标签：#ast

University of Leicester historian thinks Eilmer of Malmesbury saw two different comets: in 1018 and 1066

You don't really ever have to explain why a universal remote is a good idea. You have a bunch of stuff that needs controlling; this thing controls them all. Many companies have set out to build a product worthy of this idea, and one product came much closer than most. It was called the Harmony, […]

The test passed. The restore completed inside the window. The workload came online. The team signed off, closed the ticket, and filed the results. DR test: successful. And then, somewhere between the test environment and the next real incident, the recovery plan drifted out of alignment with the infrastructure it was written to protect. Not dramatically. Not all at once. Gradually — through a cloud migration, an IdP consolidation, a new SaaS dependency, a network redesign that didn't make it into the runbook. DR plan failure rarely happens where you tested. It happens at the assumptions the exercise never reached. The Test Has a Boundary. The Incident Doesn't. A DR exercise begins with a defined scope. A specific workload. A known starting state. A target environment that has been prepared in advance. The team is available, credentialed, and not managing anything else. The blast radius is controlled before the test starts. A real incident does none of that. Scope expands from the first alert. Authentication problems surface because the IdP that wasn't in exercise scope is now unreachable. Networking issues appear because the failover path assumes a routing table that was updated three months ago. A vendor the plan never named is unavailable, and the recovery sequence stalls waiting for a dependency that was never documented as a dependency. The plan was written for the conditions of the test. The incident arrives in conditions the plan never anticipated. That gap is where DR plan failure actually lives — not in the restore mechanism, but in everything the restore mechanism was assumed to be able to reach. Most DR Plans Depend on Things They Never Recover The recovery exercise validates a workload. What it rarely validates is the recovery infrastructure itself. Consider what a typical enterprise DR plan silently depends on: Assumed — Not Tested: Identity provider, backup management console, cloud account access, ticketing and incident management systems, third-party

President Donald Trump says a secret mission moved 100 million barrels of oil through the blocked Strait of Hormuz. That number is impossible to verify.

HashiCorp has announced the general availability of the Terraform MCP Server, an open-source MCP server that enables agents to integrate with Terraform Registry APIs. The company says that it can improve infrastructure teams productivity by relieving engineers of rote tasks. By Sergio De Simone

I was thinking about some tests for a service that uses language models; there are several, even prompt injection. A question came to mind: is it possible to make multiple requests asking for any text like Lorem Ipsum, generating many unnecessary tokens and incurring costs? But creating a test where there are multiple accounts making the same request to generate 10,000 Lorem Ipsum tokens simultaneously, could that cause a service outage? Because most of the infrastructure I see doesn't use any queuing method when the chat is free of tasks involving an agent or even heavier functionalities. I didn't actually generate anything, I just wanted to start a discussion on this topic.

Published June 17, 2026 by gyorgy Infrastructure used to be something you wrote separately from your application. Lately that boundary has been dissolving, and the vocabulary has not kept up. Three distinct ideas are getting blurred together, partly because they all start from the same place: your code already implies what infrastructure it needs, so why state it twice. They diverge sharply on what they do about that. Here is the short version, then the longer one. The short version Infrastructure as Code (IaC). You describe the infrastructure explicitly, in its own files. The tool turns those files into real resources. Total control, total verbosity, and your infrastructure definition lives apart from your application code. Framework-defined Infrastructure (FdI). The framework infers the infrastructure from your application code, and a managed platform provisions it for you. Almost no configuration, no drift between app and infra, but the inference only covers what the framework exposes, and the resulting infrastructure runs on the platform's rails. Infrastructure as Framework (IaF). The framework reads your applications and generates infrastructure code that you own, deployed into your own cloud accounts. The framework does the inferring, you keep the output and the account. Who writes the infra Who owns the output Where it runs Scope IaC You, by hand You Any cloud Anything you can express FdI The framework The platform The platform What the framework exposes IaF The framework You Your cloud accounts What the framework covers The rest of this is just those three rows, explained. Infrastructure as Code IaC is the established answer. You write declarations, in HCL or a general-purpose language, that spell out the resources you want: this VPC, this load balancer, this database, these IAM bindings. A tool like Terraform or Pulumi reads the declarations and reconciles your cloud to match. The strength is that nothing is hidden. Every resource is something you chose and

AWS recently announced CDK Mixins, a new AWS CDK feature that lets developers add reusable capabilities like security, monitoring, and configuration to AWS resources. Mixins work across different construct types, making infrastructure code more flexible and reusable. By Renato Losio

You'd be forgiven for thinking this day would never come. Siri has spent a decade and half somewhere between "sort of useful at a few things" and "utterly disastrous, why did I even try, can it honestly not even set a timer." But the wildest thing just happened: Apple put out a new version of […]

The IPO market is back, and it’s not the same companies leading the charge. FAANG had a good run, but a new acronym is taking over: MANGOS — Meta (or Microsoft, depending on who you ask), Anthropic, Nvidia, Google, OpenAI, and SpaceX. Half of that bunch is heading to public markets in the same window, and it’s a stress test for investors, for valuations, and for […]

Today on Uncanny Valley, we take an early look at the SpaceX IPO and why you might find yourself among the investors without even realizing it.

