标签：#ev

A maintainer once watched an AI assistant confidently recommend merging a pull request that deleted a test file. The prompt had included the entire issue thread, the last three commits, and a README from another branch. The model trusted every word because the prompt gave it no reason to filter. The result was a confident but false analysis. The root cause was not a bad model. It was context pollution: unrelated diffs, stale comments, and duplicate code snippets pushed the actual change below the model's attention threshold. For open source reviewers on a free tier, every wasted token also makes the loop slower. The fix is not a bigger context window. It is a smaller, better one. Why Full Context Collapses AI Reviews Long paste sessions fail for reasons that have little to do with model quality. The following failure modes appear regularly in OSS review flows when someone dumps everything into a chat: Issue threads contain outdated suggestions that contradict the current implementation. Full-file dumps include boilerplate that drowns the one-line semantic change. Old test output from another environment appears as evidence even when it no longer applies. Models weigh every token relatively evenly, so irrelevant lines consume attention that the diff deserves. Earlier articles on this account covered the reproduce-patch-test loop, but the missing discipline is context slicing. Slicing means choosing exactly which lines the AI sees, and nothing more. The Three Layers of Slicing The practice breaks into three layers, each with a clear source for truth: Patch layer — the diff and commit message only, not the full conversation history. Code layer — the definitions and tests touched by the diff, not every import in the project. Environment layer — exact commands and expected outputs, not historical logs from an old CI run. Together those layers describe "what changed, what it touches, and how to prove it works." That is enough for a reviewer model to produce a focused anal

Last week a colleague pasted a production config.yml into an AI chat, asked why the connection kept dropping, and got a working fix in three minutes. The file also contained a client secret. Now that secret sits in a model provider's logs. Maybe training data, too. You don't know. That's the problem. Disclosure: This article was prepared as part of MonkeyCode's product outreach. The opinions are mine. I've written here about repo quarantine and dependency triage. This post is narrower: where do you draw the line between your code and a free model? Free model access and a free server are real options, but they shift trust boundaries. MonkeyCode, the open-source platform, offers both. I'm not going to quote quotas or hardware specs — they change faster than blog posts. The question is what you should send in the first place. The Trust Boundary Nobody Draws Think of your AI-assisted workflow as four zones: Zone 0: your terminal / IDE Zone 1: the agent or CLI process Zone 2: the platform API and its logs Zone 3: the model provider's infrastructure Every hop expands the attack surface. Zone 0 is yours. Zone 1 is mostly yours — unless the tool phones home. Zone 2 is someone else's server. "Free server" means Zone 2 is external by default. "Free model access" means your prompt leaves your network and lands in Zone 3. The trust boundary isn't the API call. It's the paste. Three Things That Should Never Cross the Boundary Secrets and credentials. API keys, passwords, tokens, private keys. Obvious, still happens daily. File paths and internal IPs. A stack trace like /srv/customer-42/checkout.py:314 reveals product structure, hostnames, and environment info. Unreleased code structure. AI models may memorize and regurgitate patterns. If your code is patent-sensitive or under NDA, don't feed it the source. Describe the logic instead. A Reproducible Gate: boundary_check.sh Stop relying on discipline. Add a mechanical gate. #!/usr/bin/env bash # boundary_check.sh - blocks high-ris

