标签：#Engineering

Bryan Oliver discusses the frontier of AI infrastructure: chaos engineering for large-scale GPU clusters. He shares how engineering leaders can handle complex topologies, network protocols like RDMA, and NUMA misalignments. Discover seven practical fault-injection strategies to maximize multi-million dollar hardware efficiency and build robust observability loops. By Bryan Oliver

GitHub has made the redesigned GitHub Copilot CLI terminal interface generally available. It adds a tabbed layout for sessions, gists, issues, and pull requests; an in-session, form-driven setup for MCP servers, skills, and plugins that avoids hand-editing config files; and a cleaner, theme-aware, more accessible UI with screen reader support. By Mark Silvester

In this podcast Shane Hastie, Lead Editor for Culture & Methods spoke to Gabriela Moreira about making formal methods accessible through the Quint specification language, how AI is dramatically lowering the barrier to entry for formal specification and model-based testing, and why defining correct system behaviour remains essential human work in an AI-driven world. By Gabriela Moreira

Original Japanese article : Iceberg REST Catalogを直接叩いて、Glue Data CatalogとS3 Tablesの違いを理解する Introduction I'm Aki, an AWS Community Builder ( @jitepengin ). Most of the time, when working with Iceberg tables, we reach for PyIceberg or Spark. I'm no exception, and honestly there were parts of the PyIceberg configuration — rest.sigv4-enabled , rest.signing-name , warehouse — that I understood only vaguely. Iceberg defines a standard called the Iceberg REST Catalog Open API specification , and AWS implements it through two separate endpoints: The AWS Glue Iceberg REST endpoint ( https://glue.<region>.amazonaws.com/iceberg ) The Amazon S3 Tables Iceberg REST endpoint ( https://s3tables.<region>.amazonaws.com/iceberg ) If two implementations follow the same spec, sending the same requests to both and comparing the results should reveal what's actually different between them. In this article, I'll bypass clients like PyIceberg entirely and hit the REST API directly to explore the differences between the two endpoints. To state the conclusion up front: Even though both implement the same Iceberg REST Catalog specification, Glue is designed as an "entry point to multiple catalogs," while S3 Tables is designed as an "entry point to a single table bucket." That difference is visible just by looking at the URL paths. I previously wrote about the relationship between S3 Tables and Glue Data Catalog in another article — worth a read alongside this one: Does Amazon S3 Tables Replace AWS Glue Data Catalog? Understanding Their Relationship What Is the Iceberg REST Catalog? The Iceberg REST Catalog is a specification that standardizes Iceberg catalog operations as an HTTP API. It's published as an OpenAPI definition (YAML), and any catalog that conforms to it can be accessed the same way from clients such as PyIceberg, Spark, and Trino. The key points of the spec are: URL paths follow a pattern like GET /v1/{prefix}/namespaces , where {prefix} is a free-form segment Clients first call

Ingeniería de Datos aplicada a la Biodescodificación: Presentando Bio-Mapping Engine 🧬 ¿Es posible aplicar ingeniería de datos de alta fidelidad a campos de conocimiento no estructurados? La respuesta es un rotundo sí. Hoy quiero presentarles Bio-Mapping Engine , un framework diseñado para resolver un problema clásico de la extracción de información: convertir literatura densa y desorganizada en una base de conocimientos semántica, estructurada y totalmente navegable. El Problema: El caos de la información no estructurada En campos como la Biodescodificación , la información suele residir en libros o archivos PDF donde los conceptos (síntomas, emociones, zonas anatómicas) están entrelazados de forma narrativa. Para un investigador o un desarrollador de herramientas de salud alternativa, extraer relaciones precisas entre un síntoma físico y su conflicto emocional mediante métodos tradicionales es una tarea manual, lenta y extremadamente propensa a errores. La Solución: Bio-Mapping Engine Bio-Mapping Engine no es un simple scraper . Es un motor de segmentación semántica y mapeo topológico. Su propósito es transformar un PDF bruto en un grafo de conocimiento estructurado en formato JSON, permitiendo realizar consultas multidimensionales con precisión quirúrgica. 🚀 Características Principales Segmentación Semántica Avanzada: Implementa un parsing topológico que distingue inteligentemente entre encabezados de síntomas, contenido emocional y el "ruido" estructural (como índices o números de página). Mapeo Relacional Multidimensional: Realiza una extracción de alta fidelidad a través de tres vectores fundamentales: Síntomas Canónicos: Estandarización de la nomenclatura de síntomas y condiciones. Jerarquía Anatómica: Mapeo inteligente que escala desde Sistemas $\rightarrow$ Regiones $\rightarrow$ Órganos. Arquetipos Emocionales: Extracción estructurada de modelos mentales y conflictos (ej. "Causa probable" , "Bloqueo emocional" ). Consultas Multi-Eje (CLI): Una potente inte