Your pods keep getting killed. Not crashing — killed. One moment they're running fine, the next they're gone and Kubernetes is spinning up replacements. You check the logs and there's nothing useful. The pod just… disappeared. Turns out Kubernetes killed it on purpose. And if you don't tell it how much memory your app actually needs, it'll keep doing it. Why Kubernetes evicts pods Kubernetes runs on nodes — physical or virtual machines that host your containers. Each node has a finite amount of CPU and memory. When a node runs low on resources, Kubernetes has to make a choice: which pods stay, and which ones get evicted to free up space. The decision comes down to QoS classes — Quality of Service tiers that Kubernetes assigns to every pod based on how you've configured resource requests and limits. There are three classes: BestEffort — no resource requests or limits defined. Kubernetes has no idea how much CPU or memory the pod needs. These get killed first. Burstable — requests and limits are defined, but they're different (e.g., requests: 256Mi , limits: 512Mi ). The pod is guaranteed the request amount, but can burst up to the limit. Killed second. Guaranteed — requests and limits are set to the same value. Kubernetes reserves exactly that amount of resources for the pod. Killed last. If your pods don't have resource configuration at all, they're running as BestEffort. And when the node hits memory pressure, BestEffort pods are the first to go — no questions asked. The Guaranteed class Setting your pod to the Guaranteed class is one line in your deployment config. Define requests and limits for both CPU and memory, and make them identical: resources : requests : memory : " 512Mi" cpu : " 500m" limits : memory : " 512Mi" cpu : " 500m" That's it. Kubernetes now knows this pod needs exactly 512 MiB of RAM and half a CPU core, and it reserves that capacity when scheduling the pod onto a node. If a node doesn't have 512 MiB available, the pod won't be placed there. An

This article was originally published on hawksley.dev . I've owned the domain name hawksley.dev for a while now, but I've never done much with it aside from sending email. Over the weekend, I thought I might as well make good use of it and decided to create a blog. In the beginning, this site had a humble home page with some links to GitHub projects. A blog requires much more infrastructure for me to use it effectively. For one, it'd be great if I could just write my posts in Markdown and have them formatted by my project automatically. Having a look at the options available, the first that stood out was GitHub's Jekyll . It looked nice and had great integration with GitHub Pages, which I'm hosting with at the time of writing. However, it just felt too rigid. I needed something modern that I felt I could get my hands dirty with. Enter Astro. Why Astro In the grand scheme of things, the Astro framework is pretty new at just 5 years old. That hasn't prevented it from gaining popularity rapidly. It holds performance as a key design principle, anything that can be static will render statically. By default, it ships absolutely no JS to the browser, which felt perfect for my use case. I have no need for advertising or heavy tracking scripts weighing down my site. All I need is a place to write. Learning how to work with Astro was completely painless. I created a new GitHub repository and followed along with their very high-quality documentation to create a blog of my own. At the very end of it, I’d created a nice neat blog that loaded instantly and was easy to write for. I wasn't satisfied by using the tutorial's blog for my site, though, as it felt too cookie-cutter, and so I started again, now with confidence in the framework. The Design Decisions There were some definite design decisions I knew I wanted from the get-go. First-class light mode and dark mode support were a must. Plenty of blogs offered just one or the other, and after a bit of digging, it didn't seem tec

In 2025 Google Cloud added G4 , powered by NVIDIA's RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition GPUs to their offering, allowing them to offer hardware not only for AI applications, but also for other applications, such as rendering, simulations or gaming. A single G4 instance with one accelerator ( g4-standard-48 ) comes equipped with 48 CPU cores, 180 gigabytes of RAM and 96 gigabytes of GPU memory. This is a lot of resources for a single cloud workstation, that only the most demanding workstreams would utilize. Most professionals who require a graphics accelerator to do their job, don't really need this much compute power for day to day tasks. It wasn't financially reasonable to pay for a G4 instance, when you weren't utilizing all the resources you paid for. If only there were smaller machine types… If only you could share that one very powerful GPU between multiple virtual machines… Introducing fractional VMs! During Google Cloud Next 2026, Google announced GA for fractional G4 VMs and was the first provider to bring vGPU functionality to RTX PRO 6000 accelerators. vGPU stands for virtual graphical processing unit . Just like VMs (virtual machines) are a way to split one physical computer into smaller, independent systems, vGPU allows for a single physical accelerator to be split into 2, 4 or 8 virtual accelerators! The new fractional machine types ( g4-standard-24 , g4-standard-12 , g4-standard-6 ) now allow you to perfectly match the compute capabilities to your needs! Who is it for? The existence of those new machine types makes it much more cost-efficient to move many GPU-dependent tasks to the cloud. Replacing physical workstations in offices with cloud infrastructure is not a new thing , but till now, Google Cloud didn't offer a good platform for those who needed workstations to process images, post-process videos, simulate physics or render 3D graphics. Those users now can get exactly the hardware they need, allowing their companies to move away from maintaini