Last Tuesday, my free endpoint returned a valid JSON contract. The next call returned a summary. Same prompt. Same model label. No version bump. I almost merged code that expected a schema and instead got a paragraph. Free tiers are not the enemy. Silent drift is. When you wire a free AI server into your PR pipeline, you accept three facts: shared compute, changing model configs, and zero guarantee. So you need gates that fail closed. This is the checklist I now run before any AI-generated suggestion touches a merge branch. I built these gates against an open-source gateway called MonkeyCode. Why? It gives solo devs free model access and a free server for trial workloads. Disclosure: This article was prepared as part of MonkeyCode's product outreach. Convenient, yes. Safe by default? No. So I test every claim. Gate 1: Pin the response contract Your prompt must define an exact shape. For a bug triage task, I require a JSON object with severity , summary , and file fields. If the response is not parseable JSON, the gate fails immediately. { "severity" : "high" , "summary" : "Null pointer on empty input" , "file" : "src/parse.ts" } No fallback. No partial acceptance. Gate 2: Snapshot a baseline Run the same prompt ten times. Record output length, hashes, and tokens per call. Store those as baseline.json . Later, compare every new response against that range. for i in $( seq 1 10 ) ; do curl -s your-monkeycode-endpoint -d '{"prompt":"triage this bug"}' \ | jq -r '.output' | sha256sum done If the hash variance crosses an evidence threshold, the gate flags it. Gate 3: Time-box and cost-cap Free servers queue. You need a timeout and a token budget. I use 8 seconds and a hard cap of 600 tokens. The gate reads usage metadata from the response and rejects when either limit is hit. if response . elapsed > 8 or response . usage . total_tokens > 600 : reject ( " over budget " ) Track this weekly. Drift often starts as a slow climb. Gate 4: Apply semantic checks Gates are not jus

Yao Yue discusses the fundamental limitations of standard line charts for system observability. Drawing from 15 years of operating large-scale systems, she shares how engineering leaders and software architects can transform telemetry data - moving beyond simple time-series defaults - to build visualizations that directly answer critical capacity, latency, and fleet-sizing questions. By Yao Yue

HashiCorp is positioning HCP Terraform as the governance and control plane for a new generation of AI-driven infrastructure, arguing that the rapid adoption of coding agents is shifting the biggest infrastructure challenge from writing configuration to verifying and safely executing it. By Craig Risi

September marks the official start of Preptember, a month dedicated to organizers planning local...

The flagship headphones get up to 57 hours of battery life and have easily replaceable batteries.

A syndication job noticed before I did A scheduled task publishes one blog post a day to a developer community. It fetches the article from my own site, converts it, and posts it. At 10:00 it failed four times with this: Server error '521 <none>' for url 'https://neuragrowth.co/blog/schema-grammar-ceiling/' 521 is Cloudflare saying the origin server did not answer. So the interesting failure was not in the syndication job at all. My whole site was down, and had been for over three hours by then. The server itself was fine: four days of uptime, load under 0.2, disk at eight percent. But systemctl is-active nginx said failed , and nothing was listening on 80 or 443. nginx resolves your upstreams before it starts The journal had the whole thing in three lines: 06:49:54 systemd[1]: Stopping nginx.service... 06:49:54 nginx[36027]: [emerg] host not found in upstream "example-backend.tld" in /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/site:104 06:49:54 nginx[36027]: nginx: configuration file test failed Line 104 was a small proxy I had added months earlier so the public site could forward one form endpoint to a backend on a different host without revealing its name: location = /api/lead-capture { proxy_pass https://example-backend.tld/api/lead-capture ; proxy_ssl_server_name on ; proxy_set_header Host example-backend.tld ; } When proxy_pass contains a literal hostname, nginx resolves it while parsing the configuration , and treats failure as a fatal config error. That resolution happens inside ExecStartPre=/usr/sbin/nginx -t , so a name it cannot look up means the unit never starts. The config was not wrong. It was valid before the restart and valid after, and nginx -t passed by hand seven hours later. It was invalid for about one second. Why DNS was gone for exactly that instant Ten seconds of journal, reconstructed: 06:49:44 apt-daily-upgrade.service starts 06:49:53 "Reexecution requested ... (unit apt-daily-upgrade.service)" 06:49:53 systemd reexecuting (it had just upgraded itself) 06:49

