标签：#Go

If you use Android Auto, you might be interested to know that there's a feature available on some phones that helps keep phone calls minimal while you drive.

Someone hid AI instructions into a legal filing. Alternate link .

Long-lived GCP service account keys are secrets that must be managed forever, are hard to rotate, and are easy to leak. Scaling Workload Identity Federation to 120+ production projects shows why it changes how machine identity is approached entirely: keys are secrets to manage, federated identities are trust relationships configured once, gated by attribute conditions. By Shijin Nair

Microsoft expanded Foundry's model router from two regions to 28 for global standard and 21 for data zone deployments, while adding Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.6 and removing four deprecated models. Default deployments receive pool changes automatically; configured subsets exclude new models until added. The effective context window equals the smallest model in the pool. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

If the sound you're getting through Android Auto is disappointing, there are several components and settings you should check.

If your algorithm is out of whack recently, there are things you can do to get it back on track with content you like.

After Donald Trump’s executive order demanding the name change, Google is the first major online maps provider to flip the switch.

It'll still show up as Lake Ontario for Maps users in Canada.

Android Auto has several essential features enabled by default, but you may be surprised at how much it can really do.

GitHub热门项目 | Command-line tool that allows searching and downloading app packages (known as ipa files) for iOS, iPadOS, tvOS, and visionOS from the App Store. | Stars: 10,042 | 56 stars today | 语言: Go

Smart TVs store lots of data, and the amount they have to work with is often quite low. There are ways to maximize your storage space, though.

I wrote this for the All Things Agentic Hackathon. Every incident-response demo you have seen ends the same way: something breaks, the agent fixes it, everyone applauds. I want to show you the opposite. Here is my agent, at 95% confidence, having correctly diagnosed a bad deployment, deciding not to roll it back. That refusal is the whole project. The question underneath At 3am an alert fires. An engineer wakes up, reads several hundred log lines, correlates them against recent deploys, and rolls something back. Most of it is mechanical. It is an obvious target for automation. But "automate it with an LLM" does not dissolve the problem, it relocates it. The new question is: how much would you let an agent change in production without asking you first? Give it too little and it is a chatbot that writes summaries. Give it too much and one confidently wrong diagnosis takes down your service at 3am with nobody watching. I named the project Sonjomon — Bengali for restraint. The autonomy ladder An agent should not have one blanket permission level. How far it may act alone is a function of two things: how confident it is, and how much damage the proposed action does if that confidence turns out to be wrong. tier = f(confidence, blast_radius) OBSERVE record findings, take no action SUGGEST recommend to a human, do not execute APPROVE stage the action, execute on explicit approval ACT execute now, then verify independently A restart is medium risk — reversible in seconds. A rollback is high risk — it shifts production traffic, and a needless rollback during a real outage extends it. Deleting data is critical, and no confidence level unlocks it. Six conditions can only ever push the tier down, never up: the blast-radius ceiling, thin evidence, a similar action that just failed, a third attempt at the same fix, a stale incident, and a global dry-run switch. Nothing pushes it up. A wrong action is far more expensive than a missed one. Three things the model does not control It

Chances are there's a connection issue between your phone and car if Android auto isn't working.

I created this article for the purpose of entering the All Things Agentic Hackathon. TL;DR — An ADK output_key writes into the session of the agent that declares it. In-process that session is shared, so it looks like state flows. Across a RemoteA2aAgent hop it is the worker's session, and it never comes back. Nothing raises. Nothing warns. Every local run and every CI job exercises the working topology, so the failure is invisible to an offline test suite by construction — including at 100% coverage. The system that passed Bastion is a three-agent access-governance fleet built with Google ADK and A2A. An Orchestrator owns investigation state, an Access Auditor reads production IAM through a read-only identity, and a model-free Escalation Agent delivers validated count-only reviews. The local graph passed its configured core statement and branch coverage gate. Every branch, every seam. Then the same graph was split across deployed A2A workers, and an assumption that looked natural in-process became false. The boundary we had not modeled In-process, the previous step's result is simply there : # The Auditor declares output_key; the Orchestrator reads it back. report = ctx . session . state . get ( AUDIT_FINDINGS_KEY ) Deploy the same sequence and only the construction changes. The graph is identical: RemoteA2aAgent ( name = " access_auditor " , agent_card = card_url ( auditor , " access_auditor " ), description = " Reads the live IAM policy and flags anomalies. Read-only. " , httpx_client = private_a2a_client ( auditor ), a2a_request_meta_provider = _forward_investigation , ) output_key still writes. It writes into the worker's session, which never crosses back. The deployed Orchestrator saw an empty state key while every local run and every test saw a populated one. Observed 2026-08-22: the Auditor completed a full sub-trail, and the next step then refused with "returned no structured report." No exception at the boundary. No warning at construction. The run still r