If you've ever spun up an EC2 instance for a side project, accessed a remote work desktop from your personal laptop, or stored files on Google Drive without thinking about the physical hard drive it lives on, you've used virtualization. As the foundational technology behind all modern cloud computing, virtualization transformed how we build, deploy, and manage IT infrastructure—cutting hardware costs significantly for enterprises and making on-demand scalability a reality for teams of all sizes. In this guide, we'll break down exactly what virtualization is, how it powers the cloud, the 6 core types of virtualization, and best practices to implement it safely and efficiently. Table of Contents What is Virtualization in Cloud Computing? Core Virtualization Concepts You Need to Know Role of Virtualization in Cloud Computing 6 Key Types of Virtualization (With Use Cases) Top Benefits of Virtualization for Teams of All Sizes Virtualization vs. Related Technologies Virtualization vs. Cloud Computing Virtualization vs. Containerization Common Virtualization Challenges and Mitigations Real-World Virtualization Use Cases Virtualization Best Practices Conclusion References What is Virtualization in Cloud Computing? Virtualization is a technology that creates virtual, software-based representations of physical hardware (servers, storage, networks, etc.) and abstracts these resources from the underlying physical machine. A software layer called a hypervisor separates operating systems and applications from physical hardware, allowing multiple isolated, self-contained systems called Virtual Machines (VMs) to run simultaneously on a single physical host. Each VM has its own virtual CPU, memory, storage, and network interface, and operates independently of other VMs on the same host. For cloud providers, this technology is the backbone of all on-demand infrastructure services, allowing them to share physical hardware across thousands of customers securely and efficiently. Core Vi

In 2019, Alex Vindman testified during President Trump’s first impeachment trial–a decision that ended his military career. Now he wants to challenge the president from the halls of Congress.

In the previous article, we connected our FastAPI application to a database using SQLite and SQLAlchemy. We also used classes like: class StudentCreate ( BaseModel ): name : str department : str cgpa : float without fully understanding what was happening behind the scenes. Today, we'll fix that. If you haven't read it check it out: FastAPI for AI Engineers - Part 3: Connecting to a database Ananya S Ananya S Ananya S Follow Jun 6 FastAPI for AI Engineers - Part 3: Connecting to a database # ai # fastapi # python # backend 6 reactions Add Comment 6 min read Why Do We Need Data Validation? Imagine you're building a weather application. A user asks: What is the temperature in Chennai? A valid response might be: 35 or 35°C But what if the API returns: Sunny This is clearly wrong. Temperature should be represented as a number. Even if the value itself is inaccurate, we still know that temperature must be numeric. This is where validation becomes important. Validation allows us to define rules about what data is acceptable before it enters our application. For example: Temperature should be numeric Age cannot be negative CGPA should be between 0 and 10 Email addresses should follow a valid format Without validation, applications can receive invalid data and behave unexpectedly. The Problem Without Validation Consider a student registration API. @app.post ( " /student " ) def create_student ( student ): return student A user could send: { "name" : "Ananya" , "cgpa" : "Excellent" } The API would accept it. But a CGPA should be a number, not text. As applications grow, manually checking every field becomes difficult. We need a better solution. Enter Pydantic Pydantic is a Python library used for data validation. FastAPI uses Pydantic extensively behind the scenes. Instead of manually validating data, we define a schema. from pydantic import BaseModel class Student ( BaseModel ): name : str cgpa : float Now FastAPI knows: name must be a string cgpa must be a floating-point nu

"It is actually challenging how you measure [Mach] from space."

