标签：#ia

By Michael Nocito , data analyst · Published August 9, 2026 By the end of this page you can turn a chart that says E, W, N and S into one that says East, West, North and South, in about thirty seconds, without editing the data or writing a calculation. You'll also know exactly why the Aliases option is missing on some fields, which is the part that sends people looking for a workaround they don't need. It's about ten minutes. Here's the move. Right-click a dimension in the Data pane, choose Aliases, and type the name you want beside each value. The chart updates, the stored data doesn't change, and every view built on that field picks up the new labels. The short version: an alias renames the members of a discrete dimension. Only discrete dimensions have members, which is why measures, dates and continuous dimensions can't have one. An alias sits in a specific place, between what's stored and what's shown, and that placement explains everything else here. So it gets the picture. The original carries a diagram here. In words: Three stacked panels connected left to right. The left panel is labeled stored and holds four small cells reading E, W, N and S. The middle panel is a narrow vertical band labeled alias, holding four arrows. The right panel is labeled shown and holds four cells reading East, West, North and South. A solid arrow runs from the stored panel through the alias band to the shown panel, indicating the direction labels travel. A second arrow attempting to run backwards from the shown panel to the stored panel is crossed through with a heavy X, showing that renaming the label never changes the stored value. The stored cells still read E, W, N and S after the change. This is on the certification. Aliases sit in Section 2, Exploring and Analyzing Data, which is 37% of the Tableau Desktop Foundations exam and the largest section on it. The questions people get wrong are almost always about which field types accept an alias, which is section 2 below. 1. What

THE BRICK AND THE POST-IT My chemical plant's first vulnerability wasn't a bug, a piece of malware, or a port left open to the internet. It was a brick. In the computer room — the one with a door held open by a brick — I found a sticky note with credentials on it. They weren't even the right credentials for the system I wanted to break into. But they made me think the way whoever wrote them thinks, so I tried the most obvious pair in the world: admin / admin . And I was in. A brick propping open a door that should be locked. A sticky note guarding a password. A factory-default admin/admin. Three layers of security, three layers defeated — not by a genius hacker, but by a student on day one, carrying no tools at all. If that happens in the IT office, it's a problem. When it happens on a factory floor, where that same computer commands real pumps and valves, it's a different planet. The problem: learning OT without a factory I study computer security. Lately I've been drawn to OT — operational technology, the security of factories, power plants and industrial systems. The problem is simple: you can't learn to defend a factory from a book, and nobody will lend you theirs. Then I realized the answer was already inside the question: if you don't have one, you build one. The build: three commands and a lot of patience The lab is called GRFICSv3: an open source project that simulates an entire chemical plant — the PLC, the operator interface, the network, even the server rooms — inside Docker, on a home computer. Three commands and done: curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Fortiphyd/GRFICSv3/main/docker-compose.yml docker compose pull docker compose up -d "Three commands and done" is the story version. The real version includes my first error, arriving right on schedule at command number two: permission denied while trying to connect to the docker API at unix:///var/run/docker.sock If you hit this — and you will — here's the diagnosis: the Docker daemon is running fi

Job seekers are trying to game the application process using AI. It’s not working, and not for the reasons you might think.

