标签：#STEM

"A Stack isn't designed to store data. It's designed to make the most recent piece of work the easiest to access." In the previous article, we discovered a new kind of design problem. Some systems don't need to find the fastest item. Some don't need to process tasks in arrival order. Instead, they need to work with whatever happened most recently . That's exactly the problem a Stack solves. In this article, we'll understand how a Stack works and why its behavior appears naturally in many software systems. Imagine a Stack of Plates Think about a stack of dinner plates. Plate 4 ────────── Plate 3 ────────── Plate 2 ────────── Plate 1 ────────── When you need a plate, which one do you take? The one on the top. You don't pull out the bottom plate. Likewise, when placing a new plate, you put it on top. This simple rule defines the behavior of a Stack. What Is a Stack? A Stack is a data structure where both insertion and removal happen from the same end. The last item added is always the first one removed. This behavior is called LIFO (Last In, First Out). Push A ↓ Push B ↓ Push C ↓ Pop ↓ C Notice something important. A Stack isn't trying to preserve arrival order like a Queue. Instead, it preserves recency . The newest item is always the easiest to access. Every Data Structure Solves a Different Design Problem By now, we've seen several data structures, each answering a different question. A HashMap asks: Where is this object? A Heap asks: Which item has the highest priority? A Queue asks: Which task has been waiting the longest? A Stack asks: What happened most recently? Choosing the right data structure begins with identifying which of these questions your system needs to answer. Push and Pop Stacks are built around two simple operations. Push Adding a new item. Before Top ↓ B ↓ A Push C After Top ↓ C ↓ B ↓ A Pop Removing the most recent item. Before Top ↓ C ↓ B ↓ A Pop After Top ↓ B ↓ A Only the top item is removed. Everything below remains untouched. Real-World Examp

Author: Skydu Summary: A form engine may look like the most basic capability in a low-code platform, but it is really the entry point for business modeling, data structure, permissions, workflows, and future AI understanding. Opening In the previous post, I wrote about why INFORMAT is not meant to be only a low-code tool. Starting from this post, I want to go into specific modules. The first module I want to write about is the form engine. The reason is simple: in a low-code platform, forms look basic, but a form is not just a page. Many enterprise business systems begin with a form. Customer registration, contract approval, project initiation, purchase requests, inventory receiving, equipment inspections, and production reporting are all, at their core, ways to collect, organize, and move business data. So a form engine is not about dragging a few input boxes onto a canvas. It is the entry point for the platform's business modeling capability. The initial requirement looked simple Before building the form engine, my most straightforward idea was this: users should be able to create business forms, configure fields, and let the system automatically generate data-entry pages and data lists. That idea does not sound complicated. A form name, a group of fields, a save button, and a data list seem like enough. But once implementation begins, a series of questions appear quickly. What field types should exist? Can fields be grouped? Can fields depend on each other? Should data be validated? Should a workflow be triggered after submission? Can different people see different fields? How will form data be used by reports, automation, and AI? When these questions stack together, the form engine stops being only a frontend component. It becomes a core module that connects the data model, permission system, workflow system, and automation system. A form is not a page, but a business model I gradually became more certain of one judgment: forms in a low-code platform should not

User segmentation requirement Imagine you need to send a push notification to users who satisfy all of the following conditions: Push notification is enabled User is a VIP Active within the last 30 days Following the Voucher Hot category The traditional approach is to query multiple tables: SELECT DISTINCT u . id FROM users u JOIN user_configs c ON c . user_id = u . id JOIN devices d ON d . user_id = u . id JOIN follows f ON f . user_id = u . id WHERE c . push_optin = 1 AND c . mute = 0 AND d . fcm_token IS NOT NULL AND f . category = 'voucher_hot' AND u . last_active >= NOW () - INTERVAL 30 DAY ; As your user base grows into the millions, every campaign requires joining multiple large tables, filtering millions of records, and repeatedly computing the same audience. Query latency increases significantly, making real-time segmentation increasingly difficult. A Different Approach Instead of querying the database every time, we precompute each boolean attribute as a bitmap. Think of a bitmap as a huge array containing only 0 and 1, where the index corresponds to the user ID. For example, a bitmap representing whether a user has enabled push notifications: User ID : 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bitmap : 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 To check whether user 123 has enabled notifications, simply read bit 123. 1 → enabled 0 → disabled Each bitmap represents exactly one boolean property: bitmap:push_optin bitmap:vip bitmap:active30 bitmap:follow:voucher_hot Memory Usage Bitmap is extremely memory efficient. Each user requires only one bit. For 1 million users: 1.000.000 bits ~ 125.000 bytes ~ 122 KB That means every segment only consumes about 122 KB of Redis memory. Even 100 different segments require only around 12 MB . Finding Intersections Suppose you want all users that are: VIP AND Push Opt-in AND Active30 AND Following Voucher Hot Redis can calculate the result with a single command: BITOP AND result vip push_optin active30 follow_voucher_hot Need the number of matched users? BITCOUNT result No

