actually designed the seam. The seam is the same regardless of language: rules become data instead of control flow, the boundary between your service and the rule layer is typed on both sides, and a contract test catches the moment a rule change would silently break what your code expects back. Get that seam right and it barely matters whether you're calling it from Express or Spring Boot. Get it wrong and you've just moved your if statements into a config file and called it progress. The seam: rules as data, not control flow The actual pattern is small. Instead of branching logic living inline in a handler or a service method, you define a typed input, a typed output, and a rule set that maps one to the other — evaluated somewhere the calling code doesn't need to know the internals of. That's it. That's the whole architectural move. Everything else — which engine, which language, how it's hosted — is an implementation detail on top of that seam. Most of the friction teams run into with a low-code layer in Node.js or a Java service isn't the rule engine choice. It's skipping the typed boundary and finding out three months later that a rule change silently returns a shape the calling code wasn't built to handle. Node.js: keeping the boundary typed Here's the seam in a TypeScript service. The route handler never sees a conditional — it sees a typed input going in and a typed decision coming out: interface PricingInput { userTier : " free " | " pro " | " enterprise " ; cartTotal : number ; couponCode ?: string ; } interface PricingDecision { discountPercent : number ; reason : string ; } async function evaluatePricingRule ( input : PricingInput ): Promise < PricingDecision > { c

I cranked Apple’s iOS 27 beta to maximum transparency on my iPhone and enjoyed every warped second.

Every morning, an online store receives the previous day’s orders from a marketplace partner. The file comes in JSON format. The company needs to add those orders to its main MongoDB orders collection. The sales manager also needs a CSV report that can be opened in Excel. That sounds like a small task. Import the file, copy the documents, export the report. But in practice, a few things can break the process. A date can be imported as a string. A field can have the wrong name. One batch may use total , while the main collection uses totalAmount . A temporary collection can keep old records and trigger duplicate key errors. A CSV export can create null values because the mapping points to fields that do not exist. And then there is customer data. The manager may need the sales numbers, but they probably do not need real customer names or internal customer IDs. This article walks through a real daily workflow: Import marketplace JSON ↓ Store the batch in a temporary MongoDB collection ↓ Copy the orders into the main orders collection ↓ Mask customer fields during export ↓ Create a CSV report The goal is not just to move data from JSON to CSV. The goal is to make the process repeatable, easier to check, and safer to share. The workflow The workflow has three jobs: Import Yesterday Orders ↓ Add Orders to Main ↓ Export Daily Sales Report The important part is the parent relationship between the jobs. Add Orders to Main depends on Import Yesterday Orders , so it only runs after the JSON file is imported successfully. Export Daily Sales Report depends on Add Orders to Main , so the CSV is created only after the main orders collection has been updated. This prevents the report from being generated when data is missing or incomplete. The incoming JSON file The partner sends a file with yesterday’s completed orders. A single order looks like this: { "orderId" : "ORD-2026-07-201" , "customerId" : "CUST-1003" , "customerName" : "Sofia Rossi" , "orderDate" : "2026-07-21T08:20:00

Most bibliography failures show up the night before arXiv or the journal deadline: placeholder DOIs, year pasted into volume= , inverted page ranges, invented case reporters. The fix is a paper repo that fails closed from day one . One command pip install https://github.com/SybilGambleyyu/citesure/releases/download/v0.5.68/citesure-0.5.68-py3-none-any.whl citesure init my-paper cd my-paper citesure gate . --preset ci citesure gate . --preset arxiv citesure init writes refs.bib , pre-commit hooks ( gate --preset ci + soft-lint), .github/workflows/citesure.yml , and a short CITESURE.md for coauthors. Empty bibliographies skip hard-ID floors until entries appear. What the gate checks Soft-lint — placeholder number/issue, inverted pages, year-like volume/month/edition, unsafe keys, all-caps titles, missing venues, duplicate DOIs/titles Health — hard-ID coverage floors Promote dry-run — DOIs still buried in url= Live verify — Crossref, doi.org, arXiv, PubMed, Europe PMC, DataCite, OpenAlex, CourtListener Domain packs Fifty-five live-clean packs (demography, sociology, political science, anthropology, ML, law, ecology, …): citesure packs --gate-all citesure packs --run anthropology-classics Evidence: 256/256 integrity · 209/209 claim pairs · 55 packs. Source: github.com/SybilGambleyyu/citesure · Demo: citesure.sybilgambleyyu.workers.dev

With “blessings” from the original Jibo founders, iKairos is a wearable or desk-mounted “AI journal” that turns your family moments into AI images and video.