Here's the problem nobody talks about: the reason most AI outputs are mediocre isn't the model — it's that you asked for a final answer and got one. A model with no friction produces the path of least resistance. It pattern-matches to "good-enough" and stops. It doesn't know what your bar for quality is. It doesn't know what logic you'd push back on, what tone would make your audience tune out, or what structural flaw a sharp reader would catch in the first 30 seconds. It just fills the token space with the most statistically probable response and calls it a day. So the output hits your clipboard. You read it. You sigh. Then you spend 40 minutes editing something that should have come out right the first time. There's a better way — and it exploits the fact that AI critique is significantly sharper than AI generation. The Core Insight: Models Are Better Critics Than They Are Authors This sounds counterintuitive, so stay with me. When you ask an LLM to generate something from scratch, it operates in "produce plausible content" mode. The pressure is to fill the blank. But when you ask a model to critique an existing piece — especially if you hand it a specific evaluative persona — it switches into "find the gap between what is and what should be" mode. That's a fundamentally different cognitive task, and it's one where models consistently perform better. Research on iterative self-refinement in LLMs (Madaan et al., 2023) shows that when models are given their own output and asked to improve it with explicit feedback criteria, quality scores improve substantially across writing, code, and reasoning tasks. The key variable wasn't model size or prompt verbosity — it was the presence of a structured feedback loop. The mechanism is simple: the critique generates tokens that constrain and guide the rewrite. Those critique tokens become working context. The model rewrites against them. The output is necessarily better-fitted to the evaluation criteria than anything a single-

PR volume went up, ticket quality didn't, and the gap got filled with LLMs on both sides of the review: bots reviewing, bots replying, bots occasionally arguing with bots about priorities that only existed in a teammate's head. Our CEO named the actual problem, and it's bigger than code review.

OpenAI found two unrelated bugs masquerading as one in ChatGPT's data infrastructure. Silent hardware corruption on one Azure host and an 18-year-old race condition in GNU libunwind's setcontext function with a one-instruction vulnerability window. The breakthrough came from switching to population-level crash analysis rather than examining individual core dumps. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

AWS has outlined how ProGlove, an industrial-wearables manufacturer, was able to scale its SaaS platform to run more than one million AWS Lambda functions spread across thousands of dedicated customer accounts. By Matt Foster

Why Prompts Matter More Than You Think The difference between a great AI response and a mediocre one isn't always the model. It's the prompt. Experience this: You ask ChatGPT a vague question and get a vague answer. You ask the same AI a perfectly crafted prompt and get something incredible. The skill gap is massive. Companies are paying prompt engineers $150K+ because mastering prompts directly impacts: Response quality Token usage (costs) Speed of inference User satisfaction The Science of Better Prompts Rule #1: Be Specific, Not Vague BAD : "Write me something about AI" GOOD : "Write a technical explanation of how transformer attention mechanisms work, suitable for a developer with 2 years of ML experience" Specificity reduces hallucinations and increases relevance by 10-50x. Rule #2: Use Roles & Context You are an expert senior software engineer with 15 years of experience. You specialize in system design and scalability. Respond in a way that balances technical accuracy with accessibility. Target audience: Mid-level engineers. How would you design a real-time chat system for 10 million concurrent users? Role-based prompting improves response depth and tone. Rule #3: Provide Examples (Few-Shot Prompting) Classify the sentiment of these reviews: Example 1: "This product is amazing!" → Positive Example 2: "Terrible experience, would not recommend" → Negative Example 3: "It's okay, nothing special" → Neutral Now classify: "The service was slow but the staff was friendly" Examples guide the AI toward your exact expectations. Rule #4: Break Complex Tasks Into Steps Instead of: "Analyze this code and find bugs" Use: "1. First, read through this code carefully Identify any logical errors Check for performance issues List potential security vulnerabilities Provide a summary of findings with severity levels" Step-by-step prompts (Chain-of-Thought) improve reasoning by 20-40%. Rule #5: Specify Output Format Respond in JSON format: { "summary" : "brief explanation" , "key_