When engineers discuss quantum computing, the conversation usually focuses on future supercomputers cracking traditional encryption passwords in a matter of seconds. As a systems architect who spends my days building distributed platforms, which are networks of independent cloud servers working together as a single application, I see a different, highly practical challenge taking shape. The transition to quantum-resistant security is not simply a theoretical math problem. It is an infrastructure challenge that will directly impact network throughput, memory usage, and messaging efficiency across global cloud environments. To protect sensitive enterprise records and business platforms against future quantum threats, security organizations are transitioning to Post-Quantum Cryptography. This field involves building new mathematical algorithms that quantum computers cannot easily solve. However, these stronger defense mechanisms come with a major trade-off in size. Traditional cryptographic signatures, which are digital verification stamps used to prove that a data message comes from an authentic sender and was not altered, are remarkably small. An older, standard signature might only take up sixty bytes of memory. By comparison, a quantum-safe signature can easily require several thousand bytes. In a simple website, adding a few extra kilobytes to a security header goes unnoticed. But modern cloud infrastructure relies heavily on event-driven architecture, a design strategy where dozens of microservices communicate by constantly publishing tiny, real-time updates to shared message queues. In these systems, the actual business payload might only be a small status change containing twenty bytes of text. If the quantum security stamp attached to that message is three thousand bytes, the overhead of the security layer completely outweighs the actual data being sent. When security footprints expand by orders of magnitude, the physical realities of computer networking take

Most of the engineers consider documentation as an after-thought; a README on a finished system written in the final 20 minutes before a PR gets merged. That's the wrong way to do this relationship. Documentation is not a description of architecture. It is part of the architecture, and marking it as separate is the cause of so many rotting systems, which still pass all tests. The compiler doesn't care, your team does It could be a consistent codebase and yet it be undocumented garbage from the point of view of anybody who didn't write it. Only one sort of correctness is enforced by the compiler (or interpreter): does this code perform the operation that the instructions say it performs. It doesn't weigh in on why a specific table contains a deleted_at column, versus a hard delete, or why a service tries 3 times with exponential back-off, versus 5 times with a fixed interval. Those decisions include constraints that are not apparent in the diff, regulatory, historical, or performance. If these are only in the mind of the programmer who wrote them, the actual architecture is partially undocumented, and these constraints will be breached as soon as someone else messes with the code when it is under a tight deadline. Architecture is not only the shape of your services and schemas, it's the set of decisions and constraints that shape stayed within. Undocumented constraints are like walls that we don't see, or know about. They are walked through without anyone knowing they exist, and one of the assumed conditions is broken at a time. Documentation as a design artifact, not a report Good documentation should be done prior to and/or in the midst of implementation, not after. When writing a design doc that explicitly states the problem, the options you considered, the one you selected, and the tradeoffs you made, you are actually doing real design work, you are making mistakes in your thinking process that would only become apparent during production. There have been more ti

Cloudflare recently introduced Meerkat, an internal globally consistent control-plane service based on the QuePaxa consensus algorithm. Unlike Raft, it allows leaderless writes while preserving strong consistency, improving availability across Cloudflare's global network. By Renato Losio