On July 3, as a heat wave swept the region, New York State’s grid imported 52 gigawatt-hours of electricity from Canada—enough to meet about 9% of its total electricity demand that day. Some of that power shuttled in on a 339-mile power line stretching from Quebec to Queens called the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE).…

The bottleneck in a mature SOC is rarely analyst triage; rather, it is the detection-engineering team's ability to keep the rule base aligned with a threat landscape that evolves faster than rules can be written. Learn how multi-agent system for production security operations has reduced mean times to detect and to respond by 40% and compressed the human work required by 12x. By Willem Berroubache

TL;DR : most production AI tasks are not LLM tasks. To triage my email, I replaced a 7-billion-parameter model with a tiny classifier in Go. The rule fits in one sentence. Rules first, a small model next, the LLM only as a last resort. The result: no GPU, sub-millisecond inference, and a cloud call that became rare. Here is how, with the real numbers. This article is for developers who put an LLM in production and pay the bill. Not a demo. Most AI tasks are not LLM tasks In 2026, the default reflex is to wire a big model into everything. A question comes in, you call the LLM. But many tasks do not need it. Filing an email under "work" or "newsletter" is classification. A problem solved for twenty years, long before LLMs. To classify is to pick a label from a short, stable list. To generate text is something else. The first job needs a small model. The second earns a big one. The rule I defend fits in one sentence. Put the LLM last. The setup I built an agent that triages my inbox. It is a daemon. It reads new messages and files each one into a category: work, notification, newsletter, promo, and a few more. Nothing secret, just my real mailbox, with years of mail. The first version handed every email to a local LLM. A 7-billion-parameter model, Qwen 2.5 7B, served by Ollama on a GPU. Ollama is a tool that runs an LLM on your own machine. It worked. But the price was heavy. A GPU on all the time. One more container to watch. And an absurd slowness for the question asked. One day I asked myself: does deciding "is this a newsletter?" really need 7 billion parameters? No. The answer sits in two or three words from the sender and the subject. So I rethought the whole thing. Three layers, from cheapest to most expensive Every email goes through three layers, in order. It stops at the first one that can answer. Deterministic rules. Instant, exact, no cost. A small model. Sub-millisecond, on CPU. The LLM. Only if the small model is unsure. The routing code fits in a few lin

As a backend developer, I have build hundreds of endpoints, so the typical endpoint flow is deeply ingrained in how I think about web applications. But when I started building AI-powered endpoints, I noticed an interesting shift. At first, AI endpoints looked like simple proxy endpoints with some configuration for connecting to a model: API receives request ↓ send prompt to model ↓ receive response ↓ return it to the client And it worked well until I found out that passing a prompt directly from the client was not a good idea. The endpoint could be misused for a completely different purpose, allowing someone else to consume my AI usage credits. Then I realized that the input also needed limits. Sending a large context for a specific task costs more and may produce unexpected results. So when I started looking closer, especially when I needed reliable structured output and predictable application behavior, I quickly realized that it was not that simple. Validation was no longer only guarding execution, it had also become a post-processing step. AI models are probabilistic. Even with the same input, they may return different outputs, omit required information, misunderstand instructions or return something that is technically valid but logically wrong. And because every token has a price, I cannot simply retry the request and hope for a better result. That was when I started questioning whether AI endpoints should be designed in the same way as conventional Web API endpoints. Table of Contents Conventional Web API Endpoint Flow AI-powered Web API Endpoint Flow What This Difference Changes Unpredictable Latency Retry Logic Idempotency and Side Effects Testing AI Endpoints The Output Contract Observability and Cost Summary Conventional Web API Endpoint Flow A conventional Web API endpoint usually follows a similar flow: validate request ↓ execute business logic ↓ return representation The first phase is request validation. We validate the incoming data against property

Every day, I see discussions about how AI assistants and Copilot are changing software development. And honestly? I agree. AI is helping us save time, automate repetitive work, and learn faster than ever before. But recently, I've noticed something that concerns me. Some interviewers, managers, and even developers are starting to treat AI-generated answers as the "correct" answers. That's where I think we're making a mistake. 🤔 Does Copilot Know Your Responsibilities? We've all seen responses like: "With 10 years of experience, you should know this." But who decides that? Does Copilot know: The projects you've worked on? The systems you've built? The challenges you've solved? The responsibilities you've carried for the last 10 years? The answer is simple: No. Two developers can have 10 years of experience and possess completely different skill sets. One may be an expert in distributed systems. Another may specialize in frontend architecture. A third may have spent years building enterprise applications. Meanwhile, a developer with only 5 years of experience may know a modern technology that none of them have ever needed. Does that make anyone less capable? Absolutely not. It simply means their journeys were different. 🚨 Experience Is Not a Checklist Let's take a different example. Suppose someone has spent 10 years mastering Figma and has become an exceptional designer. Does that automatically mean they should be an expert in Photoshop, Illustrator, CorelDRAW, Sketch, and every other design tool? Of course not. Their expertise reflects the work they've done and the problems they've solved. The same applies to software engineering. Experience is about depth, not knowing everything. ⚠️ The Risk of Over-Relying on AI Don't get me wrong. I use AI. Most developers I know use AI. And it saves hours of effort. But there's a difference between: ✅ Taking help from AI and ❌ Letting AI think for you When every answer, every opinion, and every decision comes from AI, something