Source generators are often introduced as a way to remove boilerplate. That is useful, but it was not the main architectural reason FUI moved more of its Unity UI pipeline into Roslyn. The harder question begins after binding code has already been generated: does the runtime still need to scan assemblies, inspect attributes, resolve types, and reconstruct the relationship between a View, ViewModel, BindingContext, and Presenter? FUI's answer is to move that composition step to compile time. The generator does not stop at property notifications and binding callbacks. It also emits binding factories and strongly typed routes, so the Player runtime executes an already-validated object graph instead of rediscovering it. This article explains why that distinction matters, how the design evolved, and what the final architecture gains beyond the vague promise of “less reflection.” The original problem was repetitive protocol code Consider a settings screen with a title, a volume slider, a vibration toggle, and a close button. The ViewModel is small, but connecting it to the UI requires a surprisingly large protocol: propagate property changes to UI elements; propagate control changes back to the ViewModel; connect UI events to commands; perform initial synchronization; unsubscribe every handler during unbinding; construct the matching BindingContext and Presenter. None of these steps is individually difficult. The risk comes from repetition. A missing unsubscribe, an incompatible target member, or an incorrect string may remain invisible until that specific screen opens. The earliest code-generation experiment preserved in FUI's repository was an external FUICompiler executable. It targeted .NET 6, was published as a self-contained win-x64 tool, walked Roslyn syntax nodes, extracted binding attributes, and emitted BindingContext source. The central idea was already present: var classDeclarations = root . DescendantNodes () . OfType < ClassDeclarationSyntax >(); foreach ( v

Understanding when to use <ins> , <del> and <s> HTML tags Comparative Feature <ins> element <del> element <s> element Semantic Definition Represents the content that has been added to a document. Represents a range of text that has been deleted from a document. Represents content that is no longer accurate, correct, or relevant. Use Case New edits in a code, in a text, tracked changes Document edits, tracked changes, or visual/structural revisions (often paired with <ins> ). Outdated information, deprecation notices, old prices, or sold-out items. Accessible Code Pattern The meeting is on <span class="sr-only">previous date: </span><del>Monday</del> <span class="sr-only">new date: </span><ins>Wednesday</ins>. The meeting is on <span class="sr-only">previous date: </span><del>Monday</del> <span class="sr-only">new date: </span><ins>Wednesday</ins>. <span class="sr-only">Original price: </span><s>$100.00</s> Visible Representation The meeting is on Monday Wednesday The meeting is on Monday Wednesday $100.00 $34.99 Unique Attributes cite (URL pointing to the explanation of the deletion) datetime (date/time of the deletion) cite (URL pointing to the explanation of the deletion) datetime (date/time of the deletion) None Default Browser Style By default, it has an underline but it can be changed to a bold style, put a background green to show insertion, etc. Renders with a visual line-through (strikethrough) Renders with a visual line-through (strikethrough) Implicit ARIA Mapping: role="deletion" and role="insertion" The <del> and <s> tags map to the accessibility role of deletion (and <ins> to insertion ). Sighted users see these as struck through or underlined, but screen reader support for announcing these changes is inconsistent. Understanding the Accessibility Tree Mapping Under the W3C Accessibility API Mappings, these tags are programmatically mapped to specific accessibility roles that browsers expose to the OS accessibility tree: <del> maps to role="deletion" (se

The Challenge: Realtime in the Age of Server Components The paradigm shift toward React Server Components (RSC) and the Next.js App Router has fundamentally changed how we architect web applications. We are now defaulting to server-side rendering, which is fantastic for performance, SEO, and initial load times. However, a common friction point arises when we need to inject high-frequency, bidirectional realtime data into these server-rendered pages. Too often, developers fall into the trap of importing heavy socket libraries directly into their server components or wrapping their entire application in massive context providers, effectively bloating the client bundle and negating the performance gains of the App Router. The Solution: The "Client Island" Pattern Instead of fighting the architecture, we can embrace "Client Islands"—a pattern where we isolate the stateful, client-side logic into a tiny, focused leaf component. By keeping the WebSocket management strictly client-side, we ensure that our server-rendered pages remain lightweight, fast, and cacheable. Implementing the WebSocket Island The goal is to keep the WebSocket connection lifecycle outside of the rendering flow. We utilize useEffect to manage the connection, ensuring it only runs on the client, and we tap into data fetching libraries like TanStack Query or SWR to surgically update the UI. ' use client ' ; import { useEffect } from ' react ' ; import { useQueryClient } from ' @tanstack/react-query ' ; export function RealtimeSync ({ token }) { const queryClient = useQueryClient (); useEffect (() => { const ws = new WebSocket ( `wss://realtime.example.com?token= ${ token } ` ); ws . onmessage = ( event ) => { const data = JSON . parse ( event . data ); queryClient . setQueryData ([ ' items ' ], data ); }; return () => ws . close (); }, [ token , queryClient ]); return null ; // This component renders nothing, just manages the side effect } Persistence via RootLayout To prevent the connection from dropp