A while back I was researching a topic I didn't know much about — the kind of casual, late-night "let me just ask the AI a few questions" session. A few messages in, I asked a follow-up that only made sense in the context of what we'd just been talking about. I didn't restate the subject, because... why would I? We were three messages into the same conversation. The answer came back completely off-topic. It had lost track of what "it" referred to, latched onto the wrong noun, and confidently explained something I hadn't asked about at all. Not a small tangent — a whole paragraph about the wrong thing. My first reaction was annoyance at the model. My second, more useful reaction came a bit later: I'd been treating it like a person who remembers what we were just discussing and fills in the gaps naturally. It doesn't do that the way a human conversation partner does. If I don't restate the subject, it's genuinely not there for the model — it's not being lazy, there's just nothing to work with. So I started over-specifying. Every follow-up got longer: restate the subject, restate what I actually wanted, restate the constraint I cared about. It worked, but some days I didn't have the energy for it — I'd just take the mediocre answer, say "ok thanks," and move on. Which meant I was quietly leaving useful answers on the table half the time, just because typing out the full context felt like a chore. Eventually I stopped thinking of it as "the AI being difficult" and started treating it as a simple rule: if I want it to know something, I have to say it. It won't infer the unstated stuff the way a person would , no matter how obvious it feels to me. Once that clicked, a few concrete habits followed. Restate the subject, every time Not "what about the second one" — the actual name of the thing. It costs three words and removes an entire failure mode. Say what you actually want, not just the topic "Tell me about X" and "I'm trying to decide whether X is worth the switching co

The biggest losses in software history were, with one deliberate exception, not attacks. They were silent, correlated, self-inflicted — and they teach the exact risk autonomous AI agents are about to make expensive again. At 9:30 in the morning on August 1, 2012, Knight Capital Group was one of the largest trading firms in the United States, executing a sixth of all the volume on the New York Stock Exchange. By 10:15 it was, for practical purposes, finished. In those forty-five minutes a piece of its own trading software (not a hacker's, its own) fired more than four million unwanted orders into the market, accumulating roughly $7 billion in positions the firm never meant to hold and a loss of about $440 million by the time humans understood what their machine was doing. The cause, documented in the SEC's administrative proceeding, was almost insultingly small: a deployment that updated seven of eight servers. The eighth still carried a dormant piece of code called Power Peg, retired years earlier, and the new release reused the old feature flag that woke it up. No one attacked Knight Capital. The market data was accurate, the exchange functioned perfectly, and every system reported itself healthy while the company bled ten million dollars a minute. That shape (no adversary, no alarm, one change propagating everywhere at once) turns out to be the shape of almost every entry on the list below. We've written before about the biggest bug-bounty payouts in history , the ledger of what it costs when someone does attack. This is the other ledger, the bigger one: what software has cost when nobody attacked at all. Every figure below states what it counts, and comes from a primary or authoritative source (inquiry boards, SEC filings, statutory inquiries) linked at the end. The ledger 1. CrowdStrike outage (2024) — roughly $5.4 billion in direct losses to Fortune 500 companies alone (estimate). One faulty content update to the Falcon Sensor security agent blue-screened Windo

