标签：#lab

These clever lights—each one an exemplar of innovation in materials, design, and function—will beautify your home.

In May, we experienced nine incidents that resulted in degraded performance across GitHub services. The post GitHub availability report: May 2026 appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

In the hyper-competitive landscape of modern B2B outbound sales, speed-to-lead and outreach capacity are the ultimate drivers of pipeline volume . Yet, traditional Sales Development Representative (SDR) teams face a exhausting bottleneck: reaches and qualifications are limited by human bandwidth . A typical outbound SDR spends up to 80% of their day dialing numbers, navigating IVR phone trees, hitting voicemail, and dealing with incorrect contact records. When an inbound lead submits a form requesting a product demo, the average company takes 42 minutes to respond. By that time, prospect engagement has cooled by over 400%. To shatter this operational limit, modern revenue operations (RevOps) teams are transitioning from rigid auto-dialers and static voice bots to autonomous voice AI sales agents . By pairing the hyper-realistic conversational engine of ElevenLabs with the visual orchestration power of n8n , you can deploy a scalable, context-aware calling agent that handles inbound qualification and outbound follow-up calls in real-time. This technical blueprint provides an end-to-end guide to designing, securing, and deploying a production-grade Voice AI Sales Agent using ElevenLabs Conversational AI and n8n . We will cover how to manage conversation state, execute live database tool calls, secure webhook communication, route calls dynamically, and configure infrastructure to achieve sub-second response latency . The Architecture of an Enterprise Voice Agent Building a conversational voice agent requires a multi-layered system that operates in near real-time. When a human speaks over a telephony network, their voice must be digitized, transcribed, processed by a large language model (LLM), synthesized back into audio, and sent back down the line—all within a fraction of a second. To ensure stability, scalability, and absolute separation of concerns, our architecture decouples the telephony and voice generation layer from the logic and database integration layer . [

If you're building or integrating Automated Test Equipment for aerospace or defence electronics, the technical requirements go well beyond "does the test pass." You need documentation that satisfies MIL-STD, AS9100, and DO-178C auditors — and an architecture that scales from prototype to production. Here's how modern Universal ATE systems are structured for defence-grade compliance. The Core Architecture A defence-grade ATE system has four functional layers: ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Test Executive (LabVIEW) │ ← Orchestrates all test sequences ├────────────────┬────────────────────────┤ │ Instrument │ DUT Interface │ ← Hardware layer │ Control │ (ICT/JTAG/Func) │ ├────────────────┴────────────────────────┤ │ Data Management Layer │ ← Logging, traceability, reports ├─────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Calibration & Verification │ ← Ensures measurement accuracy └─────────────────────────────────────────┘ Test Executive Design in LabVIEW The test executive controls the sequence, manages results, and handles failures. Key design principles: Test Sequence: 1. DUT identification (serial number scan or manual entry) 2. Pre-test self-check (verify instrument calibration status) 3. ICT phase — passive component verification 4. JTAG boundary scan — IEEE 1149.1 interconnect verification 5. Power-on functional test — operational verification 6. RF/signal analysis — if applicable to DUT type 7. Report generation — automatic, timestamped 8. Pass/fail disposition record JTAG Integration via IEEE 1149.1 For high-density boards where bed-of-nails is not viable, JTAG boundary scan is implemented via a JTAG controller (e.g., XJTAG, Corelis, or ASSET InterTech) integrated into the LabVIEW environment: LabVIEW → JTAG Controller API → Scan Chain → DUT ICs The boundary scan description files (BSDL) for each IC define the test vectors. Your test executive loads BSDL files, generates scan chain topology, and runs interconnect tests automatically. Data Traceabili