Polystyrene can be upcycled into carbon sponge material.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD9zEKQEJxo 这视频深入拆解了人工智能强化学习之父、图灵奖得主理查德·萨顿（Richard Sutton） 在2026年5月共同发表的一篇仅有7页、零算法、零跑分的哲学立场论文。这篇论文提出了 “行动认知 AI”（Enactive Artificial Intelligence，简称 Enactive AI）的概念，并在科技界和资本圈引发了巨大震动（甚至让红杉、英伟达、谷歌联合下注了11亿美元成立新公司）。 视频从 核心概念、哲学脉络、理论内在矛盾、认知科学质疑 以及 产业界的三路对赌 五个维度，极其详细地复盘了视频的所有核心内容： 一、 什么是“行动认知 AI”（Enactive AI）？ 视频强调，全网很多地方都把 Enactive （行动认知/生成认知）和 Generative （生成式 AI，如 GPT、Sora）混淆了，但两者的底层逻辑恰恰相反 [ 00:50 ]： 生成式 AI（Generative AI）： 核心是 续写和预测 。通过已有画面或文本，被动地去预测下一帧、下一个词长什么样 [ 01:07 ]。 行动认知 AI（Enactive AI）： 核心是 在互动中现生成认知 。认知不是大脑被动接收信号并建立静态世界模型，而是“你动了手，世界才向你显现” [ 01:47 ]。 > 举例： 人去拿杯子，不是眼睛先拍下一张静态照片让大脑去死算距离、角度 [ 01:53 ]，而是手往前探的过程中，随着角度、光影的实时动态变化，杯子的形状和可抓取性才在动作里一点点“长出来” [ 01:59 ]。 感知和行动硬死在一起，无法拆分。 这套理论源自认知科学中的 自创生（Autopoiesis）与自主性（Autonomy） [ 02:21 ]。它认为智能体应该像生物一样自我维持、组织，由内在生存需求去塑造感知，而不是一个干等着外部指令输入输出的机器 [ 02:24 ]。 二、 萨顿为什么要发这篇哲学论文？ 萨顿并不是一时性起，这是他为了对抗当前“大模型路线”打出的最后一张哲学底牌： 2019年《苦涩的教训》： 主张人类手写规则干不过堆算力、让机器自己学的通用方法 [ 02:47 ]。 2024年《大世界假设》： 真实世界远比静态内部模型复杂，智能体必须在运行中实时学习 [ 02:59 ]。 2025年《经验时代》： 人类数据是有限的，AI 必须靠自己生成自己的经验长大的 [ 03:12 ]。 2025年9月： 直指整个 AI 行业走错路，大模型堆数据去超智是死路一条 [ 03:19 ]。 这篇论文补上了最后一把火： 之前的论证全是算力、数据和复杂度的“机械账” [ 03:25 ]。而这一次，他第一次把强化学习（RL） 和 认知科学（行动认知）接在了一起，从本体论层面证明： 大模型路走不通，认识世界这件事本身，就只能通过行动和互动的经验来发生 [ 03:39 ]。 为此，2026年初论文共作者创办了 Ineffable Intelligence 公司，号称要造出完全不需要人类数据、靠自己学习的 AI，直接拿到了红杉、英伟达、谷歌 11 亿美元的巨额融资（估值 51 亿美元） [ 03:55 ]。 三、 论文隐藏的两大致命致命逻辑“回旋镖” 视频话锋一转，指出萨顿借来的这套哲学地基里，埋着两根砸中他自己的“大柱子”： 柱子 1：砸中了萨顿的“奖励假设”（自相矛盾） [ 04:35 ] 强化学习的号称教条： 奖励假设（Reward Hypothesis），即所有目标、意图都可以写成“最大化外部给定的标量分数” [ 04:53 ]。David Silver 甚至喊出“奖励就够了” [ 05:13 ]。 行动认知哲学的教条： 自主性（Autonomy），即什么是好坏、成败，标准必须从智能体随时会散架的“物理组织和生存危机”中自发长出来，不能由外部权威操控 [ 05:27 ]。 裂缝： 标准强化学习的奖励函数（Reward Function）是人类设计者用代码硬塞进去的（他律） [ 05:55 ]；而生物判断好坏是为了顶住熵增、维持结构不崩（自主） [ 06:11 ]。论文里作者自己也承认：强化学习的评估标准依然由外部奖励定义 [ 06:38 ]。 内驱动机能救场吗？ 比如好奇心驱动或求知驱动。视频认为不能，因为诸如“优化预测误差”的总结优化目标，依然是人类在架构层死死规定好的，根本不是智能体出于生存忧关的自发需求。没有真正的生命威胁，就没真正的意义生成 [ 07:12 ]。 柱子 2：砸中了萨顿自己的《苦涩的教训》 [ 07:49 ] 萨顿当年痛骂：研究者总忍不住把人类以为的思考结构（比如语法树、手工特征检测器）硬塞进 AI 架构里，这长期必被碾压 [ 08:13