I spent last weekend building a JSON toolkit in Rust under one rule: no third-party dependencies . Not "few". None. The [dependencies] table in Cargo.toml is present and empty, and Cargo.lock holds exactly one package — the project itself. No serde , No serde_json , No clap , No itoa , No ryu . That constraint is the premise of the Zero Dependency hackathon , and it is a good premise, because it forces you to find out what the standard library actually promises. Here is the thing I did not expect to find: About 10% of the JSON documents that RFC 8259 says a parser must reject are accepted by Rust's own number parser. Not a subtle 10%. NaN , Infinity , .5 , 5. , +1 and 012 are all invalid JSON, and f64::from_str and i64::from_str take every one of them. If you write a JSON parser the obvious way — scan to the end of the number token, hand the slice to from_str — you ship a parser that is silently non-conformant, with no warning anywhere. I have the number because I counted it against a real corpus before writing the parser. The rest of this post is what that measurement did to the design, and what generalizes to languages that are not Rust. What I built jaq-lite is a hand-rolled RFC 8259 parser, a serializer, and a jq-style query CLI with rustc -style caret diagnostics — 4,670 lines under src/ and 4,432 lines of tests, standard library only. $ echo '{"users":[{"name":"ada","age":36},{"name":"linus","age":54}]}' | jaq-lite '.users[] | .name' "ada" "linus" It supports identity, field access, quoted fields, indexes, iteration, pipes, commas, parentheses, the optional operator ? , and eleven builtins ( length , keys , keys_unsorted , type , to_entries , from_entries , flatten , first , last , reverse , not ). Exit codes follow jq: 2 for a bad flag, 3 for a filter that does not compile, 5 for input that is not JSON, 0 otherwise. The measurement JSONTestSuite is the standard conformance corpus: 318 files in test_parsing/ , named by what a parser is supposed to do with them

The company known for stick vacuums and hair dryers is coming for your teeth. The $499 Dyson CameraJet uses a tiny camera to aim streams of rinsing fluid into the gaps between your teeth.

As part of my work at Google, we are publishing a suite of Agent Skills for Google products and...

A lot of developers pick a lane early — frontend or backend — and stay there. I never did, and building ClientIQ is a good example of why. The problem Freelancers waste a lot of time figuring out where to post their skills. Upwork? Fiverr? Toptal? The right platform depends on their profile, their niche, and their experience — and most people just guess. I wanted to build something that could actually recommend the right platform based on real data, not gut feeling. Why this needed a full-stack developer, not two specialists This is where being a full-stack developer actually mattered: The backend needed a Flask API that could take a freelancer's profile data and run it through a multi-model machine learning workflow to generate a recommendation. The frontend needed a clean React interface where users could input their info and see the recommendation in a way that made sense — not just a raw JSON response. The connection between them — API design, request/response shape, error handling — needed someone who understood both sides well enough to make them work together smoothly, not just "talk" to each other. If I had only known React, I'd have needed someone else to build and explain the ML backend to me. If I had only known Flask, the interface would have been an afterthought. Being full-stack meant I could design the whole system as one coherent product, not two separate halves duct-taped together. What I actually built A Flask API that serves multi-model ML predictions A React frontend for input and displaying recommendations A clean handoff between the two — the kind of detail that's invisible when done right, and painfully obvious when it's not The bigger lesson Full-stack development isn't about knowing a little bit of everything. It's about being able to see a product end-to-end and make decisions that make sense for the whole thing — not just your favorite part of the stack. That's the mindset I bring to every project, whether it's a web app, a mobile app, or