I run a transparent OPNsense bridge between a UniFi Dream Machine Pro and the rest of my LAN. It is deliberately boring at Layer 3: the UDM keeps routing, DHCP, DNS, firewall policy, WAN handling, and VLAN definitions. OPNsense sits inline as a Layer 2 bump in the wire. The interesting part is that both sides of that bump use LACP . I already wrote the build/configuration guide for this setup here: Building a Transparent LAGG (LACP) Bridge with OPNsense, UDM, and UniFi - A Practical Guide . That article explains how the bridge was built, how the LAGG devices were configured, and why I wanted the firewall to remain transparent. This article is the other half of the story: what happens when that kind of setup fails in a non-obvious way. Not a clean outage. Not a single "the network is down" moment. Just enough instability to make everything feel wrong. 1. Topology and Failure Surface The topology looked like this: +----------------------+ | UniFi Dream Machine | | kantharos-udm-pro | +----------+-----------+ | LACP aggregate, 2 x 1G | OPNsense lagg0 "ingresslagg" igc1 + igc2, LACP | +----------v-----------+ | OPNsense bridge0 | | "laggbridge" | +----------+-----------+ | OPNsense lagg1 "egresslagg" igc4 + igc5, LACP | LACP aggregate, 2 x 1G | +----------v-----------+ | UniFi USW-Lite-16 | | downstream LAN | +----------------------+ On OPNsense, the relevant interfaces were: igc1 + igc2 -> lagg0 -> ingresslagg -> toward UDM igc4 + igc5 -> lagg1 -> egresslagg -> toward USW lagg0 + lagg1 -> bridge0 -> laggbridge The bridge is a FreeBSD bridge. The aggregates are FreeBSD lagg(4) interfaces using LACP. OPNsense exposes those through its Interfaces > Devices UI. The expected healthy OPNsense state is: laggproto lacp status: active laggport: igcX flags=<ACTIVE,COLLECTING,DISTRIBUTING> laggport: igcY flags=<ACTIVE,COLLECTING,DISTRIBUTING> Those three member states matter: ACTIVE : the member is participating in the LACP bundle. COLLECTING : the member may receive traffic. DIS

While some of my recent posts have involved using the Colab extension for VS Code and the Antigravity IDE, I actually prefer working in the terminal and Vim. The new Colab CLI finally lets me work in my natural habitat, and it opens the door for autonomous workflows! Setup Currently, installation is handled via pip or uv. It's straightforward, though, I'm holding out hope for a brew formula in the future: uv tool install google-colab-cli I'm testing Version: 0.6.dev7+g510115b0c inside Ghostty. The Colab CLI is pretty solid, but I do have some feedback and nitpicks I'd like to share (but more on that later). Creating a new session Creating a session is simple: colab new [-s SESSION_NAME] [--gpu T4|L4|A100|H100] [--tpu v5e1|v6e1] : SESSION_NAME : This is optional. If you leave it blank, the CLI generates a random unique ID for you. --gpu and --tpu : The hardware accelerator flags are optional, but omitting them defaults to a standard CPU-only instance. The specific accelerator chips you can request depend on your Colab tier, which you can check via colab pay. NOTE : If you only have one active session, the CLI targets it by default. This makes the -s flag unnecessary for subsequent commands. Testing Colab CLI's capabilities CLI certainly sounds cool, but how does it handle artifacts and images? More importantly, how debuggable is it? I decided to find out by running a Fashion MNIST PyTorch example. Handling artifacts To get started, I installed my requirements using colab install torch torchvision matplotlib . If you prefer a more standard approach, you can also use colab install -r requirements.txt . Once the environment was ready, I executed the training script using colab exec -f ./fashion_mnist_TRAIN.py and here's the output: [ colab] Using unique session '8c860c' . Using CUDA device. Shape of X [ N, C, H, W]: torch.Size ([ 64, 1, 28, 28] ) Shape of y: torch.Size ([ 64] ) torch.int64 NeuralNetwork ( ( flatten ) : Flatten ( start_dim = 1, end_dim = -1 ) ( linear_re

The speakers discuss the architectural challenges of executing safe data deletion across distributed datastores. Balancing durability, availability & correctness, they explain how to orchestrate multi-system deletion propagation without impacting live traffic. They share lessons on controlling tombstone accumulation, building continuous audit loops, and gaining trust with a centralized platform. By Vidhya Arvind, Shawn Liu

Parent/child first. Evidence emission second. Ansible control plane third. Every release was a manual evidence collection exercise. The pipeline was the bottleneck. This is a redacted write-up of a real engagement: rebuilding a healthcare SaaS company's CI/CD pipeline across a fleet of Linux hosts on AWS. The context The engineering team had grown faster than the pipeline architecture had evolved. What started as a single-stage GitLab job for a small team had been extended, patched, and worked around as the team scaled past the patterns the original pipeline was built for. The result was familiar. Each deploy took 30 to 45 minutes of mostly-serial execution. Engineers had developed informal habits to work around the slowness, including pushing partial changes outside the pipeline when the timeline got tight. Audit windows were preceded by three-week sprints in which the team manually compiled deployment logs, screenshots of access reviews, and approval chains into PDFs describing what the pipeline was supposed to be doing. The work was technically passing HIPAA audits, but the audit was a snapshot of a system the auditor could not independently verify. The cost was paid twice: the velocity loss on every deploy, and the three-week scramble before each assessment. The team knew the architecture was wrong. They needed engineering hands to redesign it without slowing the product roadmap the audits were already eating into. The approach The redesign moved in three layers. First, decompose the monolithic pipeline into parent/child stages so work can parallelize and the audit boundary of each stage is provable. Second, build structured evidence emission into every stage as a property of how it runs, not an after-the-fact compilation task. Third, layer an Ansible control plane across the host fleet so HIPAA control state is continuously validated, not reviewed quarterly. ┌────────────────────────── Parent Pipeline (.gitlab-ci.yml) ──────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ ┌────────

