标签：#ai

Agility is opening a new training center for its Digit robots in Fremont, California.

India's smartphone slowdown highlights how the AI boom is reshaping consumer electronics, from pricing and demand to corporate strategy.

The FireSat program can spot wildfires that other satellites miss.

TikTok is starting to test an opt-in tool that scans for AI likenesses and lets creators report them to the company, as spotted by social media consultant Matt Navarra. The tool is initially being tested with "some" US creators, TikTok US spokesperson Zachary Kizer tells The Verge. YouTube has been working on a similar tool […]

I was tired of buzzword-heavy AI projects and marginally impactful demos. Surely we can do something more inspiring with these LLMs than build another chatbot? For me, the answer is physical AI: the moment all those breakthroughs finally reach into the real world, in robots that see, move, and figure things out for themselves. I think it is the most exciting frontier in tech right now. It is also genuinely hard to break into, because it is not one field. It is about five of them stacked on top of each other: electronics, mechanics, programming, data, and AI. Eight months ago I started my own robotics journey from scratch, and I was completely overwhelmed. How do you get from blinking an LED to a humanoid that does your dishes? There are thousands of scattered tutorials out there, with no sense of what comes first, or what any of it is building toward. So I decided to build the map. Stealing the best idea from my favorite games: If you have ever played a factory-building or strategy game like Satisfactory or Civ Six, you know the feeling. You start with almost nothing, and you unlock new tech one satisfying step at a time. Those games are proof that we will happily spend hours mastering an intimidatingly complex system, as long as it is laid out as a clear tree of unlocks. So why not point that same instinct at learning something real? That is exactly what a tech tree is: a structured, visual path where each node is a skill and each connection is a prerequisite. You start at Curiosity on the far left and work your way right, through electronics, mechanics, code, data, and AI, all the way toward autonomous robots and humanoids. The idea is simple: turn gaming time into learning time. What the tree actually is Every node on the tree is a skill to learn, and the star-shaped nodes are hands-on projects where theory finally meets a soldering iron. Nodes are color-coded by discipline, so you can see at a glance whether you are in electronics, mechanics, programming, data s

Welcome to Day 5! Today we shift from volatile, temporary in-memory variables to persistent storage and application durability . You will learn how to interact safely with your operating system's file system, read/write structured industry data patterns, handle real-world operational crashes gracefully, and keep execution timelines documented using professional logging architectures. 💾 1. File Handling & pathlib 📄 Python's pathlib module treats file paths as smart object structures instead of plain text strings. This avoids bugs caused by differing slash directions across operating systems (Windows uses \ , while Mac/Linux use / ). Reading ( "r" ): Loads file contents into memory. Writing ( "w" ): Erases any existing file contents and writes a fresh payload from scratch. Appending ( "a" ): Targets the end of a file, adding fresh text without overwriting existing contents. 🌱 Easy Starter Example from pathlib import Path # Create a path reference pointing to a file in the current workspace directory file_path = Path ( " notes.txt " ) # Write text cleanly to a file space file_path . write_text ( " Hello from Day 5! " ) # Read data straight back into a string variable content = file_path . read_text () print ( content ) # Output: Hello from Day 5! 🏛️ Real-World Example: Multi-Platform System Telemetry Appender from pathlib import Path from datetime import datetime def log_system_status ( status_message : str ) -> None : # Resolve home folder pathways seamlessly across Windows, Mac, or Linux systems target_dir = Path . home () / " app_workspace " / " telemetry " # Create the directory chain automatically if it doesn't exist yet target_dir . mkdir ( parents = True , exist_ok = True ) log_file = target_dir / " runtime_events.log " timestamp = datetime . now (). isoformat () # Secure stream channel using Python's standard file-open context manager with open ( log_file , mode = " a " , encoding = " utf-8 " ) as file : file . write ( f " [ { timestamp } ] STATUS: { status_mes

Apple Music is more expensive now. In the US, an individual plan now costs $11.99 per month, a $1 bump up from the previous $10.99 price. A family plan now costs $19.99 per month, up from $16.99, and a student plan costs $6.99 per month, up from $5.99. Apple, in a statement to Music Business […]

Apple filed a trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI last Friday, and it’s not messing around. The complaint alleges a pattern of misconduct reaching all the way up to OpenAI’s chief hardware officer and claims more than 400 former Apple employees now work at the company. OpenAI’s response so far has been carefully hedged, and the timing couldn’t be worse with the company reportedly eyeing an IPO […]

Apple is suing OpenAI. The complaint is readable and intense, as these things often are, though many experts seem to think many of the allegations are just the ways things are done. So what does Apple really want here, and why is it picking such a public fight with OpenAI? On this episode of The […]

Toss out a brick to lure a jade gem. — The 36 Stratagems, Throw Out a Brick to Get a...