Turning Data Into Decisions Bar charts, histograms, scatter plots, subplots, and plotting straight from pandas Previously learned to draw a line — literally. we now know how to create a figure, style it, and save it. But real analyst work rarely stops at trends over time. You'll need to compare categories , understand distributions , spot relationships between variables , and show several views of the data at once . That's exactly what today covers. Grab a coffee — let's turn raw numbers into charts that actually tell a story. 1. Bar Charts: Comparing Categories When to use one Bar charts are your go-to whenever you're comparing discrete categories against each other — regions, products, departments, months. If someone asks "which one is bigger?", a bar chart answers it instantly. The code import matplotlib.pyplot as plt regions = [ " North " , " South " , " East " , " West " ] revenue = [ 420 , 380 , 510 , 290 ] fig , ax = plt . subplots ( figsize = ( 7 , 5 )) ax . bar ( regions , revenue , color = " teal " ) ax . set_title ( " Revenue by Region " ) ax . set_xlabel ( " Region " ) ax . set_ylabel ( " Revenue ($K) " ) plt . show () A useful variant: horizontal bars When category names are long, flip the chart with barh() — it's far easier to read than squeezing labels sideways: fig , ax = plt . subplots ( figsize = ( 7 , 5 )) ax . barh ( regions , revenue , color = " darkorange " ) ax . set_title ( " Revenue by Region " ) ax . set_xlabel ( " Revenue ($K) " ) plt . show () Rule of thumb: categories on the x-axis → bar() . Long labels or many categories → barh() . 2. Histograms: Understanding Distributions Bar chart vs. histogram — don't mix them up This trips up almost every beginner: a bar chart compares separate categories. A histogram shows how continuous numeric data is distributed by grouping values into ranges called bins . There are no gaps between histogram bars by convention, because the x-axis is continuous, not categorical. The code import matplotlib.pyplot

Battlefields in Ukraine are littered with the remnants of drones, which are now firmly established as a critical weapon of modern warfare. But behind all that wreckage, there’s a new gold mine for the defense sector. The data drones generate will far outlast the wars in which they are used to fight, increasingly becoming part…

Introdução Muitas linguagens como C#, Java, entre outras são descritas como orientadas a objeto, possibilitando o paradigma Programação Orientada a Objeto (POO). No entanto, quando falamos de JS, sabemos que por mais que existam objetos, ela é dita como uma linguagem orientada a protótipos, mas o que de fato isso significa, qual problema isso resolve e como muda a maneira como programamos? O problema Tanto a orientação a objeto quanto a orientação a protótipo lidam, entre outras coisas, com a questão de como a herança vai funcionar em determinada linguagem e é justamente nesse ponto que as duas abordagens mais se diferem. Em linguagens orientadas a objetos as classes de fato existem, contendo propriedades, métodos e servem como molde para a criação de objetos. Com isso, todo objeto criado a partir de uma classe herda suas propriedades e métodos ficando acessíveis para uso. Como não existem Classes de fato em JavaScript, a herança ocorre de maneira diferente, de objeto para objeto, ligados através da propriedade [[Prototype]] que possui uma referência ao seu protótipo, fazendo com que determinado objeto herde de seu protótipo propriedades e métodos que nunca foram definidos nele. Exemplo com array Quando criamos um array, seja de forma literal com [], ou de forma explícita com new Array(), o resultado final é o mesmo: um array cujo [[Prototype]] aponta para o Array.prototype. Essa propriedade .prototype possui um objeto contendo todas as propriedades e métodos que o [[Prototype]] referencia, possibilitando que todos os arrays possam usar métodos como push, pop, map, filter… Com isso, se irmos além e conferirmos o [[Prototype]] do Array.prototype vamos perceber que ele aponta para o Object.prototype que contém propriedades e métodos também disponível em todo essa cadeia que chamamos de prototype chain . Por fim, se tentarmos visualizar o protótipo do Object.prototype veremos que é null, pois ele representa o último elo dessa cadeia. Teste o código abaixo para ver na p

Short answer: for marketplace password recovery, choose the delivery setup that can prove what happened to every message, then keep the suppression decision in your own system. Inbox placement matters, but an evidence trail is the decision axis. A custom sending domain with aligned DKIM and SPF, bounce events, and exportable history gives an auditor something better than a green dashboard. The decision note: which delivery shape leaves evidence? Delivery shape Evidence you can normally retain Best fit Trade-off Managed transactional service Webhooks, message ids, DNS guidance Teams that need mailbox feedback quickly Retention and event detail vary by contract Cloud notification primitive Basic accepted or failed status Small systems with an existing mail pipeline Bounce reason and suppression semantics may be thin Self-hosted MTA Full local logs and routing policy Data-residency teams with on-call capacity Reputation, feedback loops, and maintenance become yours My default is the first shape, with a local ledger beside it. The transport can change; the account-recovery policy should not. That split also makes a provider review concrete: ask for a sample event export, its retention period, and the fields that connect a bounce to a reset request. The catch is operational capacity. A self-hosted stack is not suitable for a marketplace that cannot staff reputation incidents, while a managed service is a poor fit when its export cannot satisfy your retention or residency rules. Keep the cloud primitive for low-volume internal tools, not as an automatic answer for customer recovery. What must a password reset email evidence trail capture? Begin with the reset request. Store a hash of a random, single-use token, its expiry, the account identifier, and the request time. OWASP recommends a consistent response for existing and non-existing accounts, rate limiting, and invalidation after use; those controls prevent delivery telemetry from becoming an account-enumeration signal