Most code that calls an AI model works like a conversation: ask, wait a second, get a reply. Fine-tuning doesn't. You hand off a job and walk away, checking back every few seconds to see if it's finished. DSPy is a framework for building programs that call language models. Instead of hand-writing and endlessly tweaking prompt strings, you declare what you want in terms of inputs and outputs, and DSPy turns that into the actual prompt. It can even optimize those prompts for you automatically, so getting a better result doesn't mean rewording things by hand. Here's something I didn't know starting out: DSPy already knows how to talk to almost any AI model, Together AI included. Asking a question and getting an answer back is handled by a shared layer that works for everyone, so no new code is needed there. Fine-tuning (the "hand off a job and walk away" thing from the top) is the exception. Every company does fine-tuning its own way, so DSPy needs a small custom piece, called a Provider, to handle each one. Building the Provider for Together AI is what my PR does. Why does this matter? Together AI is one of the cheaper, more popular places to fine-tune open-source models like Llama, so a lot of people building with DSPy end up wanting to use it. Before this, they had to step outside the framework: fine-tune on Together by hand, then wire the finished model back into their DSPy program themselves. With the provider in place, fine-tuning becomes a first-class option. You point DSPy at your training data, and it handles the upload, the job, the waiting, and hands back a model you can drop straight into the rest of your pipeline. That is the whole point of a framework, taking a fiddly manual process and making it one clean step, and adding a provider is how that gets extended to one more company. The Provider does one job from start to finish: take your training examples and hand back a fine-tuned model. Under the hood, that's five steps: Check your training data is in a

Storyblok pricing trips up teams because the free tier is genuinely usable — until one specific limit hits and suddenly you're looking at a four-figure annual bill. This post breaks down every tier as of July 2026: what's included, what the hard ceilings are, and which usage pattern pushes you past each one. If you're comparing across the whole headless CMS landscape, I've already written a Headless CMS Pricing Comparison 2026 covering Sanity, Contentful, Payload, and Strapi side-by-side. This post zooms in on Storyblok specifically. How Storyblok structures its pricing Storyblok sells on three axes: seats (users who log into the Studio), locales (languages per space), and API calls (CDN requests to their Content Delivery API). There's also a fourth soft limit that catches people by surprise: the number of spaces (separate CMS environments). Pricing is per-space, not per-organisation, which matters for agencies managing multiple clients. All paid plans are billed per space per month, with annual billing being roughly 17–20% cheaper than monthly. Storyblok tier breakdown Plan Price (per space/mo, annual) Seats included Locales API calls/mo Custom roles Community (Free) $0 1 1 10,000 CDN calls No Starter $23 1 3 25,000 CDN calls No Growth $99 3 (then $15/seat) 5 1,000,000 CDN calls No Business $299 5 (then $25/seat) 10 Unlimited Yes Enterprise Custom Custom Unlimited Unlimited Yes + SSO Prices reflect Storyblok's published rates as of July 2026. Monthly billing adds roughly 20% to each tier. Community tier: the real limits The free Community plan is genuinely useful for a personal project or a proof of concept. One editor seat, one locale, and 10,000 CDN API calls per month. That 10k call limit is the thing most people underestimate. Every published story fetched from Storyblok's CDN counts as one call. If your Next.js site fetches 12 stories on the homepage, that's 12 calls per visitor. At 1,000 monthly visitors you've burned through 12,000 calls — already over the f

ServiceNow's investment gives BusinessNext a strategic partner to expand its AI-powered banking software globally.

Nowadays, web frameworks come with ✨ magic ✨. Some more than others, but all of them have some. The...

“We think this may help younger orcas feed more easily, or it could also just be for fun.”