The modified Ioniq 5 will be loaded with sensors to capture data for Uber's new AV Labs division.

Spencer Huang, Nvidia’s robotics lead, tells WIRED that the new bot combines the best of both worlds.

The company is reducing its workforce as it exits 22 countries, reduces management layers, and invests in its infrastructure to scale its platform.

This is the technical, reproducible version of a fix I shipped on my own homelab. If you want the narrative version, that's on Medium. This one is the recipe: the measurements, the math, the Modelfile, and the exact prompt I gave Claude Code to generate it. Copy-paste friendly. Repo for the dashboard used throughout: https://github.com/SikamikanikoBG/homelab-monitor TL;DR One 24GB RTX 3090, two GPU services: WhisperX large-v3 (STT, 7.7GB peak) and a Devstral Small 24B email-triage LLM (Q4_K_M, ~18.3GB). 18.3 + 7.7 = 26GB → CUDA OOM whenever they overlapped. The LLM was loaded with a 40k context window but the triage job never needed more than ~5–8k tokens. Capped num_ctx to 8192 → KV cache drops from ~6.1GB to ~1.25GB → model footprint ~18.3GB → ~14.2GB . 14.2 + 7.7 = 21.9GB → both resident, zero OOM, no quality loss. The setup Host : openSUSE, Xeon (56 threads), 125GB RAM, 1x RTX 3090 (24GB) GPU svc : WhisperX large-v3 (speech-to-text) GPU svc : Ollama -> devstral-small-2 (24B, Q4_K_M) for background email triage Both services run all the time. The OOM only happened when I dictated to my assistant (WhisperX) while the triage loop was active. Step 1 — Make the contention measurable nvidia-smi shows instantaneous VRAM. It can't show you which service spiked or when two of them overlapped — and an intermittent OOM is a timing problem. You need per-service VRAM history. I use my own dashboard (homelab-monitor) for this. The relevant view is "AI Models", which attributes VRAM per model server and per loaded model, over a time range, with OOM markers and a capacity ceiling line. What the history showed at the overlap window: Service Peak VRAM Devstral 24B (triage) ~18.3 GB WhisperX large-v3 7.7 GB Total ~26 GB on a 24 GB card If you want to reproduce the measurement, the dashboard runs as a single container: git clone https://github.com/SikamikanikoBG/homelab-monitor cd homelab-monitor docker compose up -d --build # open http://<host>:9800 -> AI Models / GPU views (NVIDI

The caveat is that one of the world's most famous living directors is using the tech solely for storyboarding.

A homelab box that never sleeps runs 8,760 hours a year. So the spec that decides what it costs you is not the one on the box. It is the one nobody prints: how many watts it pulls sitting at the login prompt doing nothing. I kept hitting this while shopping for a Proxmox node, so I put the measured numbers in one place. More on that at the end. First, why the spec sheet lies to you. TDP is a thermal budget, not a power reading TDP is the heat the cooler has to handle at full tilt. It is a design target for the heatsink, not a measurement of what the chip draws, and it says almost nothing about idle. Your homelab box spends 95%+ of its life idle, so the number that runs up the meter is idle wall power, and that number is never on the product page. The arithmetic is unforgiving. One watt running continuously is 8.76 kWh a year. So the gap between a 7 W box and a 35 W box is not 28 watts, it is about 245 kWh a year, every year, for as long as the box is on. Plug in your own rate to get the dollars; the point is the gap compounds. Where TDP actively misleads you A few measured results from the dataset I'll link below, all from third-party wall-meter readings, not vendor claims: The new N100 wave is genuinely low. A Minisforum UN100C measures 5 to 7 W at idle. Beelink, GMKtec and Trigkey N100 boxes land in the 6 to 10 W range. For a Pi-hole, a few containers and some light VMs, this tier is hard to beat on running cost. AMD mini PCs idle far higher than their marketing suggests. A Minisforum UM790 Pro measures 25 to 45 W at idle. A Beelink SER6 Pro lands at 20 to 35 W. These are fast little machines, but if you picked one expecting "small box, small draw," the meter disagrees, and over a year that delta is real money. Newer and higher-TDP is not lower-idle. A Dell OptiPlex 7060 Micro idles just over 18 W on its 65 W-TDP desktop chip. The older 7070 with a six-core part sits around 13 W, and the low-power "T" SKUs lower still. The CPU's TDP class predicted idle better tha

