标签：#eu

When we open sourced Neural Inverse Cloud, the easiest choice would have been MIT. Most developers like MIT. It's short, permissive, and widely adopted. If you've released an open-source project before, MIT is probably the first license you considered. We didn't choose it. We chose AGPL. Not because we dislike permissive open source. Not because we want to restrict users. We chose it because infrastructure software plays by different rules. The Infrastructure Problem MIT works incredibly well for libraries. You publish code, developers use it, and occasionally improvements flow back into the project. Nobody is forced to contribute, but community norms often make it happen anyway. Infrastructure software is different. Cloud IDEs, databases, developer platforms, deployment systems, and backend services can be monetized without ever distributing the source code. A company can: Fork your project Add proprietary features Launch a hosted version Build a competitive advantage on top of community work Never contribute anything back The original project does all the R&D. The fork captures the value. We've seen this pattern repeatedly across open-source infrastructure over the last decade. Why AGPL Exists AGPL closes a loophole that traditional open-source licenses leave open. With GPL, if you distribute modified software, you must publish your changes. But what if you never distribute the software? What if you simply run it as a hosted service? That's where AGPL comes in. If you modify AGPL software and provide it to users over a network, you must also provide the source code for those modifications. That applies to everyone. Including us. If we improve Neural Inverse Cloud, those improvements stay open. If someone else builds a SaaS business on top of it, their modifications stay open too. Why This Matters for Users We wanted users to have guarantees. With AGPL: You can self-host the latest version Community improvements remain accessible No company can create a permanently

The Disinformation Supply Chain: How Coordinated Influence Campaigns Are Built Before They Go Viral Article from Digital HUMINT Series, For better understanding read the full report Right now, somewhere on X/forum people are fighting about a post that feels real raw, emotional, perfectly worded to hit a nerve. It has the right language, the right anger, the right timing. It sounds like someone who thinks exactly the way you do, or exactly the way you hate. It wasn't written there. It wasn't written today. And the person who wrote it doesn't care about the issue at all. That post was created two or three days earlier, on a hidden forum or a private chat group, following a set of instructions that described who to target, what emotions to trigger, which platform to use, and how much the job pays. By the time you see it, the operation has already worked. You engaging with it for or against is the whole point. I've spent almost two decades watching these hidden spaces where online manipulation is planned. What I've learned isn't that fake content exists everyone knows that by now. What most people don't realize is that it works like a factory. There's a production line. There are workers, managers, and paychecks. And just like any factory, if you know where to look, you can see the product being assembled before it ever reaches the shelf. It Works Like Any Other Business We talk about "disinformation campaigns" as if they're political movements. Some are. But more and more, what you're actually looking at is a business with four steps, each handled by different people, often in different countries. Step 1 — Someone writes the plan. A person with a goal and a budget writes a document that says: push this story, target these kinds of people, make them feel this emotion, use this language, post it on these platforms. These plans used to appear on hidden internet forums. Many have moved to private Telegram groups, but the structure hasn't changed since I first saw it in 201

I have built 114 Claude Code skills. Most of them are engineering plumbing. But five of them exist for one reason only: my executive function has specific, repeatable holes, and I got tired of falling into the same ones. These five are not productivity hacks. Each one maps to a named ADHD deficit, and each one fills it the same way every time so I do not have to re-improvise around my own brain at 2pm. If you want the broader system this sits inside, start with my Claude Code ADHD workflow and the CLAUDE.md guide . This post is the skills layer specifically. What Is a Claude Code Skill? A skill is a named, repeatable workflow you invoke with a slash command. Instead of re-prompting Claude Code from a blank slate every time ("okay, help me figure out what to work on, here is my situation again..."), you type /adhd-task-triage and it runs the same defined steps it ran yesterday. For an ADHD brain, that determinism is the feature. The skill does not depend on me remembering how to drive it. It just runs. Custom skills live in a .claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md file that describes what the skill does and when it should fire. You can build one for any gap you fall into more than twice. 1. adhd-task-triage: Energy-Based Prioritization The gap it fills: task initiation paralysis. Standard task managers sort by priority or deadline. That assumes you can act on the top item by willpower. ADHD does not work that way. The top-priority task and the task you can actually start right now are often different tasks, and trying to force the high-priority one when your initiation circuit is offline produces zero output and a guilt spiral. adhd-task-triage sorts by available energy , not importance. You tell it where you are (wired, foggy, depleted), it looks at the work in front of you, and it hands back the task that matches the state you are actually in, not the one you wish you were in. /adhd-task-triage Why it helps specifically: it removes the moral framing. The question stops bei

Isar Aerospace is not hurting for money, but it is sorely lacking in the currency of flight experience.