Disclosure: I work on Tessera, which is one of the tools in the gap I am describing. Ask a fifty-person engineering organisation how they control production access and you will hear the same answer with small variations: a bastion host, SSH keys distributed by configuration management, a shared kubeconfig somewhere, and a spreadsheet or a Notion page that is out of date. Nobody chose that. It is what remains after the alternatives were priced. How the category got shaped Privileged access management grew up serving banks, telcos and governments in the 2000s. Those buyers had specific characteristics: thousands of administrators, regulators with written opinions, dedicated security teams, and procurement processes measured in quarters. Products shaped themselves accordingly. Six-figure entry prices. Deployments measured in months with professional services attached. Feature sets covering every mainframe and network appliance in a bank's estate. Sales motions that start with a discovery call and a mutual NDA. That was a reasonable fit for those buyers. It is a terrible fit for a company with sixty engineers, no dedicated security team, one person who is security-adjacent, and a procurement process that consists of a founder approving a card payment. So the mid-market did what people do when a category prices them out: they built the minimum themselves. A bastion is a bastion because it was free and it was Tuesday. The problem this leaves The bastion answer works, up to a point, and it is worth being specific about where the point is. A bastion controls the door. It does not control the room. Once someone is through, there is no per-command record, no way to reduce their privileges while they are working, and no session replay. And keys still have to be distributed and revoked behind it, which means the original problem is intact — it just has a nicer front entrance. Three things then converge, usually in the same year: The first enterprise customer. Their security que

Disclosure: I work on an access tool (Tessera), mentioned once at the end. Everything before that is about evidence, and applies whatever you use. The most common surprise in a first SOC 2 or ISO 27001 audit is not that a control is missing. It is that a control exists, works, and cannot be evidenced — so it counts as absent. The distinction is worth stating precisely, because it is not obvious until it has cost you something. A control is a thing that is true about your system. Only authorised engineers can reach production. Evidence is an artefact, produced by a system rather than by a person, that demonstrates the control was operating throughout the audit period — not on the day someone checked. Most organisations have decent controls. Most cannot produce evidence, because their controls live in places that do not emit artefacts: a bastion's authorized_keys file, a spreadsheet, a Slack thread where someone approved something, and the collective memory of three engineers. What gets asked for Reconstructed from what people have told me, this is the shape of the questions: "Show me everyone who could access production on 14 March." Not today. A specific date in the past, usually chosen by the auditor. This is the one that catches people, because most systems can tell you the current state and cannot tell you a historical one. authorized_keys has no history. A spreadsheet has whatever history git gives it, if it is in git, which it usually is not. "Show me that this person's access ended when their employment ended." Both timestamps, from two systems, matched. HR has the first. The second is the problem. "Show me the approval for this elevated access." Not that a policy requires approval — the specific approval, for this specific grant, with who approved it and when. "Show me what was done in this session." Increasingly common where production access to customer data is involved. Not "we log commands", but the actual record for a named session. "Show me that these c