"A Heap doesn't stay useful because everything is sorted. It stays useful because every parent follows one simple rule." In the previous article, we learned that a Heap is built for continuous decision-making. Whether it's assigning the nearest driver, scheduling the next process, or selecting the most urgent support ticket, the system always needs one thing: The next best candidate But that raises an interesting question. How can a Heap always know the best candidate without sorting everything? The answer lies in one simple rule: The Heap Property. This single rule is what gives a Heap its power. The Biggest Misconception About Heaps Many beginners imagine a Heap like this. 100 95 90 82 76 64 51 Everything perfectly sorted. It feels logical. If the largest element should always come first, shouldn't every element be arranged in order? Surprisingly, no. A Heap solves a much smaller problem. It only guarantees that the best element is always easy to reach . Everything else only needs to follow one simple relationship. Imagine a Company Hierarchy Think about the structure of a company. CEO ↓ Engineering Director ↓ Engineering Manager ↓ Software Engineer The CEO doesn't directly manage every employee. Instead, each manager is responsible only for the people immediately below them. The entire organization works because every manager fulfills their local responsibility. A Heap works in a very similar way. Every node only needs to maintain the correct relationship with its immediate children. It doesn't need to know about every other node in the structure. The Heap Property Let's look at a Max Heap. 100 / \ 90 80 / \ / \ 75 60 70 50 Notice the pattern. Every parent has a value greater than or equal to its children. That's the Heap Property. Parent ≥ Children That's it. There is no rule saying that every node must be greater than every other node in the Heap. Only the parent-child relationship matters. What About a Min Heap? Some systems want the smallest value first. For

"A HashMap helps you find what you already know. A Heap helps you decide what should happen next." In the previous article, we discovered that not every software problem is about finding a specific object. Sometimes, the system already knows exactly what it's looking for. Find User ID = 1024 ↓ Return User Other times, the system doesn't know the answer in advance. Instead, it has to repeatedly answer questions like: Which task should run next? Which driver should be assigned? Which customer should be served first? Which alert is the most critical? These are fundamentally different problems. Instead of retrieving an object, the system is making a decision. This is where a Heap comes in. A Heap Is Built for Decisions, Not Searches Imagine you're managing a hospital emergency room. Patients keep arriving throughout the day. Patient A Minor Injury Patient B Heart Attack Patient C Broken Arm Patient D High Fever Should doctors treat patients in the order they arrived? Probably not. Instead, they ask one question. Who needs treatment first? Notice something important. The hospital isn't searching for a particular patient. It's choosing the highest-priority patient. A Heap is designed for exactly this kind of problem. A Different Way of Thinking When beginners hear "data structure," they often think about storing data. Experienced engineers think differently. They ask: "What operation does my system perform repeatedly?" If the answer is: Find User Find Order Find Product that's a lookup problem. But if the answer is: Choose Highest Priority Choose Nearest Driver Choose Earliest Deadline that's a decision problem. A Heap is optimized for continuous decision-making. What Exactly Is a Heap? A Heap is a data structure that keeps the most important element immediately available. Depending on the system, "most important" can mean different things. For example: Highest priority Lowest cost Earliest deadline Highest score Closest driver Most urgent ticket The Heap doesn't decide w

"Finding something quickly and finding the best thing quickly are two completely different engineering problems." So far in this series, we've explored one of the most common behaviours in software systems: Fast lookup. Whenever a system already knows what it's looking for—a User ID, Product ID, Order ID or Session ID—a HashMap becomes an excellent choice. But not every software problem works this way. Imagine you're building a ride-sharing application. A rider requests a cab. The system doesn't already know which driver to assign. Instead, it must answer a different question: "Out of all available drivers, who is the best choice?" Now consider a task scheduler. Hundreds of jobs are waiting to run. The scheduler doesn't ask: "Find Job #123." It asks: "Which job should run next?" Or imagine a gaming platform. Thousands of players are competing. Nobody asks: "Find Player ID 1057." Instead, users ask: "Who are the top 10 players?" These problems are fundamentally different from fast lookup. They're not about finding a specific object . They're about finding the best object according to some priority. This shift in thinking introduces another important design behaviour. Fast Lookup vs Best Selection Let's compare two different requirements. Requirement 1 Customer ID = 1052 ↓ Retrieve Customer The system already knows exactly what it needs. The challenge is retrieving it efficiently. Requirement 2 Available Drivers ↓ Find Nearest Driver ↓ Assign Ride The system doesn't know the answer yet. It must compare multiple candidates before making a decision. These two behaviours may look similar. In reality, they solve completely different engineering problems. Every Software System Doesn't Search the Same Way Consider these questions. Find Order #50231 versus Find the highest priority order. Or: Retrieve Product ID = P1042 versus Recommend the most popular product. Or: Find Employee ID = 2107 versus Find the employee with the highest sales this month. The first question always

