标签：#an

Alina Krasavina explains how Delivery Hero successfully deprecated Google Analytics and migrated to an internal user tracking platform. She discusses how a simplistic, highly scalable architecture allowed them to handle 10 times more load while capturing 97% of tracking data. By Alina Krasavina

Exatamente isso que você leu. Você não precisa ser um "expert" em determinada linguagem, ou ter: 5...

The company warned about dangers of advanced AI far more than rival OpenAI.

The company is also eliminating a production shift at its Arizona factory to align "production plans with anticipated demand."

Sometimes designers have silly ideas that eventually grow on you. That happened to me with this concept where I had to build columns of items moving in opposite directions when a user scrolls the page. CodePen Embed Fallback Note: This … Using Scroll-Driven Animations for Opposing Scroll Directions originally handwritten and published with love on CSS-Tricks . You should really get the newsletter as well.

Octopus and CATL are pledging to roll out a network of battery swap stations for heavy trucks across Europe.

I haven’t thought about the privacy issues surrounding professional athletes and wearables. Wearables present serious privacy issues for “Average Joe” consumers, who are entrusting tech companies to safely store and protect their biometric data. Imagine the stakes for a professional athlete, whose entire livelihood could be affected by a single biometric data point. To give one of many realistic hypotheticals: a basketball player has a terrible game, and the coach wonders if they showed up to the gym hungover. The coach has access to the player’s wearable data, and checks to see when they went to sleep, as well as what their heart rate looked like during the night. Should the player have been out partying before a game? No. Should the coach be able to surveil them? Definitely not...

"Fractional CTO" has become the title people put on their LinkedIn profile when "senior developer" doesn't sound senior enough. I play this role for some of my clients, so I have opinions about what it actually means — and what it doesn't. The confusion isn't just semantics. If you hire the wrong thing under this label, you pay consulting rates for work that a good contractor would have done better. The Problem with the Label The term covers a surprisingly wide range of people and arrangements. At one end, you have experienced technical leaders — people who have actually run engineering organizations, made architectural decisions that constrained companies for years, hired and let go technical staff, and owned the consequences. At the other end, you have developers who decided their day rate felt more justifiable with a fancier title. Both call themselves fractional CTOs. The market hasn't sorted this out yet. The reason it matters: these are fundamentally different services with different prices, different deliverables, and different risks. Mixing them up is how companies end up paying €200/hour for someone to help them choose a JavaScript framework. What a Real Fractional CTO Actually Owns Owns is the operative word. Not "advises on." Not "contributes to." Owns. Technical architecture decisions. When you're building a system that will handle real volume, real users, and real money — the decisions made in the first few months constrain everything that follows. What database, what caching strategy, how the services are separated, where the complexity lives. A fractional CTO makes those calls and stakes their reputation on them. They're not writing a report about options. They're deciding. Tech stack and vendor selection. When a vendor pitches you something, someone needs to evaluate it who has seen enough vendors to know which ones are overselling. When a developer suggests a library, someone needs to know whether it's the right tool or just the tool that developer

We asked Johan Ejdemo to list which Ikea items populate his home. He also tells us about his all-time favorite. (No, it's not a Billy bookcase.)

2026 AI Coding Agents Are Making Developers Forget How to Code: Why the Convenience Trap Threatens Innovation As AI‑driven platforms like Atoms, Devin, Windsurf, Cursor, and Warp reshape software engineering, the real cost may be a gradual erosion of core programming fundamentals. The latest MarkTechPost comparison shows AI coding agents moving from novelty to mainstream. Teams report faster feature cycles, fewer lines of manual boilerplate, and a shift toward intent‑first workflows. Yet beneath the productivity headlines lies a subtle trade‑off: every hour spent letting an agent write code is an hour not spent exercising the mental muscles that let us reason about edge cases, optimize performance, or invent novel algorithms. The Rise of Intent‑First Development Modern agents excel at turning a natural‑language description into a runnable diff. Atoms uses multimodal reasoning to interpret UI sketches; Devin can autonomously open pull requests after a high‑level prompt; Windsurf lets engineers edit across files with conversational commands. This paradigm reduces the cognitive load of syntax hunting and lets engineers focus on what the software should do, not how to type it. Measuring the Productivity‑Skill Trade‑off Data from early adopters shows a 38% cut in boilerplate typing and a 22% boost in sprint velocity. However, internal surveys reveal a 15% drop in self‑reported confidence when debugging low‑level concurrency bugs, and a 20% increase in reliance on agent‑generated explanations rather than personal code walkthroughs. The numbers suggest a growing dependency that mirrors the calculator effect seen in mathematics education. Second‑Order Shifts: From Craftsmanship to Orchestration As routine typing fades, engineers spend more time validating AI output, refining prompts, and orchestrating multi‑agent pipelines. Traditional code reviews evolve into “prompt reviews,” where the gatekeeper judges whether the AI captured the business intent. New roles—AI Interaction

From fake tickets to cloned websites, AI is magnifying World Cup scams. Can fans distinguish between what’s real and what’s not?