The cost of writing code dropped; the cost of owning it didn't. A framework for deciding which changes are actually cheap in the AI era. The post The cost of saying yes has changed appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

Google and Apple were sent cease-and-desist letters regarding 13 apps on their respective stores.

Official estimates Google and Apple likely made millions in nudify app fees.

Everyone recommends ByteByteGo and The Pragmatic Engineer. Don't get me wrong, they're great... but the best engineering writing of the last two years is coming from newer publications nobody's put on a list yet. Here's what survived my filter. I have a rule: if I haven't opened a newsletter in three weeks, I unsubscribe. No guilt, no "maybe later" folder. It's the only way to keep email useful when every engineering team, indie hacker, and AI startup on the planet is running a Substack. That rule has consequences. Over the past couple of years it has killed off almost every famous-name newsletter in my inbox — not because they got worse, but because they got comfortable. Meanwhile, a new generation of engineering publications launched around 2023–2024 started earning their slot every single week. They're smaller, sharper, and written by people still close to the work. The other thing my rule revealed: AI engineering quietly became its own discipline. Not "AI news" — there are a thousand newsletters rehashing model launches. I mean the craft of building production systems on top of LLMs: agents, evals, brownfield integration, governance, cost. That coverage barely existed two years ago. Now it's the most valuable section of my inbox, which is why it leads this list. So here's what survived. Twenty-six newsletters, organized by topic, heavy on publications you haven't seen on every listicle. Steal the whole list. 🤖 AI Engineering & Production AI Two years ago this category didn't exist. Today it's the most important one here, because building with LLMs in production is genuinely different work — different failure modes, different economics, different skills — and general engineering newsletters mostly aren't covering it. Latent Space — swyx & Alessio Fanelli. swyx literally coined "AI engineering" as a discipline, and this is its watering hole: podcast, essays, and the AINews digest covering frontier models, agents, and the career path itself. The anchor of the categ

I've been tuning Codenames AI , a small web game where an LLM plays Codenames with you. Clue generation is tightly constrained: one word, a count, optional intended targets, JSON on the wire, then deterministic validation before anything reaches the board. As the project started attracting regular players, I wanted to improve the gameplay experience without blowing out costs. Moving one model generation from gpt-4o-mini to gpt-5-mini was my first instinct. The default reasoning setting made responses an order of magnitude slower for this workload. Minimal reasoning looked like the obvious compromise: newer model, responsive gameplay. I expected to compare clue quality, latency, and cost while the surrounding prompt, validator, and consumer contracts stayed put. That last part was wrong. The experiment stopped behaving like an A/B test What showed up was structural, and it showed up in places that had been stable for months. Validation failures started rising. Retries started rising. Entire candidate batches started failing before the game ever saw a clue. The sharpest signal came from a clue-selection path that had run untouched for months, and it hard-failed for the first time. They weren't latency regressions so much as architectural ones. It is easy to read that as "minimal reasoning made the model worse." More often, the failures were exposing gaps in contracts that had looked fine under the previous model. What each failure actually invalidated Eventually every failure traced back to one of three layers: Prompt contracts ask for exactly count targets and, in batch mode, several distinct candidates. Deterministic validators reject target/count mismatches and filter invalid candidates before anything downstream runs. Downstream consumers only see survivors. Empty batches retry with rejection feedback, then fall back if needed. Those layers share one job: enforce the same invariants. The failures below cut across all three rather than mapping one to one. Side comm

How Bifrost Enterprise combines Data Access Control (DAC), Role Based Access Control (RBAC), Access Profiles, and Bifrost Edge to secure AI applications at scale. Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming part of every employee's workflow. Developers rely on coding assistants, customer support teams use AI powered chat applications, analysts generate reports with large language models, and organisations increasingly deploy AI agents connected to internal tools through the Model Context Protocol (MCP). While this rapid adoption improves productivity, it also introduces a significant governance challenge. It's no longer enough to decide who can log into an AI platform; you must also determine who can access specific AI resources, which models they can use, what they can spend, and which data they should even be able to see. This is where Bifrost Enterprise provides a comprehensive governance layer. By combining Role Based Access Control (RBAC), Data Access Control (DAC) , Access Profiles , and Bifrost Edge , organisations can secure AI workloads without slowing down innovation. Together, these capabilities create a governance framework that scales from small engineering teams to global enterprises and you can learn more about this in the documentation on GitHub . Why Enterprise AI Needs More Than Authentication Traditional enterprise applications typically answer two questions: Who is the user? What can that user do? Modern AI platforms introduce a third and equally important question: What information should this user actually be able to see? Imagine an organisation with several engineering teams working on independent AI products. Each team has its own prompts, routing rules, API budgets, virtual keys, observability data, and model configurations. If every developer can view every configuration simply because they have developer permissions, sensitive information can easily become exposed. This challenge becomes even more complicated when organisations begin deplo