I wrote "just use a match statement, it's fine" three times before I stopped saying it. It is fine, right up until an enemy needs a fourth state and two of the transitions start depending on each other. Here is what actually cost time building enemy AI for a wave-based game, in the order it bit me. Lesson 1: the match statement is fine until state 4 A two-state enemy — chase, attack — is genuinely not worth a framework: func _physics_process ( delta : float ) -> void : match state : State . CHASE : velocity = ( player . global_position - global_position ) . normalized () * speed if global_position . distance_to ( player . global_position ) < attack_range : state = State . ATTACK State . ATTACK : attack_timer -= delta if attack_timer <= 0.0 : do_attack () state = State . CHASE The moment a third and fourth state show up — hurt, dead, stagger, windup — the match block stops being one enemy's logic and becomes a grid of every state times every other state it might transition to. That grid is where the bugs live, not in any single state. Lesson 2: the bug is never inside a state, it's in the transition Every state-machine bug I actually spent time on was the same shape: state A left some flag or timer set that state C didn't know to check. An enemy stuck mid-attack-animation forever, still receiving hits, was not a bug in the attack state — it was the hurt state interrupting attack without cleaning up attack_timer or resetting the animation. The fix that made these bugs findable is giving every state an explicit enter and exit , and never mutating another state's data directly: func change_state ( new_state : State ) -> void : if new_state == state : return _exit_state ( state ) state = new_state _enter_state ( new_state ) func _exit_state ( s : State ) -> void : match s : State . ATTACK : attack_timer = 0.0 sprite . stop () func _enter_state ( s : State ) -> void : match s : State . HURT : velocity = Vector2 . ZERO hurt_timer = HURT_DURATION sprite . play ( "hurt" ) On

If you are an active user of AI-powered IDEs like Cursor, VS Code with Copilot, or Windsurf, you already know the sinking feeling of seeing this notification: "You have used 100% of your fast premium requests for this billing cycle." Suddenly, your snappy, context-aware coding assistant slows to a crawl or starts racking up expensive pay-as-you-go API bills. At the same time, you are likely paying $20/month for a ChatGPT Plus or Team subscription that sits underutilized in a browser tab. You use it for general questions, but it lacks direct, real-time access to your local codebase, forcing you to engage in a tedious dance of copying and pasting code blocks. What if you could bridge this gap? What if you could let ChatGPT Web do the heavy reasoning and planning using your local context, while saving your premium IDE tokens for fast auto-completions ? In this article, we’ll explore a highly novel, intermediate-level setup that does exactly this. By leveraging the Model Context Protocol (MCP) , Node.js , and secure Cloudflare Tunnels , you can route heavy code-planning tasks directly to your web-based ChatGPT Plus subscription safely and completely free of extra token charges. The Philosophy: Let ChatGPT Think, Let Your IDE Work When building complex software with AI, your workflow generally splits into two distinct phases: Reasoning & Planning (High Token Usage): This is where you ask the AI to read 10 source files, understand the architecture, design a new feature, or find a subtle bug. This consumes massive amounts of context window tokens. Execution & Autocomplete (Low Latency): This is where the AI writes single lines of code, refactors a function, or autocompletes your imports. This requires fast, inline API queries. Paying premium API rates (per token) for Phase 1 is incredibly expensive. This is where this open-source MCP bridge project shines. It exposes a read-only view of your local project as an MCP server. Your web-based ChatGPT (via custom GPTs or MCP int

Officially, Nvidia's controversial DLSS 5 AI rendering was supposed to launch this evening with only a single game, only on Nvidia's latest RTX 50 GPUs, and with developers in full control of their artistic vision. But unofficially, modders have already ported a leaked version of DLSS 5 to run on just about anything while cranking […]

More than 200 people in roles such as engineering, finance, and communications will now be represented by the Communication Workers of America.