Your payment tests passed in staging. Then PhonePe pushed an SDK update on Tuesday, the UPI intent...

It’s cold, it’s very, very noisy, and—if I can be quite honest with you—I’m not feeling super relaxed. I’m currently around 300 meters, or 1,000 feet, beneath the North Sea, in a dark, dank cave. It smells weird. And I am increasingly aware of the pressure from millions of tons of seawater just above my…

Por muito tempo eu acreditei que programação e desenvolvimento de software como sinônimos. Na...

Here's something that'll keep you up at night: 67% of World Cup 2026 goals in the 85th+ minute came from teams that were losing at the time . That's significantly higher than the 43% rate we saw in the 70-80 minute window. This single statistic reveals a hidden pattern in how desperation fundamentally rewires attacking strategy when the clock ticks down to the final whistle. As someone who's spent the last three months drowning in World Cup 2026 broadcast data, match statistics, and possession metrics, I've become obsessed with understanding how pressure affects team behavior in those nail-biting final minutes. The conventional wisdom says that late-game goals are chaotic, desperate, and unpredictable. But the data tells a much more interesting story—one about tactical discipline collapsing under psychological weight. The Numbers Behind the Drama Let me walk you through what we found when analyzing 64 matches from the 2026 tournament across 16 days of group stages. Time Period Total Goals Avg. Pass Completion % Shots on Target Defensive Errors 0-30 min 24 82.3% 18 3 30-60 min 31 81.7% 26 5 60-75 min 28 79.4% 24 8 75-85 min 19 76.8% 22 12 85-90 min 18 71.2% 19 18 90+ min (stoppage) 14 68.9% 16 22 Notice the decline? By the 85-90 minute window, pass completion drops to 71.2%—that's an 11-point deterioration from the opening 30 minutes. But here's where it gets weird: defensive errors triple in that same window. Teams aren't just playing sloppily; they're making genuinely catastrophic mistakes. Team-Specific Patterns: The Pressure Responders Not all teams crack under late-game pressure equally. Here's where the real story emerges: Team 85+ Min Goals Scored 85+ Min Goals Conceded Goal Differential Win Rate (Tight Matches) Argentina 6 2 +4 85% France 5 3 +2 72% Brazil 7 4 +3 81% England 3 5 -2 58% USA 4 6 -2 62% Morocco 5 2 +3 79% Japan 2 7 -5 41% What jumps out immediately? Argentina and Brazil are outliers . They scored 13 combined goals in the final 5 minutes but conc

In a recent audit, a team showed me an AI assistant they'd built on top of their company knowledge base. The demo had landed well: ask how to use a feature, and it walked through the exact pain point their support queue kept seeing. Leadership signed off. In production, the same agent told a user to open a menu option that didn't exist. Not a vague answer - a specific UI path, stated with confidence. Nobody caught it in testing. It surfaced when I audited the system, not when a user complained. The prototype passed testing because nobody was checking whether the answer matched the product. In production, that gap becomes a liability: the model invents UI paths, and your backend has no schema to reject them. When you're choosing an agent framework, popularity is the wrong scorecard. Pick the one that fails loudly in development and gracefully in production - or you'll find out in audit. What "Production-Ready" Actually Requires Tutorial agents are built to impress in a fifteen-minute demo. Production agents run unattended, handle bad inputs, and ship answers your backend has to trust. The gap between those two goals is where most teams stumble - and it's rarely visible until something reaches a user. When I audit agent codebases, I evaluate five things the tutorials skip: Structured, validated outputs: Can your system reject an invented menu path before it becomes user-facing advice? Dependency injection for testing: Can you swap the knowledge base for a mock in CI without rewiring the agent? Retry and error handling: When the model returns malformed output, does the framework retry - or do you ship a parser exception? Observability hooks: Can you trace which document grounded a bad answer when support escalates? Type-checker support: Will static analysis catch a breaking API change before deploy, or after the agent silently misbehaves? If you want to score your own system, the Production Readiness Audit covers the same five categories - deployment, observability, fa

Mach's approach differs sharply from some of its peers.