This article describes an anonymized enterprise implementation. Company names, internal domains, repository identifiers, ticket numbers, and proprietary control names have been intentionally removed or generalized. Multi-factor authentication is often described as a login problem: enter a password, receive a code, confirm identity. That model was not enough for the system described in this case study. The product ran in an in-store environment where the same tablet could be used by several people during a transaction: an employee initiating the process; a manager approving or supporting it; a customer reviewing and signing on their own device. The challenge was not simply to prove that a user knew a six-digit code. We needed to create a secure, short-lived handoff between a shared in-store session and the customer’s personal phone, without leaking the downstream signing session or allowing multiple devices to claim the same transaction. This post explains the architecture, the security model, the trade-offs, and the production practices behind that platform. The actual problem: secure device handoff The workflow started on a shared tablet. At a certain point, the customer needed to continue part of the process on their own phone. The platform therefore had to answer several questions: How does the phone prove that it belongs to the customer currently standing in front of the employee? How does the shared tablet know that the correct phone claimed the correct session? What happens if the QR code is scanned twice? How do we prevent session identifiers and tokens from appearing in URLs, browser history, logs, or referrer headers? How do we notify the phone immediately when verification succeeds? How do we ensure that a single-use signing URL is never exposed before verification? Those constraints turned a seemingly small MFA feature into a distributed-system problem involving identity, real-time communication, concurrency, edge delivery, infrastructure, and operational

This article was originally published on BuildZn . Everyone talks about multi-agent systems but few show you how to actually coordinate them without a ton of boilerplate and deadlocks. I spent weeks trying to get agents to talk, especially when building something like FarahGPT's multi-agent trading system, often hitting insane latency. Turns out, qm can drastically simplify this, and this qm multiplayer AI agent tutorial will show you how to cut task completion times by 20% using a specific Node.js workflow. Why Multi-Agent Systems Aren't Just Hype Anymore (and qm Helps) Single LLM calls hit a wall, fast. You get generic answers, struggle with complex, multi-step tasks, and prompt engineering becomes a full-time job. I've built 9-agent YouTube automation pipelines and an AI gold trading system that needed to analyze market data, news sentiment, and historical trends concurrently. Trying to jam all that into one prompt for a single agent? Forget about it. You need a collaborative AI agent architecture . That's where multi-agent systems shine. You break down complex problems into smaller, manageable tasks, assign them to specialized agents, and have them work together. Think of it like a dev team: one person focuses on backend, another on frontend, another on CI/CD. This is how you handle real-world complexity, and it's how I scaled FarahGPT to 5,100+ users. The challenge? Orchestration. How do these agents communicate? Who manages their state? How do you ensure they don't step on each other's toes or get stuck waiting for slow upstream tasks? This is exactly where qm , a lightweight agent harness, becomes a game-changer for building AI teams. It gives you the primitives to define agents, tasks, and workflows without drowning in custom event loops. The Core Concept: Task Delegation in qm Most qm examples show simple agent interactions. Agent A asks Agent B. Done. But what if Agent A needs to delegate a task that itself needs parallel sub-tasks, and then aggregate the

The hot new roguelite twin-stick shooter lives up to the hype.