You buy a NAS for silent, always-on storage. It sits in a corner, humming quietly, doing its thing. Then you install Docker. Then Syncthing. Then a few containers. Suddenly the HDDs never stop. Seeking, spinning, clicking. Not occasionally - constantly. At 2am you can hear it from the next room. This is what happened, why it happens, and how to make it stop. What's Actually Causing the Noise Mechanical HDDs make noise when the read/write head moves. The more random the I/O - small reads and writes scattered across the disk - the more seeking, the more noise. Sequential writes to a single file are quiet. Random I/O across thousands of small files is loud. Docker and Syncthing are both pathological for HDDs in different ways. Docker overlay2 Docker's default storage driver is overlay2. Every container runs on top of layered filesystems - the image layers are stacked, and a thin writable layer sits on top for each running container. Every file operation inside a container that touches a file from a lower layer triggers a copy-on-write : the entire file gets copied up to the writable layer before the write happens. On an SSD this is fast and silent. On spinning HDDs with mechanical heads, every copy-on-write is a seek, a read, and a write - often scattered across the disk. And it's not just copy-on-write. Docker's overlay2 metadata lives in small files across a deep directory tree. Container startup reads dozens of these. Log rotation writes to them. Health checks touch them. Any container doing anything at all generates constant scattered I/O. Syncthing's 60-Second Heartbeat Syncthing uses BoltDB as its internal database - it stores file indexes, sync state, and peer information there. BoltDB flushes to disk every 60 seconds regardless of whether anything changed. On a busy sync folder with thousands of files, this flush isn't a single sequential write. It rewrites pages across the B-tree structure, which means multiple seeks across the database file. Quiet when it's a

The Instagram accounts for the Obama White House and the Chief Master Sergeant of the U.S. Space Force were briefly defaced with pro-Iranian images and messages over the weekend, after instructions began circulating on Telegram showing how to trick Meta's "AI support assistant" bot into resetting account passwords.

An intentionally vulnerable e-commerce platform that teaches you to find, exploit, and understand IDOR vulnerabilities — the way they actually appear in the wild. Let's talk about the most deceptively simple vulnerability in web security: IDOR . On paper, it sounds trivial — change a number in the URL, access someone else's data, collect your bounty. But anyone who's spent real time hunting knows the truth: IDORs in production applications are rarely that obvious. They hide in request bodies, lurk inside multi-step workflows, and disguise themselves behind modern frontend frameworks that abstract away the very IDs you're supposed to manipulate. That gap — between textbook IDOR and real-world IDOR — is exactly where IDOR BugBounty Labs lives. What Is IDOR BugBounty Labs? It's an open-source, Node.js/Express e-commerce application built with one purpose: to give you a realistic playground for practicing IDOR attacks. Not simulated. Not theoretical. Intentionally vulnerable, locally hosted, and designed to mirror the complexity of actual Bug Bounty targets. Built with Express and TailwindCSS, it simulates a functioning online store — complete with user accounts, orders, addresses, support tickets, notification settings, and a checkout flow. Every feature contains at least one authorization flaw waiting to be exploited. Why This Lab Is Different Most IDOR labs give you one obvious URL parameter to change and call it a day. This one doesn't. IDOR BugBounty Labs includes: 5 distinct challenges ranging from easy to hard 3 different IDOR types: URL parameters, request bodies, and hidden body parameters Both read and write IDORs — accessing data and modifying it Multi-step business logic that mimics real e-commerce flows A flag submission system so you can verify your findings The challenges don't just teach you to change an ID. They teach you to think about where IDs live, how they're passed, and what happens when authorization checks are missing. The 5 Challenges 1. Read O