Let me confess something a little creepy. I have a habit of peeking at other people's dev posts. Not stealing the writing — relax. I run a tiny read-only job that fetches the public pages on dev.to, Zenn, and Qiita and counts only the boring parts: titles, post times, like counts. Who published what, at what hour, and how far it traveled. Then it tallies the lot. The reason is petty: my own posts weren't landing. The content is already in my hands — so I wanted to know how much the rest, the when and how you publish , actually moves the needle. By the numbers, not by gut. So I counted across three platforms. And the conditions that make a post fly turned out to be roughly mirror images between Japan (Zenn / Qiita) and the English-speaking world (dev.to). Here's the story. First, my most important disclaimer This post is full of numbers, so let me put up a guardrail before any of them. This is correlation, not causation . A result like "weekend posts don't do well" could mean the weekend itself is bad — or it could mean people who post on weekends are just dashing something off on the side. The data can't separate those. Please read it that way. Also, I only keep aggregate numbers I computed myself . I don't store or reuse anyone's article body (read-only GET, count the features, throw the page away). I peek, but only at the overall shape . Nobody gets singled out here. With that out of the way — four findings I enjoyed. 1. The best hour to publish is just your readers' time zone This one came out cleanest. On Qiita , posts published in the morning win (+32pt in the GOOD group). Midday is +14pt. Evening is -32pt, late night -14pt. Zenn likes midday too (+27pt). Late night is -15pt. dev.to is the exact opposite. Late night Japan time scores +7pt — Japanese evening is actually weak. The trick is obvious once you see it. dev.to's readers are English-speaking, mostly US. Late night in Japan is the US working day. Zenn and Qiita readers are in Japan, so the Japanese morni

Corro varios agentes respaldados por Bedrock en producción: análisis de documentos, emparejamiento de contenido, búsqueda en registros, búsqueda semántica. Esta es una pasada honesta sobre el OWASP Top 10 para aplicaciones LLM desde el lado de la implementación : el código de verdad que defiende cada riesgo y, igual de importante, las categorías donde mi respuesta es "parcial" o "todavía no". Primero el modelo de amenazas Un flujo de agentes es un pipeline: entrada no confiable → prompt → modelo → parseo → actuar. Cada flecha es una superficie de ataque. Antes de cualquier control, la pregunta más útil que me hice fue esta: ¿qué puede HACER de verdad un agente si el modelo está completamente manipulado? Mi respuesta dio forma a todo lo de abajo. Los agentes son mayormente-de-lectura : llaman a un modelo, leen filas acotadas de la base de datos, y escriben resultados de análisis con llave del usuario que pide. Sin shell, sin SQL arbitrario, sin llamada a herramientas. El radio de impacto es chico por construcción, que es el control más barato que existe. TL;DR, estatus honesto OWASP LLM Mi estatus El control LLM10 Consumo sin límite Fuerte Límite de tasa + cortacircuitos de costo mensual + topes de tokens por modelo LLM06 Agencia excesiva Fuerte (por diseño) Sin llamada a herramientas; mayormente-de-lectura; escrituras acotadas a quien llama LLM01 Inyección de prompt Parcial Contenido del usuario enmarcado como DATOS (delimitadores + preámbulo anti-inyección) LLM02 Divulgación de info sensible Parcial Limpieza de PII por regex antes del modelo; exclusiones auditadas LLM05 Manejo inadecuado de salida Parcial Validación de esquema + chequeos de fundamentación + sanear-antes-de-renderizar LLM07 Fuga del system prompt Parcial Registro versionado de prompts + regla anti-eco LLM08 Vector/Embedding N/A (todavía no construido) (nada) AuthN/Z + interruptor de apagado Fuerte Llave interna, gateo por cuota/gama, deshabilitado por agente LLM10 Consumo sin límite: empieza aquí, e

Every developer I know has the same problem: knowledge scattered across five places at once. Browser bookmarks they never re-read. Notion docs that become graveyards. Slack threads with critical context that disappear into the archive. README files that contradict each other. Stack Overflow answers bookmarked with zero recall of why. I tried most of the "second brain" setups and none of them stuck until I figured out why they kept failing: generic productivity systems are not built for how developers actually think and work. A developer's knowledge is fundamentally different from a writer's or a manager's. It is: Code-linked (a note about a library is useless without the actual code it explains) Decision-heavy (architecture decisions need context, rationale, and alternatives considered) Debugging-intensive (solutions to bugs need the exact error message, environment, and what you tried) Time-sensitive (that API migration note is only relevant for a 3-month window) Here is the structure that actually worked. The Core Structure 00-Inbox/ 10-Projects/ 20-Areas/ - Language: Python/ - Stack: AWS/ - Domain: Auth/ 30-Resources/ - Libraries/ - Tools/ - Patterns/ 40-Archive/ The key insight: Resources are evergreen, Projects are temporary, Areas are ongoing responsibilities. A note about how JWT works lives in 30-Resources/Domain-Auth/ . A note about implementing JWT for the current sprint lives in 10-Projects/Sprint-42-Auth-Revamp/ . When the sprint is done, the project gets archived. The JWT fundamentals note stays forever. The Templates That Made It Click Architecture Decision Record (ADR) # ADR-042: Use Postgres over DynamoDB for user sessions Status: Accepted | Date: 2026-06-22 ## Context We need session storage that supports complex queries for the audit log feature. ## Decision Postgres with connection pooling via PgBouncer. ## Alternatives Considered - DynamoDB: rejected (query limitations for audit log requirements) - Redis: rejected (not durable enough for complian