Designing AI Systems That Outlive Today's Models If there's one lesson this series has taught me, it's this: Don't build your application around a model. Build it around a capability. That might sound like a small distinction. It isn't. Because models change. Constantly. A few months ago everyone was talking about GPT-4. Then Claude. Then Gemini. Then DeepSeek. Then Qwen. By the time you're reading this, there's probably another model making headlines. Imagine rewriting your application every time that happens. That's not innovation. That's technical debt. One mistake I see quite often is developers tightly coupling their applications to one provider. Your business logic knows it's talking to GPT-4. Your prompts are written specifically for GPT-4. Your output parsing assumes GPT-4. Your error handling assumes GPT-4. Now imagine your company decides to switch providers. What should have been a configuration change suddenly becomes weeks of refactoring. That's avoidable. Your application shouldn't know who answered the request. It should only know that the capability it asked for was delivered. Summarize this document. Generate this code. Classify this text. Translate this paragraph. Those are capabilities. The provider is simply an implementation detail. One thing I regret not doing earlier was versioning prompts. Most developers version everything else. Source code. Database migrations. Infrastructure. Configuration. Then prompts end up looking like this: typescript id = " a8fj21 " const prompt = " You are a helpful assistant... " ; Three months later someone tweaks a sentence. Responses change. Nobody knows why. Sound familiar? Prompts deserve the same engineering discipline as code. Version them. Review them. Document why changes were made. Roll them back when needed. Prompt engineering isn't magic. It's software development. Imagine you've found a brand-new reasoning model that performs better than your current one. Do you deploy it to every user immediately? Pro

There are fresh signs that fusion power startup Commonwealth Fusion Systems will list in the next two to three years.

"The real magic of a HashMap isn't that it stores data. It's that it knows where to start looking." In the previous article, we learned that a HashMap organises information around unique keys. Instead of searching every stored object one by one, it uses the key to retrieve information quickly. That naturally raises another question. "If millions of objects are stored inside a HashMap, how does it know where to begin?" Surely it isn't remembering the location of every object individually. The answer lies in one of the most important ideas in computer science: Hashing. Don't worry if the word sounds intimidating. Despite its name, the idea behind hashing is surprisingly simple. Imagine a Huge Apartment Building Suppose you're visiting a friend who lives in a building with 5,000 apartments. If nobody told you the apartment number, what would you do? Probably something like this. Apartment 1 ↓ Apartment 2 ↓ Apartment 3 ↓ ... ↓ Friend's Apartment That would take a long time. Now imagine your friend simply tells you: Apartment 1842 Suddenly, you don't search the building. You walk directly to Apartment 1842. The apartment number isn't your friend. It simply tells you where to begin. Hashing works in exactly the same way. Keys Need Locations Suppose our application stores customers. Customer ID → Customer 1001 → Alice 1002 → Bob 1003 → Charlie 1004 → David The system needs a way to answer one question. "Where should Customer 1002 be stored?" Searching every location first would defeat the purpose of using a HashMap. Instead, the system calculates where that key should go. Notice something important. It doesn't compare Customer 1002 against every other customer. It calculates a location directly. Think of a School Locker System Imagine a school with thousands of students. Every student receives a locker. Student ID ↓ Locker Number ↓ Locker Students don't spend every morning searching hundreds of lockers. Their Student ID determines where they should go. The locker number is

Commonwealth Fusion Systems raised $1 billion as the startup moves toward its first commercial fusion power plant.

Murat Demirbas discusses the shift toward disaggregated cloud database architectures driven by cloud economics. He explains how decoupling compute from storage enables elastic scaling, cost efficiency, and fault isolation. He shares how classical Paxos roles foreshadowed disaggregation, while analyzing network tradeoffs, shared-memory evolution, and self-assembling database designs. By Murat Demirbas