Picture a power plant burning fuel to spin a turbine. It is tempting to assume that with enough engineering — better seals, smoother bearings, cleaner combustion — the plant could be pushed toward converting nearly all its heat into useful work. It cannot. A large modern thermal power station turns only something like 40 to 45 percent of its fuel energy into electricity, and the missing majority is not lost to sloppy design. It is lost to a law of physics. That law sets a ceiling on every device that turns heat into work, from a car engine to a steam turbine to a jet. The ceiling is called the Carnot efficiency, and the remarkable thing about it is how little it depends on. Not on the working fluid, not on the mechanism, not on the cleverness of the builder — only on two temperatures. This article explains where that limit comes from, how to compute it, and why it reshapes how engineers think about efficiency. Why this calculation matters The Carnot efficiency is the benchmark against which every real engine is judged. When an engineer reports that a gas turbine runs at 38 percent efficiency, that number means little on its own. Compared against the Carnot limit for the same hot and cold temperatures, it suddenly tells you how much room is left — whether the design is already near the physical wall or still has slack worth chasing. It also redirects design effort toward the things that actually matter. Because the Carnot limit depends only on the ratio of cold to hot absolute temperatures, the single most powerful way to raise the ceiling is to raise the temperature at which heat enters the engine, or lower the temperature at which it is rejected. This is why turbine inlet temperatures have climbed for decades, pushing the limits of metallurgy and cooling. Polishing internal friction yields small gains; raising the hot-side temperature raises the ceiling itself. The core formula Sadi Carnot, in 1824, imagined an idealized engine running on a perfectly reversible cyc

How you split your code into repositories seems like a plumbing decision, but it quietly shapes how your team collaborates, ships, and reasons about the system. A monorepo keeps everything in one repository; a polyrepo gives each service or app its own. Neither is universally right, and the loudest opinions online usually ignore your actual stage and team size. Here's how to think about it clearly. What a monorepo buys you A monorepo puts your web app, mobile app, backend, and shared libraries under one roof. The advantages are real, especially for smaller teams: Atomic changes. Update a shared type and every consumer in the same pull request. No cross-repo coordination dance. One source of truth for tooling. A single lint, format, and CI config instead of drift across a dozen repos. Effortless code sharing. Shared TypeScript packages are just imports, not published versions you have to bump and reinstall everywhere. Easy refactoring. You can find and fix every caller of a function because it's all in front of you. Tools like Turborepo and Nx make this practical by caching builds and only running work for the parts that actually changed. What a monorepo costs The trade-offs show up as you grow. Build and CI times can balloon without smart caching. Access control is coarser — it's harder to give a contractor one service without the whole codebase. And a naive setup rebuilds and tests everything on every change, which gets slow fast. Good tooling mitigates all of this, but you have to invest in it deliberately. What a polyrepo buys you Separate repositories give each service hard boundaries . A team owns its repo end to end, deploys on its own schedule, and can't accidentally reach into another team's internals. Access control is naturally granular, CI for each repo is small and fast, and the blast radius of a bad change is contained. The cost is coordination. A change that spans services becomes multiple pull requests across multiple repos that must land in the right

Microservices have a marketing problem: they're associated with the engineering cultures of Netflix and Amazon, so ambitious teams assume adopting them is what serious companies do. But those companies moved to microservices to solve problems of enormous scale and huge headcount — problems you almost certainly don't have yet. For most products, splitting too early is one of the most expensive mistakes you can make. Here's the honest trade-off. What a monolith actually gives you A monolith is one deployable application. That simplicity is a feature, not a limitation, especially early: One codebase, one deploy. No orchestration, no service mesh, no distributed tracing just to understand a request. Simple debugging. A stack trace crosses your whole request. You're not correlating logs across five services to find one bug. Fast local development. Run the whole app on your laptop and iterate. Easy transactions. Data consistency is a database transaction, not a distributed saga you have to design and get right. The modern version isn't a big ball of mud. A modular monolith enforces clean internal boundaries — separate modules with clear interfaces — giving you much of the organization of microservices with none of the network overhead. What microservices actually cost Splitting into services doesn't remove complexity; it moves it from your code into the network, where it's harder to see and reason about. You inherit a long list of new problems: Distributed systems failure modes — partial failures, retries, timeouts, and eventual consistency become your daily reality. Data consistency across services — no more easy transactions; you're designing sagas and compensating actions. Operational overhead — every service needs deployment, monitoring, logging, and on-call. Slower local development and debugging — reproducing a bug can mean running half your architecture. For a small team, this overhead can consume the very velocity you were trying to gain. When microservices genuin