Most token scam detectors, including the one I work on, share one implicit assumption: the contract you analyze at launch is the contract people will trade. Read the source, simulate a buy and a sell, cluster the deployer, score it, done. That is a snapshot. And a snapshot is exactly what a patient scammer plays against. Two token designs pass every launch-time check and then turn hostile later. This is how they work, and the two on-chain techniques we shipped this week to catch them. Design 1: the delayed honeypot A honeypot is a token you can buy but cannot sell. The classic version is non-sellable from block one, so a buy-then-sell simulation catches it instantly. The patient version is sellable at launch. Early buyers sell fine, the chart looks healthy, the token earns a clean verdict from every checker that judged it at T0. Then, days later, the operator flips a switch: a timed blacklist that rejects transfers after a block height or timestamp, a setTrading(false) / pause() kill switch pulled once liquidity has accumulated, a fee setter cranked to 100% on sells. From that moment it is a honeypot. But the only verdict on record is the clean one from launch day. The detection ran once, at the worst possible time to run it. Fix: re-simulate at J7 We keep post-launch snapshots of every token at J0, J7 and J30 (originally to catch slow rugs: volume collapse, late LP burns). The new piece re-runs the full buy/sell honeypot simulation at J7, but only for tokens that were genuinely sellable at J0. A clean-to-honeypot flip is the signal: // Only for tokens sellable + tradable at J0 - a clean->honeypot flip is the point. // Bounded per run because it is RPC-heavy. const eligible = ! j0 . risk_flags . some (( f ) => J0_SKIP_RESIM_FLAGS . has ( f )); if ( rpc && eligible && resims < resimLimit ) { const isNowHoneypot = await detectLateHoneypot ( rpc , tokenAddress ); if ( isNowHoneypot ) flags . push ( " late_honeypot " ); // +40 risk at J7 } One rule we hold to: an RPC hi

The ruling holds that a company that designs, trains, operates, and manages an AI system must assume legal liability for any damages caused by the responses it generates.

It isn't the only startup tackling physical AI, but it's one of the best-funded.

After Elon Musk and Tommy Robinson stoked anger over a horrific knife attack in Belfast, a youth group linked to a global neo-Nazi movement quietly orchestrated anti-immigrant riots.

Our ancestors' genomes were built through successive waves of gene transfers.

Training a network from scratch in raw NumPy, quantizing it to int8, and running it as ~80 lines of dependency-free JavaScript — with a parity test proving the browser matches Python to 1e-6. Why bother? MNIST is a solved problem Digit recognition is the "hello world" of ML — that's exactly why I used it. The model isn't the point. The point is everything around the model, which happens to be the part that matters in production work too: training without a framework, compressing for deployment, running inference in a constrained environment, and proving the deployed system matches the trained one. Training: just NumPy and math The network is a 784→128→64→10 MLP — hand-written forward pass, backpropagation, and Adam optimizer. No autograd, no framework: # backward pass, by hand dz3 = ( probs - y_batch ) / batch_size grads_w [ 2 ] = a2 . T @ dz3 da2 = dz3 @ weights [ 2 ]. T dz2 = da2 * ( z2 > 0 ) # ReLU mask grads_w [ 1 ] = a1 . T @ dz2 ... One trick that matters for a drawing demo specifically: shift augmentation . MNIST digits are centered; humans draw wherever they like. Training on randomly translated copies makes the model tolerant of sloppy placement. Combined with MNIST-style preprocessing at inference (crop to bounding box, scale into a 20×20 box, center by center-of-mass), real-world doodles classify reliably. Final test accuracy: 98.2% . Compression: int8 in 15 lines A float32 weight file would be ~430 KB. Symmetric int8 quantization cuts it ~4×: scale = np . abs ( w ). max () / 127.0 q = np . clip ( np . round ( w / scale ), - 127 , 127 ). astype ( np . int8 ) One scale factor per layer, weights stored as base64 in JSON: 145 KB total , and quantized test accuracy is identical to float — 98.2%. Inference: ~80 lines of plain JavaScript In the browser, the weights are dequantized once on load, and inference is three matrix-vector products with ReLU and a softmax. ~109K multiply-adds — about a microsecond-scale problem for any modern device. No TensorFlow.js (t

We take the Falcon 9 rocket for granted. But we probably shouldn't.