If you're building an app that generates the same character across many scenes, you've probably hit the wall already: seeds drift, LoRA training is heavy and slow, and "same character, new pose" prompting quietly changes the face. The approach that actually holds up in production is a 2-stage pipeline — generate one canonical base image , then edit from that base as the reference for every new scene. Consistency comes from the reference, not the seed. Below: why the common approaches drift, how the 2-stage pipeline works, the async job queue that makes it deployable, and the serverless-GPU setup that keeps it affordable. There's a free, runnable slice of the whole transport layer at the end. Why the obvious approaches drift Seeds. A seed pins the noise , not the identity . Re-use a seed with the same prompt and you get the same image — but that's reproduction, not consistency. The moment you change the prompt ("now she's in a café"), the denoising path changes and the face re-rolls with it. Seeds give you determinism for identical inputs; they give you nothing for new scenes . Prompt-only ("the same woman as before"). The model has no memory. Every generation is a fresh sample from the distribution your words describe. "Same face as last time" isn't in the prompt vocabulary — there is no last time. LoRA per character. This one actually works — that's why everyone suggests it — but look at what it costs in an app context: curate 15–40 images per character, run a training job per character, store and load adapter weights per character, and repeat all of it whenever a user creates someone new. For a personal project, fine. For an app where users create characters on demand, you just signed up to run a training farm. The 2-stage pipeline The fix is embarrassingly direct once you see it: Stage 1 — CAST Stage 2 — RE-SCENE (repeat forever) text-to-image image-edit model "describe character" → base image + "put them in a café" → scene 1 = base image base image + "walking in

I love InertiaJS to the point where it's becoming a personality trait I tend to want to use it for everything, but adding Inertia to an existing Laravel API gets awkward fast. Same thing happens in the other direction: you start with a full Inertia frontend and then realize you want to expose some of that data as a public API too. The naive solutions are: Sprinkle if ($request->wantsJson()) into your controllers Maintain two separate routes that return the exact same data Neither feels right. So I made inertia-split Starting fresh with Inertia: serve both from the same controller class ProjectController extends Controller { use HasHybridResponses ; public function index () { return $this -> respond () -> component ( 'Projects/Index' , [ 'projects' => Project :: all (), ]); // Inertia request → renders the Svelte/Vue/React component // API request → returns JSON } } The controller doesn't check anything. Inertia requests get an Inertia response, API clients get JSON. Existing API? Don't touch it If you just want to make an existing API method Inertia-aware, one annotation is enough: #[InertiaComponent('Users/Show')] public function show ( User $user ): array { return [ 'user' => $user ]; } The method body stays exactly as it was. Inertia requests get the component rendered with your data as props. Everything else gets the same JSON as before. Methods without the annotation are completely unaffected. Wait, how does this even work? The package can out Inertia's ResponseFactory for its own in the service provider (opt-in): $this -> app -> singleton ( ResponseFactory :: class , HybridResponseFactory :: class ); // checks if it's an Inertia request and returns appropriate response Good old OOP. Thank you polymorphism. Wrap-up Whatever the direction of your problem, making Inertia and API endpoints use the same controller is a big win. You're still responsible for writing routes and wiring middlewares, but this should save a lot of time and effort. Still in beta, use accor

Table of Contents: Introduction Constants Singletons & Services Singleton Service Locator Introduction Every Unity developer eventually hits the exact same wall: how do I get my UI script to talk to my Game Manager without turning my codebase into a tangled web of dependencies? Managing global state is a fundamental challenge in game architecture, and the internet is full of conflicting, often dogmatic advice on how to handle it. In this article, we are going to look at some popular approaches to managing global state: Static Constants, Singletons and Service Locator. Before we start though, I encourage you to read some of my previous blog posts in this series on project scaffolding or, even more crucial to some sections in this article, the bootstrapping process . Constants Not every piece of global data needs a instance to live in, interfaces, or an initialization phase. Some data is constant and never changes at runtime (constants). These constants are usually defined with static readonly or const (at least they should be if they never change). Example: public static class MathConstants { public const float MilesToKm = 1.60934f ; } public class CharacterAnimationController : MonoBehaviour { // we must use static readonly instead of const here because we need to generate the SpeedHash from the string literal. public static readonly int SpeedHash = Animator . StringToHash ( "Speed" ); } Constants are also tied to the type they are defined in. So to keep things neat, you should only define constants where appropriate. Meaning if you have a constant for the max networked inventory slot capacity, this shouldn't be defined in a class called NetworkedConstants and instead should reside inside the class that represents the NetworkedInventory which needs this data. In fact, if this is the only class that needs this data, you can even make it private although it's perfectly fine to make it public as well if there's a need for it in other scripts as long as you are not just