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

Explore how the Aspire team turns merged product changes into SME-reviewed docs pull requests, closing the gap between release and documentation. The post Automating cross-repo documentation with GitHub Agentic Workflows appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

Itamar Friedman discusses how architects and engineering leaders can break through the AI productivity ceiling using adaptive multi-agent systems. He shares insights on moving past simple autocomplete to resilient workflows by integrating autonomous testing, intelligent code review, and robust arbitration. Learn how to govern agent communication and build a context-driven SDLC that scales. By Itamar Friedman

Enterprises are now talking about AI coding agents in a very predictable way. The first question is usually: "How much more code can it help us generate?" It is not a wrong question. But if that is the only question, the ROI calculation will probably be wrong. Because enterprises are not really buying "more code." They are buying: faster delivery less rework lower maintenance cost better developer experience more stable software quality more controllable security and compliance risk faster translation from product capability to business value Code generation is an input. It is not the outcome. That distinction matters. An AI coding agent can help developers write functions, fix bugs, add tests, generate documentation, understand codebases, and refactor legacy systems. That sounds powerful. But the enterprise question is not: "How many lines of code did it generate today?" The better question is: Did that code reach production faster? Did incidents go down? Did the team spend less time on repetitive work? Did customers get value sooner? If the answer is unclear, generating 100,000 lines of code a day may simply mean producing technical debt faster. The short version: AI coding agent ROI does not end inside the IDE Many teams start measuring AI coding tools with the most obvious numbers: code suggestion acceptance rate lines of code generated number of active users number of prompts time saved on individual tasks These metrics are useful. But they mostly show that the tool is being used. They do not prove that the enterprise is getting value. Enterprise ROI has to be measured across software delivery, quality, risk, and business outcomes. In other words, an AI coding agent is not just a point solution for individual efficiency. It affects the entire software value stream: Request -> Design -> Coding -> Review -> Testing -> Deployment -> Monitoring -> Feedback -> Business outcome If you calculate value only inside the "coding" box, you miss the bigger picture. Why "amo

Most "Debezium vs managed tool" articles get the question wrong. They frame it as a product bake-off, feature grid included, and declare a winner. But if you've actually run change data capture in production, you know the real decision isn't which tool captures a transaction log better. They mostly read the same logs the same way. The real decision is who operates everything that sits around the capture, and whether that work is a good use of your team's time. That's a build-vs-buy question, not a product question. This post is a framework for answering it for your own situation. First, let's kill an outdated assumption A lot of Debezium criticism floating around is two or three years stale, and if you repeat it in 2026 you'll get corrected fast. So let's set the record straight before we compare anything. Debezium is no longer just “the thing you run with Kafka Connect.” In recent Debezium 3.x releases, the project has become much more flexible than the old tutorials suggest. Today, you have several deployment options: Kafka Connect , the classic setup, which gives you the Kafka ecosystem, distributed fault tolerance, durable schema history, and access to Kafka Connect sink connectors. Debezium Server , a standalone application that streams changes to systems like Amazon Kinesis, Google Cloud Pub/Sub, Apache Pulsar, Redis Streams, or NATS JetStream without requiring Kafka. Debezium Management Platform , which builds on Debezium Server and the Debezium Operator to provide a higher-level way to configure and manage CDC pipelines in Kubernetes-style environments. Embedded usage , where you run Debezium Engine inside your own application. Recent Debezium releases also added framework support such as the Quarkus extension. A few more things are worth knowing so the comparison is fair: Kafka 4.x runs in KRaft mode, and ZooKeeper mode has been removed. “You need to babysit ZooKeeper” is no longer true for a modern Kafka deployment. Debezium's default remains at-least-once