Every week I see the same question in AI governance communities: "We already have NIST AI RMF implemented. Does that cover our EU AI Act obligations?" The honest answer is: sometimes yes, sometimes partially, and sometimes not at all. The problem is that nobody had built a clean, free, interactive tool that showed exactly which controls map to which, how strong those mappings actually are, and where the genuine gaps are. So I built one. Live tool: suhanasayyad.github.io GitHub: SuhanaSayyad / eu-ai-act-crosswalk-tool Interactive crosswalk mapping EU AI Act obligations to NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001 controls, with mapping strength indicators, gap analysis, and source links. 30 controls mapped. Free and open source. EU AI Act × NIST AI RMF × ISO 42001 - Interactive Compliance Crosswalk Tool An open-source tool that maps EU AI Act obligations to their equivalents in NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001, with mapping strength indicators, gap analysis, and source document links. Built for compliance teams, AI governance practitioners, and anyone trying to understand how these three frameworks relate to each other. Live demo: https://suhanasayyad.github.io/eu-ai-act-crosswalk-tool Built by: Suhana Sayyad | MSc Cybersecurity, TUS Athlone Why I built this Every organisation dealing with the EU AI Act is being asked the same questions: "We already have NIST AI RMF controls in place. Does that cover our EU AI Act obligations?" "We're pursuing ISO 42001 certification. Does that satisfy the regulation?" The honest answer is: sometimes yes, sometimes partially, and sometimes not at all. The problem is that nobody had built a clean, free, interactive tool that showed exactly which… View on GitHub What the tool does The EU AI Act / NIST AI RMF / ISO 42001 Interactive Crosswalk Tool maps 30 EU AI Act obligations to their nearest equivalents in NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001. For each mapping it shows a strength rating - Strong, Partial, Indirect, or No Equivalent - so compliance teams know which map

Welcome to our weekly digest, where we unpack the latest in account and chain abstraction and the broader infrastructure shaping Ethereum. This week: Base ships its first independent upgrade with a TEE+ZK multiproof system and confirms native AA is next; Biconomy turns the ERC-8211 smart batching standard into a TypeScript SDK; LI.FI launches an enterprise intents engine for stablecoin and RWA flows; and Vitalik steps back from technical essays to write fiction. Base Launches Azul, Bringing Multiproofs to Coinbase's L2 Biconomy Ships Smart Batching SDK for ERC-8211 LI.FI Launches Intents Engine for Enterprise Cross-Chain Flows Vitalik Pivots to Fiction and Floats a "Trust Dependency" Framework Please fasten your belts! Base Launches Azul, Bringing Multiproofs to Coinbase’s L2 Base activated Azul on mainnet on May 28, its first network upgrade built entirely on its own stack. The headline feature is a multiproof system that pairs Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) proofs with Zero-Knowledge (ZK) proofs, advancing the Coinbase-incubated L2 toward Stage 2 decentralization. Either proof type can finalize a withdrawal independently, but when both agree, finality drops to as little as one day, far faster than the typical multi-day optimistic rollup wait. Crucially, permissionless ZK proofs can override permissioned TEE proofs if the two conflict, a design Base says meaningfully improves censorship resistance. The upgrade also makes base reth the sole execution client and introduces a new consensus client, phasing out older software. Node operators must migrate to the new stack to stay in sync. For AA and chain abstraction builders, the more important signal is what comes next: Base confirmed its end-of-June upgrade will include native account abstraction, an enshrined token standard and Flashblock Access Lists. The largest L2 by activity moving toward native AA is a meaningful pull on the whole ecosystem. Biconomy Ships Smart Batching SDK for ERC-8211 Biconomy released t

This open-source community project lets you create a StumbleUpon-like experience for recommending your favorite sites.