Microsoft Execution Containers provide a cross-platform framework for isolating AI agents within secure sandboxes to protect private data and system integrity. This technology allows developers to manage the lifecycle of autonomous code while ensuring that unpredictable agentic workflows do not access sensitive local files or unauthorized network resources. The Evolution of Agent Security and Isolation Trust remains a significant hurdle for developers building modern AI agents, particularly those operating on edge systems. When agents combine local processing with cloud-based intelligence, they often require access to sensitive information to be effective. However, granting this access creates a risk that the agent might call unintended APIs or compromise private user data. Historical attempts to launch autonomous agents in the 1990s largely failed because of these security concerns. Delivering arbitrary code to local machines proved too risky for mainstream adoption. Today, hardware-assisted virtualization has changed the landscape. This technology serves as the foundation for modern security models, including isolated operating system components and cross-platform tools like the Windows Subsystem for Linux. Microsoft now utilizes these virtualization advancements to build a more reliable framework for agent operations. By running agents in secure containers or microVMs, the system separates their activities from the primary operating system. This isolation ensures that even if an agent receives a poorly constructed prompt, it cannot delete critical system files or leak sensitive information. Managing Developer Environments Developers need a way to build code in flexible environments while still planning for restricted production deployments. Microsoft Execution Containers (MXC) address this by offering a policy-based restriction model. This framework allows for the creation of managed, isolated containers that follow specific security protocols. Applying Policy-Ba

Local inference that actually runs. Your smart camera is not smart. It's a snitch with a monthly bill. It sees a person, panics, compresses a blurry JPEG, uploads your hallway to a data center in Virginia, waits for a GPU to wake up and say "yeah, that's a person," and then charges you $9.99 to tell you what your own eyes could have seen in 100 milliseconds. We can do the same job for $12, with no WiFi, no cloud, and no one else ever seeing the pixels. This is how. The cloud is the bug, not the feature I get why we ended up here. Cloud was easy. You slap an RTSP stream on a Pi, send it to Rekognition, done. But for person detection specifically, cloud fails in three predictable, annoying ways. Privacy isn't a setting, it's a location. If the frame leaves your house, it's not private. It doesn't matter what the privacy policy says. Local inference means the frame lives for about a tenth of a second in PSRAM and then gets overwritten. The chip doesn't care about your pajamas. It doesn't have a retention policy. Latency ruins the whole point. Cloud roundtrip is 300ms when your WiFi is happy, two and a half seconds when your microwave is on. An on-device S3 does it in 80 to 120 milliseconds. Your light turns on when you walk in, not after you've already stubbed your toe in the dark. And cost compounds quietly. One camera is "free tier." Five cameras is a business model. The ESP32-S3 draws less than your keyboard backlight and runs on a power bank during a blackout. No API keys, no rate limits, no "your trial expired" email at 2am. If you need to know who the person is, sure, go cloud. If you just need to know is there a person here right now , local isn't just cheaper. It's the only design that isn't embarrassing. Meet the chip that finally doesn't make you hate yourself Forget the old ESP32-CAM. That thing had 520KB of SRAM and the emotional stability of a dying browser tab. You could run person detection on it if you liked watching the watchdog timer reboot your board

ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok all suffered outages at nearly the exact same time for reasons that remain murky.

Researchers now have clear new targets and insights for developing a Shigella vaccine.