Handoffs are useful when a specialist agent needs to take over a task. They also make cost easier to hide, because the bill is spread across graph nodes instead of one visible chat turn. Why can LangGraph handoffs multiply tokens? LangGraph handoffs can multiply tokens because each model-calling node may resend instructions, prior messages, retrieved material, tool returns, summaries, and artifacts, then loops or handoffs repeat that payload for the next agent. Token amplification is the total prompt-plus-completion tokens across a trace divided by a simpler baseline for the same task; Anthropic reported in June 2025 that multi-agent systems used about 15x more tokens than chats while improving an internal research evaluation by 90.2% . Quick Answer: Handoffs raise the token bill when each agent receives copied context instead of a narrow task packet. Anthropic’s June 2025 research system showed the tradeoff clearly: multi-agent runs used about 15x more tokens than chats while scoring 90.2% higher on its internal research evaluation . In LangGraph, the practical issue is observability and budgeting, not whether graphs are bad. The LangGraph project describes the runtime as a way to build stateful, long-running agents with persistence, human control, memory, and debugging support; those same traits make it possible to measure where context grows instead of guessing. "Multi-agent systems are often highly effective at open-ended research tasks, but token usage can be substantial," — Anthropic engineering team at Anthropic The small verified demo below shows the arithmetic behind a 15x bill: a 100-token task becomes 1,500 billed tokens when 5 agents each receive 3 copies of the relevant context . """ Tiny token-accounting demo: handoffs multiply the same task context. """ task_tokens = 100 agents = 5 context_copies_per_handoff = 3 # instructions + task + summary/history direct_bill = task_tokens handoff_bill = task_tokens * agents * context_copies_per_handoff print ( f

"The best software engineers don't begin by choosing data structures. They begin by understanding what the system needs to do." In the previous article, we learned that data structures never stopped being important after DSA. Their role simply changed. During coding interviews, we often ask ourselves: "Which data structure will solve this problem efficiently?" In Low-Level Design, experienced engineers ask a different question: "What behaviour should this system optimise?" At first glance, these questions sound similar. In reality, they lead to completely different ways of thinking. This article is about understanding why behaviour—not implementation—is where every good design begins. Why Beginners Often Think About Data Structures Too Early Imagine someone asks you to design an online food delivery platform. Many beginners immediately start thinking: Should I use a HashMap? Will I need a Queue? Should I store everything in a Tree? Would a Graph be useful? These aren't bad questions. They're simply being asked too early. Before choosing any data structure, we need to understand what the system is actually expected to do. Software engineering isn't about selecting tools first. It's about understanding problems first. Every Software System Is Really a Collection of Behaviours Let's consider a food delivery application. From a user's perspective, it looks like this. Customer Places Order │ Restaurant Accepts │ Assign Delivery Partner │ Track Delivery │ Order Delivered It looks like one workflow. But an engineer sees something very different. Each step represents a different behaviour. Let's break them apart. Behaviour 1 — Retrieve Existing Information A customer opens an order they placed yesterday. Customer ↓ Order ID ↓ Retrieve Order The system already knows exactly which order it needs. The challenge is retrieving it quickly. Behaviour 2 — Choose the Best Candidate A restaurant has multiple delivery partners nearby. Available Drivers ↓ Choose Best Driver ↓ Assign Ri

Your monitoring catches problems on everything except itself. Here is how an always-firing Watchdog alert plus an external heartbeat check turns silence into a signal, so you find out when your own alerting dies. TL;DR A monitoring system can't reliably monitor its own failure, so use a dead man's switch. Create an always-firing Prometheus Watchdog alert and route it to an independent external heartbeat service. As long as the monitoring pipeline is working, the Watchdog continuously refreshes the heartbeat. If Prometheus, Alertmanager, or the delivery path fails, the heartbeat stops and the external service alerts you through a separate channel. The key is independence: the system responsible for detecting that your monitoring is down must not depend on the monitoring stack itself. One of the traps of creating alerts on a monitoring stack is the hidden assumption that the mechanism evaluating the alert is running properly and has the ability to evaluate it. Prometheus watches your hosts and Alertmanager delivers the warnings. But what watches Prometheus? If something goes wrong and the monitoring stack fails in the middle of the night, no alerts are going out but there is definitely a problem. That is the failure mode that you should be most concerned about, because it is the one your monitoring cannot report on. The fix is an old idea with a grim name: a dead man's switch. A train's dead man's switch stops the train when the operator stops holding it down. The safe state requires continuous positive action, while the absence of that action is what triggers the response. Applied to monitoring, it means building one alert whose silence is itself the alarm. Step one: an alert that always fires This feels backwards the first time you see it, and it took me a little time to get it right. Basically, you create an alert with a condition that is always true, so it fires constantly, forever, on purpose. In the Prometheus world this is conventionally called Watchdog. - aler