🏦 Day 6 of 7: Building a Mini Uniswap in 80 Lines of Solidity Imagine a vending machine. It has 1,000 coffee beans and 1,000 coins. No menu, no cashier — just one iron rule: the product of the two numbers inside must never decrease. That's it! This is how Uniswap works — and this is what I built on Day 6, coming from .NET. Here's how, why it's elegant, and where you can step on a rake. Why an Order Book Doesn't Work on a Blockchain Traditional exchanges — Binance, NYSE, any CEX — run on an order book . Market makers post bids and asks. A matching engine pairs them. Millions of updates per second, all in a centralised database. In a blockchain, this is impossible. Transactions take 12 seconds. Every state change costs gas. Storing millions of constantly changing orders would eat all the profit before a single trade completes. Uniswap's solution: replace the order book with a liquidity pool — a smart contract holding two tokens — and replace the matching engine with pure math. Just a formula — below. x · y = k — The Formula That Broke Finance The Constant Product Invariant : x · y = k Where x is the reserve of Token0, y is the reserve of Token1, and k is a constant that must never decrease during swaps. When a trader sells Token0 into the pool, x increases. To keep k constant, y must decrease — the contract sends out Token1. The price is determined automatically by the ratio of reserves. Live example with numbers: Pool: 1,000 Token0, 1,000 Token1. k = 1,000,000. Trader sells 100 Token0: amountOut = (reserveOut × amountIn) / (reserveIn + amountIn) amountOut = (1000 × 100) / (1000 + 100) amountOut = 100,000 / 1,100 amountOut ≈ 90.9 Token1 The trader gets ~90.9, not 100. That gap is slippage — and it's not a bug. It's the formula protecting the pool. The more you buy relative to pool size, the worse your price gets. Naturally. Mathematically. After the swap: pool has 1,100 Token0 and ~909.1 Token1. k ≈ 1,000,000. Invariant holds. The Contract: SimpleAMM Three functions.

A complete ML pipeline: engine, backprop, binary format, and a live browser demo. Zero dependencies. Under 200 KB total. If you have built machine-learning projects before, you have probably done it by importing PyTorch, TensorFlow, or scikit-learn and calling .fit() . Those are excellent libraries. This article is about what happens when you deliberately do not use them — when you build every piece of the pipeline yourself, in a language that compiles to WebAssembly, and the result runs live in the browser with no server, no Python, and no cloud bill. Here is the live demo: move four sliders, watch the predicted Iris species update in real time. The model is running entirely inside your browser tab, loaded from a 1.1 KB binary file, powered by ~100 KB of WebAssembly compiled from pure Rust. This is the story of how I built it and why the engineering choices made it work. Why Rust? Why WebAssembly? Why zero dependencies? Three constraints drove every design decision. WASM requires no_std or a carefully limited std . The wasm32-unknown-unknown target has no operating system, no file system, and no libc. A crate that links against rand , ndarray , or any library that makes OS calls will not compile to it without significant plumbing. An engine built from nothing but the Rust standard library compiles cleanly to every target, including WASM. A zero-dependency std -only crate is uniquely auditable. There are no transitive dependency trees to vet, no supply-chain risks, no version conflicts. Every line of code that runs in the user's browser lives in this repository. The deployment story becomes the technical story. A 100 KB WASM blob that runs locally in the browser is not just a cost optimisation — it is a privacy guarantee (user inputs never leave the machine) and a latency guarantee (inference is microseconds, not a round trip to a cloud API). That story is only possible because the engine has no external dependencies that would bloat the binary. The architecture: ei

Every line of your smart contract costs something. Some lines cost more than others. In this part of our gas saving series, we’ll explore how to write smarter Solidity code that keeps your contract lean and efficient. Here are six simple and practical ways to reduce gas costs while writing Solidity smart contracts. 1. Use payable Only When Needed, But Know It Saves Gas In Solidity, a function marked payable can actually use slightly less gas than a non-payable one. Even if you're not sending ETH, the EVM skips some internal checks when the function is marked payable. See this example: function hello() external payable {} // 21,137 gas function hello2() external {} // 21,161 gas That tiny difference may not seem like much, but across thousands of calls, it adds up. Only use payable when your function is actually meant to accept ETH 2. Use unchecked for Safe Arithmetic When You’re Sure Since Solidity 0.8.0, all arithmetic operations automatically check for overflows and underflows. While this makes contracts safer, it also uses extra gas. When you're certain that overflow won't occur, you can use the unchecked keyword to skip these safety checks. uint256 public myNumber = 0; function increment() external { unchecked { myNumber++; } } Gas used: 24,347 (much cheaper than using safe math) Warning: Use unchecked carefully. Only when you're confident there's no risk of overflow. 3. Turn On the Solidity Optimizer The Solidity Optimizer is like a smart helper that cleans up and tightens your compiled bytecode. It does not change how your contract works, but it removes waste and makes it cheaper to run. If you’re using tools like Hardhat or Remix, always enable the Optimizer before deploying to mainnet. 4. Use uint256 Instead of Smaller Integers (Most of the Time) Smaller types like uint8 or uint16 might look more efficient, but they can cost more gas during execution. That’s because the EVM automatically converts them to uint256 behind the scenes. So, if you're not tightly p