I've been using Claude for a long time and mostly ignored Artifacts. Fine for a quick React demo. Not something I reached for. Then I needed to send an analysis to a few people at work, and it clicked. Or I'm just using it in a way nobody intended. Hard to say. The actual case I own the paywall backend at a Czech media house. The subscription offer on our news site is embedded as an iframe, and iframes are a bad neighbourhood: context isolation means the iframe has no access to the parent page's session, so user identity kept breaking and we kept patching it over postMessage. Every iframe is its own page view, so GA4 data was skewed and we had to build server-side tracking and session stitching to make the numbers mean anything. And ad blockers, CSP, and timeouts mean sometimes the thing just doesn't render, so we maintain a fallback UI in parallel. I wanted to propose we drop the iframe and ship a JS embed library instead, distributed through our internal npm registry. That's an architecture change, so it needs a document: what we fixed, why the iframe is still structurally wrong, what the alternative costs, what the numbers say. The numbers part came out of the same agent session, by the way. GA4 said roughly 0.14% of paywalled page views hit an error, about half of them iframe-blocked-by-browser. That's every 700th reader. Small number, real money. The boring problem You get a good answer out of the model. Now what? You paste it into a doc. Reformat it, because chat markdown does not survive the trip. Fix the tables. Decide whether it goes in Confluence or an email. Send it. Then someone asks a follow-up, you go back to the model, get a better answer, and now there are two versions of the truth and one of them is in someone's inbox. I've done the email version of exactly this document before. Outlook ate the markdown. I ended up hand-rolling plain text with unicode bullets and uppercase section headers like it was 1998. Half of that work is transport, not thinkin

Why giant AGENTS.md files may be wasting context, hurting maintainability, and making AI-assisted development harder to scale. A few years ago, for many developers, using AI for software development meant copying a small piece of code into a chat window. We would ask for a refactoring, copy the response back into the editor, run the tests ourselves, and return to the chat when something failed. Coding agents changed that workflow. Tools such as Codex, Claude Code, and others can now explore an entire repository, modify multiple files, execute commands, run tests, and iterate on failures. Coding agents turned code assistants into tools capable of executing multi-step software development tasks. But most repositories were not designed for this new kind of contributor. The repository became part of the agent's working context A coding agent needs much more than source code. It may need to understand: the project architecture; dependency boundaries; coding conventions; test strategy; build commands; local environment requirements; validation steps; security restrictions; the definition of done. A common solution is to place these instructions inside files such as AGENTS.md , CLAUDE.md , or other agent-specific configuration files. This works. I have been doing something similar in my own projects for a while. But as the repository grows, the instruction file grows with it. Eventually, a single file may contain thousands of lines covering unrelated concerns: Architecture Testing Environment setup Coding standards Infrastructure UI conventions Validation Release workflows Definition of done At that point, the file is no longer just a set of agent instructions. It has become an informal repository operating manual. The monolithic context problem A large AGENTS.md has an obvious advantage: the agent knows where to find it. But it also creates several problems. It is difficult for humans to navigate These files are not only for agents. Developers also need to read, review, m

TL;DR I checked 50 AI-generated login endpoints. Zero had rate limiting. Attackers can brute-force credentials at full speed against these routes. Adding a rate limiter takes four lines and one npm install. I asked Cursor to build a login route for a side project last month. Email, password, JWT back on success. It worked first try, passed my manual tests, and I moved on to the next feature. Three weeks later I ran a load test against it out of curiosity and hit the endpoint two thousand times in under a minute. Not one request got throttled. That's when I started pulling apart every AI-generated auth route I could find, mine and other people's open source side projects, and the pattern held everywhere I looked. The models write correct authentication logic and completely skip rate limiting, because rate limiting isn't part of "does this login work," it's part of "does this login survive contact with an attacker." The vulnerable code (CWE-307) Here's roughly what Cursor and Claude Code hand you when you ask for a login route: // ❌ No rate limiting - CWE-307: Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts app . post ( ' /api/login ' , async ( req , res ) => { const { email , password } = req . body ; const user = await User . findOne ({ email }); if ( ! user || ! ( await bcrypt . compare ( password , user . passwordHash ))) { return res . status ( 401 ). json ({ error : ' Invalid credentials ' }); } const token = jwt . sign ({ id : user . id }, process . env . JWT_SECRET , { expiresIn : ' 1h ' }); res . json ({ token }); }); Password hashing is fine. JWT signing is fine. But nothing stops a script from hitting this route as fast as the network allows. No lockout, no delay, no cap on attempts per IP or per account. A credential-stuffing list with ten thousand leaked passwords runs against this endpoint in seconds. Why this keeps happening Rate limiting lives outside the function the model was asked to write. The prompt is "build a login endpoint," and it re

Patreon is strengthening its defenses against AI scraping by working with Cloudflare to block bots that train AI models on creators’ content without permission. The move marks a shift away from relying on websites using robots.txt alone to actively block unauthorized AI training.