Originally published at nlocoding.com 92%of IT leaders say legacy systems slow digital transformation (IBM, 2026) Every minute, a bank somewhere spends $1,200 just keeping 1970s code alive. Not replacing it, just making sure it doesn’t explode. A senior developer at Citi told McKinsey in January 2026: “We spend 53% of our engineering budget patching COBOL.” Legacy code isn’t a quirky artifact anymore. It’s a financial anchor chained to your cloud ambitions... Why AI Code Tools for Legacy System Modernization Matter in 2026 AI code tools have redefined how companies approach system upgrades. In 2026, 61% of modernization projects fail due to manual errors or missed dependencies (Gartner, 2026). You can’t afford human error when one typo in ancient assembler code can cost $500,000 in downtime. The rise of generative AI for code refactoring is the only thing standing between you and a multi-million dollar rewrite. AI Code Tools Are Slashing Modernization Timelines by 63% AI code tools for legacy system modernization have cut modernization project timelines by 63% on average (Accenture, 2026). Manual migration can take 18 months—AI-powered tools like IBM watsonx Code Assistant and Google Gemini Advanced do it in under 7 months. This isn’t a hypothetical. Banco do Brasil migrated 2.8 million lines of COBOL to Java in 2025 with Cognizant’s AI tool; downtime: 14 hours. Average cost per line dropped from $3.60 (human) to $1.15 (AI-assisted). 💡 Pro Tip: Start with small pilot modules (1000-5000 lines). Measure defect rates before scaling. AI-Assisted Code Understanding Reduces Failure Rates Code comprehension is the single biggest risk in legacy system modernization. 47% of failures in 2026 were due to “unknown dependencies” (Forrester, 2026). AI code tools now map data flows, detect dead code, and generate architectural diagrams from raw source. Microsoft’s Copilot for Azure can parse 1.5 million lines in two days and flag 96% of “code rot” blocks. One insurance company in

OpenAI leaders think the company’s next generation model, which excels at computer use and coding, may mark a major milestone in AI development.

It's also letting people upload multiple photos at once when reacting to a post.

OpenAI recently estimated its Cursor partnership would make more than $1 billion in revenue a year, WIRED has learned. It still walked away after Elon Musk’s SpaceX acquired the AI coding startup.

FSCSS component architecture is built around a modular, composition-first model that compiles to plain CSS. It emphasizes reusable style units, design tokens, conditional logic, and selective imports—with almost no runtime JavaScript required for the final output. Components in FSCSS are treated as pure style definitions rather than framework-specific widgets, keeping stylesheets readable, highly reusable, and free of classic “mega-stylesheet” problems while still producing standard CSS that any browser understands. Core Building Blocks FSCSS provides a focused set of primitives for defining and composing styles: Primitive Purpose Best for Introduced / Key version str(name, "…") Named blocks of CSS declarations Simple reusable style snippets Core @fun(name){…} Key-value stores (design tokens) Spacing scales, color palettes, property groups Core @define name(params) Parameterized mixins Themed components, variants, full structures 1.1.15+ pattern(threshold: "desc", "…") Semantic / fuzzy matching Natural-language style injection 1.1.25+ @event name(param) Conditional value functions Themes, states, calculations Core @arr(name[…]) Arrays + iteration Generated classes, loops, scales Core @import Selective / wildcard module loading Modular architecture & ecosystem modules Core How Components Are Structured 1. Atomic / Token Layer ( @fun + variables) Design tokens sit at the foundation so every component draws from a single source of truth: @fun(tokens) { primary: #2563eb; radius-md: 8px; space-4: 1rem; shadow-sm: 0 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,.1); } 2. Base Style Blocks ( str() or @fun full-block) Related declarations are grouped into reusable blocks that can be dropped into any selector: str(card-base, " padding: @fun.tokens.space-4.value; border-radius: @fun.tokens.radius-md.value; box-shadow: @fun.tokens.shadow-sm.value; background: white; ") 3. Parameterized Components ( @define ) True mixins accept arguments and can be composed freely: @define button(bg: #2563eb, fg: white,