标签：#ICE

Whether it’s through Google Maps or Emergency SOS, there are plenty of ways to quickly let your loved ones know where you are.

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

The Amseatec Criss Cross Office Chair gives you room to sit cross-legged, sideways, or however your body actually wants to sit.

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

The animal escaped after apparently arriving inside a package at Meta's Bangkok office, injuring one employee before finally being caught.

OpenAI says its new voice mode can speak and listen at the same time, a key ability for live translation.

The cyberattack targeting a U.S. insurance giant is the largest known breach of driver's license numbers so far in 2026.

Whether you’re looking to boost your productivity or your Fortnite stats, these are the top keyboards for the job.

These may be the last days of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.

You can minimize the risk of films and shows being spoiled for you by muting comments, conversations, and keywords on various platforms.

AWS recently announced Amazon S3 Annotations, a feature that lets teams attach rich, searchable context such as summaries, classifications, compliance data, or AI-generated insights directly to S3 objects. Annotations can be updated independently of the object and queried across datasets, reducing the need for separate metadata systems. By Renato Losio

Every game jam lives or dies by its theme, and this year's June Solstice Game Jam handed developers something deceptively simple: the longest day of the year. What emerged from that single prompt wasn't a wave of near-identical sunrise simulators — it was a scattershot of genres, mechanics, and emotional registers, all orbiting the same core idea of light and time. One Theme, a Dozen Interpretations The solstice lends itself to more than one reading, and jam entrants leaned into that ambiguity. Some treated "longest day" literally, building puzzle games where a slowly arcing sun becomes a physical obstacle — light that reveals hidden platforms, burns away fog, or casts shadows players must dodge or exploit. Others went abstract, using the solstice as a metaphor for endurance, building narrative pieces about characters pushing through their hardest, brightest, most exhausting day. Sci-fi submissions reframed the concept entirely: distant planets with artificial suns, space stations timing their orbits to a 24-hour light cycle, or crews racing against a ship's failing life-support "day" before darkness means death. Meanwhile, a handful of more grounded, historically-minded entries used the solstice as a backdrop for ritual and tradition, drawing on centuries of human fascination with the year's turning point. Light and Time as Game Mechanics What makes this jam interesting from a design standpoint is how consistently teams turned an atmospheric theme into an actual mechanic rather than just window dressing. Light became a resource to manage, a weapon, a timer, or a stealth tool. Time compression and dilation showed up frequently too — some games squeezed an entire day-night cycle into a five-minute play session, forcing players to make fast decisions as shadows visibly crept across the map in real time. This is a common jam trick: constraints breed creativity. When a 48- or 72-hour deadline collides with a theme built around a literal clock, developers naturally start

Explore decades of incredible images and videos of stars, planets, moons, and galaxies—most of which are free to use and share.

Apple built a tool for people with cognitive disabilities, but I accidentally discovered it’s also the best kids’ phone setup no one is talking about—not even Apple.

A 2023 HotOS paper by Sanjay Ghemawat (MapReduce/Bigtable co-author) and Amin Vahdat (Google Fellow) got repackaged by tech media as "microservices are dead." It said no such thing. Three years later, the misreading has traveled further than the paper itself. This post does three things: reconstructs what the paper actually claims, maps its three structural gaps, and introduces a variable the authors couldn't have predicted — AI code generation — which, I'll argue, undermines the paper's central solution more than any of those gaps. The AI section uses my own open-source project ReqForge as evidence. Flagging the conflict of interest up front: this isn't neutral analysis, it's a design rationale. Which is exactly why it's more honest than a hypothetical example. What the paper actually said The paper is Towards Modern Development of Cloud Applications (HotOS '23, 8 pages). Its core claim in one sentence: The fundamental problem with microservices is that they bind the logical boundary to the physical boundary. You let "how the code is organized" dictate "how the code is deployed" — two questions that should never have been welded together. From that claim, the paper proposes a three-layer solution: Logical monolith — developers write a cleanly modularized monolith; deployment is someone else's problem. Automated runtime — a smart platform that decides at runtime whether components should be merged or split, based on load. Atomic deployment — all components on a request path share one consistent version, avoiding half-old/half-new. Prototype numbers: 15× lower latency, 9× lower cost. That's it. The paper never says "microservices are wrong," never says "everyone should go back to monoliths," and gives no implementable plan. It's a vision paper — written to provoke discussion at a workshop, not an engineering whitepaper. A ruler Before dissecting it, here's a ruler you can apply to any architectural claim (this is a common framing in the engineering literature — you'r