One of the most useful questions in network troubleshooting is also one of the simplest: Does it fail from another machine too? If a website will not load on my laptop, trying it from another computer can immediately change the investigation. If it works there, the service probably is not down. Something about my machine, DNS configuration, VPN, firewall, route, or network path is different. If it fails there too, the problem may be farther upstream. I wanted Network Doctor to be able to ask that question directly. So I added remote diagnosis over SSH. netdoc --via ideapad github.com Instead of running the diagnosis locally, Network Doctor connects to ideapad , runs the checks there, and reports the result back on my machine. Why another vantage point matters A network failure is always observed from somewhere. Suppose github.com is unreachable from my workstation. I can test DNS: dig github.com Then TCP: nc -vz github.com 443 Then TLS: openssl s_client -connect github.com:443 Maybe I inspect my routes, VPN, proxy settings, or firewall. Those tests are useful, but they all share one property: they are observing the network from the same machine. Trying the same destination from another machine gives me a new piece of evidence. Imagine this: Thelio: DNS PASS TCP 443 FAIL Ideapad: DNS PASS TCP 443 PASS TLS PASS HTTPS PASS That difference is interesting. GitHub clearly is not universally unreachable. The second machine just reached it. Now I have a much smaller problem to investigate: what is different about the path from Thelio? That is often more useful than running another five commands on Thelio. Turning that into a command Network Doctor already runs network checks as a dependency graph. For an HTTPS target, for example, it can test things such as the local interface, DNS resolution, TCP connectivity, TLS, HTTP, routing, and path MTU. Normally: netdoc github.com means: Diagnose github.com from this machine. With --via : netdoc --via ideapad github.com it becomes:

As part of the Gen AI Academy APAC , I set out to solve a major pain point for educators: manually sifting through textbooks to create grade-appropriate question papers. I built an automated Question Paper Generator using a Serverless Next.js stack, a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) architecture, and the complete Google Cloud AI suite. Teachers simply upload a textbook chapter (PDF), specify the grade and subject, and let the AI generate a fully formatted assessment quiz. While the architecture sounds straightforward, orchestrating these enterprise-grade APIs in a serverless environment presented several intense technical hurdles. Here is a deep dive into the architecture, the specific roadblocks I hit, and how I ultimately solved them. 🏗️ The RAG Architecture The application is built on Next.js 15 and deployed to Google Cloud Run . The pipeline flows as follows: Document Extraction : The PDF is uploaded and sent to Google Cloud Document AI (Document OCR Processor) to extract the raw text. Chunking & Embeddings : The text is chunked into logical paragraphs and sent to Vertex AI ( text-embedding-004 ) to generate dense vector embeddings. Vector Database : The embeddings and metadata (Grade, Subject) are stored seamlessly in Firestore using native VectorValue support. Retrieval & Generation : When a teacher requests a quiz, the query is embedded, and a findNearest Vector Search runs on Firestore. The retrieved context is passed to Google Gen AI ( gemini-3.5-flash ) to synthesize the structured question paper. 🐛 The Technical Challenges & How I Solved Them Building an end-to-end pipeline using cutting-edge SDKs often means dealing with strict schema validations and opaque error codes. Here are the major technical gotchas I faced. 1. The Document AI Region Endpoint Mismatch The Challenge: I provisioned a Document OCR processor in the asia-south1 region. However, when my Node.js client attempted to send a processing request using the processor's full resource name,

Unless you've put some custom software on your phone, Android Auto will work on nearly all modern phones.