Disclosure: I work on Tessera, which is self-hosted. That is the position I am arguing from, and the costs of that position are in the last section. Security questionnaires ask where customer data is processed. Access-control tools tend to get a shallow answer to that question, because people think of them as gatekeepers rather than as data processors. They are both. Here is what a hosted access broker necessarily knows about you. Your infrastructure inventory. Every registered target: hostnames, addresses, cluster endpoints, database names, environment labels. That is a map of your estate, and it is the document an attacker would most like to read before deciding where to spend effort. Your organisational structure. Who has access to what, which teams exist, who approves for whom, who was granted production access at 2am during an incident. Org charts are inferable from access graphs with unpleasant accuracy. Your session content, if recording is on. Every command, every query, every screen of output. That includes whatever your engineers pasted into a terminal, which — be honest about your own estate here — includes secrets sometimes. Timing. When your incidents happen, how long they last, who gets pulled in. That is commercially sensitive on its own. None of that requires the vendor to hold your credentials. It is the metadata, and the metadata is the part that survives every architectural mitigation. Where this shows up GDPR and processor chains. Session recordings contain personal data — identified individuals performing identified actions at identified times. A hosted vendor is a processor, which means a DPA, transfer mechanisms if data leaves the EEA, and a sub-processor list you have to monitor. It also means their sub-processors become your problem, which is a chain you do not control and cannot easily audit. Sector rules. Financial services, healthcare and public sector procurement in most European jurisdictions have specific requirements about where data

Disclosure: I work on Tessera, which is on the buy side of this. I have tried to cost the build side properly, because a comparison where the build option looks stupid is a comparison nobody believes. Every engineering team that has this problem considers building it. That instinct is correct. SSH certificates are a well-understood, well-documented mechanism, everything you need ships with OpenSSH, and the first working version takes a competent engineer about a week. The week is not the cost. Here is what is. The build, honestly The CA itself. You generate a key pair, configure targets with TrustedUserCAKeys , and sign user keys with a short validity. This part genuinely is a week, and it works. Protecting the CA key. This is where the estimate starts moving. The CA private key can now grant access to every host in the fleet. On a laptop it is an incident waiting to happen. So you want it in an HSM or a KMS, which means an integration, which means the signing operation now has an availability dependency, which means a runbook for what happens when that dependency is down. Call it two to four weeks including the operational work. Issuance. Someone has to request a certificate and something has to decide whether to give them one. That means integrating with your identity provider, mapping groups to principals, building a request path, and building an approval path if you want anything time-boxed or justified. This is the real project, and it is measured in months rather than weeks, because it is where the requirements keep arriving. Rollout across the estate. Editing sshd_config on every production host. Technically trivial, organisationally not: change window, sign-off, rollback plan, and the discovery that four hosts are not in configuration management and one of them is important. Audit. Certificates tell you a session was authorised. They do not tell you what happened in it. If your requirement includes per-command history or session replay — and if you have audi

Disclosure: these are decisions from Tessera, which I work on. They are all small enough to copy into your own service, which is why they are worth writing up. Security feature lists are made of nouns: encryption, RBAC, SSO, audit. The things that actually decide whether a system holds up are smaller than that and never make the list. Here are four of ours, with the reasoning, including the case where we made the trade in the direction most people do not. 1. The login rate limit ignores X-Forwarded-For Rate limiting a login endpoint is table stakes. The question is what you count against. The natural implementation reads X-Forwarded-For , because your service is behind a load balancer and the real client address is in that header. Almost every tutorial does it this way. The problem: X-Forwarded-For is a request header. If your service trusts it, an attacker sets a different value on every request and each one gets its own bucket. You have not built a rate limit, you have built a counter that resets on demand, and the dashboards will look perfectly healthy while the endpoint is being brute-forced. We count against the real TCP connection address instead. That is the peer address of the socket, which an attacker cannot forge without actually controlling that address. The cost is real and worth naming. Behind a reverse proxy, every request arrives from the proxy's address, so the limit applies to the proxy as a whole rather than per client. That is a worse experience in some topologies, and people will file bugs about it. We took that trade because a rate limit that can be bypassed by setting a header is not a degraded rate limit, it is the absence of one — and the absence is worse than useless, because it looks like presence. If you do want per-client limits behind a proxy, the answer is an explicit allowlist of trusted proxy addresses whose forwarded headers you accept, not blanket trust of a header. 2. Target addresses are validated to prevent SSRF Our controller is