Book: The Complete Guide to Go Programming Also by me: Hexagonal Architecture in Go — the companion book in the Thinking in Go series My project: Hermes IDE | GitHub — an IDE for developers who ship with Claude Code and other AI coding tools Me: xgabriel.com | GitHub You open a pull request in a Go repo you just joined. Ten minutes later there are six comments on it. None of them are about your logic. They point at a capitalized error string, a receiver named this , a context stored on a struct. Each comment links the same page: the Go Code Review Comments wiki. That page is the closest thing Go has to an official style council. It grew out of the comments Go's own maintainers left on CLs for years, and most Go teams treat it as the default rulebook. The problem is that the wiki tells you what but rarely why , so the rules read like arbitrary taste. They aren't. Each one exists because the alternative bit somebody. Here are ten that reviewers cite the most, with the reason behind each. Everything below is idiomatic on Go 1.23+. 1. Error strings are lowercase and unpunctuated The rule: an error string should not be capitalized and should not end with punctuation. // wrong return fmt . Errorf ( "Failed to open config." ) // right return fmt . Errorf ( "failed to open config" ) The reason is wrapping. Go errors get concatenated. Your string is almost never the whole sentence a user reads; it's a fragment in a chain built with %w : return fmt . Errorf ( "load settings: %w" , err ) // -> "load settings: open config: permission denied" Capitalize your fragment and you get load settings: Open config: permission denied in the middle of a line. End it with a period and you get a period in the middle of a longer message. Lowercase, no trailing punctuation, and every fragment composes cleanly no matter where it lands in the chain. The exception is a string that begins with an exported name or acronym, which keeps its own case ( HTTP , TLS ). 2. Receiver types are consistent ac

Book: The Complete Guide to Go Programming Also by me: Hexagonal Architecture in Go — the companion book in the Thinking in Go series My project: Hermes IDE | GitHub — an IDE for developers who ship with Claude Code and other AI coding tools Me: xgabriel.com | GitHub You write a Go struct with a private field and a method to read it. Muscle memory from Java, C#, or PHP takes over, and you type GetName() . The code compiles. Tests pass. Then a reviewer leaves a comment that just says "drop the Get" with no explanation, and you're left wondering whether that's a real rule or one person's taste. It's a real rule. It's written into the language's own style guide, the standard library follows it everywhere, and several linters will flag the code that breaks it. Go naming isn't a matter of opinion the way it is in some languages. A handful of conventions are baked into the tooling, and once you know them, half the reviewer nitpicks disappear. Getters drop the Get The convention comes straight from the Effective Go document. If you have an unexported field owner , the accessor is named Owner , not GetName or GetOwner . The mutator, if you need one, keeps the Set prefix. type File struct { owner string } func ( f * File ) Owner () string { return f . owner } func ( f * File ) SetOwner ( o string ) { f . owner = o } The reasoning is about how the call reads. person.Name() says the same thing as GetName() with less noise, and the parentheses already tell you it's a method call. Get adds a word that carries no information in a language where field access and method calls look different anyway. The Set prefix stays because there's no other clean way to signal mutation. Name() reads, SetName(x) writes. The asymmetry is deliberate. This shows up all over the standard library. bytes.Buffer has Len() , not GetLen() . sync.Once has no getters to get wrong, but http.Request exposes fields and methods that never carry a Get . time.Time has Hour() , Minute() , Second() . The pattern is

In this eMag, we try to establish agentic AI architecture as a new type of software architecture that will likely dominate the industry for years to come. The articles, written by industry experts, cover various elements and aspects of agentic AI architecture. We aim to present the latest trends and developments shaping the new type of architecture as it enters the mainstream. By InfoQ

Neo is Bhavin Turakhia’s fifth venture and his latest involving enterprise software. This time he's taking on Microsoft Office, Google Apps with AI.

SpaceX reportedly showed investors a "handset-like" AI device before going public. It could be another signal SpaceX wants to expand into wireless.