I recently finished building a small suite of puzzle and game solvers that all run entirely in the browser — no backend, no API calls, no machine-learning models. You paste in a Sudoku, a chess position, or a crossword pattern, and the answer comes back instantly, computed on your own device. The fun part wasn't the UI. It was that each puzzle turned out to be a textbook excuse to reach for a different classic algorithm. Nine solvers, and I got to use constraint propagation, adversarial search, heuristic search, brute-force scanning, and plain old pattern matching — the stuff that shows up in an algorithms course and then, in most day jobs, never again. This is a tour of which algorithm fits which puzzle, and a few of the potholes I hit along the way. Everything here is vanilla JavaScript running in a Web Worker. The one design constraint: no server Before the algorithms, the rule that shaped all of them: it has to run client-side. That's a privacy choice (your puzzle never leaves the tab) and a cost choice (no compute bill), but it's also a fun forcing function. You can't lean on a beefy backend or a hosted model — you get one browser thread (well, a Worker thread) and whatever you can compute in a few hundred milliseconds. That budget is exactly why classic algorithms shine here. They're fast, deterministic, and small enough to ship as a script. Let's group the solvers by the technique each one leans on. Family 1: Constraint propagation Sudoku Sudoku is the poster child for constraint propagation. A cell that can only be one value forces that value; that in turn shrinks its neighbours' options, which forces more cells, and so on. Most "easy" and "medium" boards fall over from propagation alone (naked singles + hidden singles), and only the hard ones need a backtracking search on top. The nice property: the same engine that solves the board also powers the hint feature (find the next forced cell and explain why it's forced) and a uniqueness check — count solutions,

What Is Precision Tracking Radar? Precision tracking radar is an active radar sensing system designed to repeatedly measure a selected target and maintain an updated estimate of its state over time. For developers, the important distinction is that precision tracking is not simply repeated target detection. Detection answers: Is there evidence of a target in the current radar measurements? Tracking answers: Does this new measurement belong to an existing target, and how should that target state be updated? A practical precision tracking pipeline can be represented as: RF sensing → target measurement → detection → association → state update → continuous track → mission output That makes precision tracking radar a real-time data-processing system as much as an RF sensing system. A Practical Definition Precision tracking radar is a radar capability that combines repeated target measurements across time to maintain a continuous estimate of target position, motion or other relevant state information. The key word is continuous. A detector can operate independently on each radar update. A tracker has memory. It maintains information from previous measurements and decides how new observations relate to that history. From a software architecture perspective, tracking introduces persistent state into the sensing pipeline. Detection and Tracking Should Be Separate Services A useful radar architecture keeps target detection and target tracking logically separate. The detector processes current radar measurements. The tracker consumes target-related measurements over time. Conceptually: Radar measurement ↓ Detection ↓ Measurement object ↓ Association ↓ Track update ↓ Track state This separation helps developers understand where errors originate. If the detector produces unstable measurements, the tracker cannot fully repair them. If detections are stable but tracks switch between targets, the problem may exist in association. If sensor-relative detections are correct but missio

I created this content for the purposes of entering the All Things Agentic Hackathon. The problem that started it A doctor gets about eight minutes with a patient and, for anyone with a real history, forty pages of scattered records — lab reports, discharge notes, and pharmacy bills from three different clinics. So the history is effectively invisible at the exact moment it matters most. And when the visit ends, nothing follows up: the six-month course lapses at week five, the recheck never gets booked. I wanted to build an agent that closes that loop — one that reads the mess, decides urgency in a way a clinician can actually trust, and handles the follow-up on its own. That became CareLoop , my entry for the All Things Agentic Hackathon (Taskmaster track), built on Gemini, the Google Agent Development Kit (ADK), Cloud Run, and Firestore. The one principle I wouldn't compromise on Rules decide, AI explains. The temptation with an LLM is to let it do everything — including deciding whether a chest-pain patient is urgent. I refused to do that. In CareLoop, a deterministic engine owns every clinical decision: a weighted symptom score plus a red-flag override sets the triage level and routing. It is fully auditable, and it returns byte-identical output on the same input every single time. The LLM's job is strictly language: Reading unstructured documents into a fixed schema — I call it "Gemini extracts, rules merge." Writing the structured result into a plain-language brief a clinician can skim in ten seconds. No language model is ever in the decision path. When a judge asks "why was this Critical?", the answer is a score breakdown they can inspect — not a model's say-so. That single decision shaped the whole architecture. What it actually does CareLoop runs the full loop end to end: Ingest & compact — it reads a patient's documents and merges them into one structured ledger: allergies, chronic conditions, active medications, and lab trends over time. Instead of pushin