로봇 두 대가 말 한마디 없이 방을 정리했다, 그런데 진짜 질문은 '어떻게'가 아니다 협업의 정의가 바뀌고 있다. 인간끼리도 아니고, 인간과 로봇도 아니라, 로봇과 로봇 사이에서. TL;DR : 피규어 AI의 휴머노이드 두 대가 언어 없이 2분 만에 침실 정리에 성공했다. 기술 자체보다 흥미로운 것은, 이 '눈치'가 어떻게 만들어졌는가이다. 로봇 협업이 인간 협업의 방식을 모방한 게 아니라, 아예 다른 방식으로 진화하고 있다는 신호다. 로봇 산업에는 잘 알려지지 않은 규칙이 하나 있다. 로봇을 한 대 잘 만드는 것보다, 두 대가 함께 작동하게 만드는 것이 기하급수적으로 어렵다는 것. 보스턴 다이내믹스는 수십 년 동안 혼자 뛰고, 혼자 문을 열고, 혼자 계단을 오르는 로봇을 만들어왔다. 테슬라의 옵티머스는 혼자 부품을 집고, 혼자 배터리를 나른다. 그런데 피규어 AI는 올해 다른 질문을 던졌다. "두 대가 서로 말을 하지 않아도, 협력할 수 있을까?" 그리고 최근 그 답이 나왔다. 2분이었다. 먼저, '눈치'라는 단어를 다시 생각해야 한다 우리가 일상에서 쓰는 '눈치'는 상당히 복잡한 인지 활동이다. 상대방의 행동을 보면서, 다음 행동을 예측하고, 내 행동을 조율하고, 충돌을 피하고, 빈틈을 채우는 것. 인간은 이걸 언어 없이, 심지어 시선 교환만으로 해낸다. 오랜 시간을 함께한 팀에서, 숙련된 주방의 요리사들 사이에서, 그리고 가족 사이에서. 그런데 이 능력은 학습된 것이지, 타고난 것이 아니다. 아이들은 눈치가 없다. 신입 직원도 눈치가 없다. 수백 번의 상호작용과 실수와 교정을 거쳐야 비로소 '눈치'가 생긴다. 피규어 AI의 휴머노이드 두 대는 이 과정을 어떻게 압축했을까. 보도에 따르면 이들은 사전에 언어 명령이나 역할 분담 지시 없이, 상대 로봇의 행동을 실시간으로 인식하고 자신의 다음 동작을 결정했다. 공간을 나눠 쓰고, 같은 물건에 손을 뻗지 않고, 한쪽이 멈추면 다른 쪽이 채웠다. 이것을 연구자들은 '암묵적 협업(implicit collaboration)'이라고 부른다. 쉽게 말하면, 로봇이 눈치를 배웠다는 뜻이다. 두 대가 함께 움직인다는 것의 기술적 의미 단일 로봇의 작동 원리는 비교적 단순하게 설명할 수 있다. 센서가 환경을 인식하고, 모델이 행동을 결정하고, 액추에이터가 실행한다. 루프가 하나다. 두 대가 함께 움직이는 순간, 루프가 두 개가 아니라 세 개가 된다. 로봇 A의 루프, 로봇 B의 루프, 그리고 A와 B가 서로를 환경으로 인식하면서 생기는 상호작용 루프. 이 세 번째 루프가 문제다. A의 행동이 B의 환경을 바꾸고, 그 변화가 다시 B의 행동을 바꾸고, 그 행동이 또 A의 환경을 바꾼다. 루프가 루프를 먹는 구조다. 이것을 중앙에서 통제하는 방식은 예전부터 존재했다. 공장 자동화에서 쓰이는 PLC(프로그래머블 로직 컨트롤러) 방식이 대표적이다. A는 1번 작업, B는 2번 작업, 충돌 시 A가 우선 — 이런 식으로 모든 경우의 수를 미리 프로그래밍한다. 정해진 공간, 정해진 물건, 정해진 순서. 공장에서는 작동한다. 일상에서는 작동하지 않는다. 침실은 공장이 아니다. 물건의 위치가 매번 다르고, 침대 정리와 바닥 정리가 동시에 일어나야 할 수도 있고, 하나가 예상치 못한 물건을 발견하면 계획 전체가 바뀐다. 규칙 기반의 중앙 통제로는 불가능하다. 피규어 AI가 선택한 방향은 분산 의사결정이었다. 각 로봇이 독립적으로 환경을 인식하고, 상대 로봇의 현재 상태를 하나의 입력값으로 받아들이면서, 스스로 다음 행동을 결정하는 방식이다. 중앙 관제탑이 없다. 각자가 판단하되, 서로를 인식한다. 이것이 인간의 눈치와 구조적으로 가장 유사한 접근이다. 2분이라는 숫자가 중요한 이유 2분. 이 숫자를 처음 들으면 "겨우 2분?"이라고 생각할 수 있다. 그런데 맥락을 알면 반응이 바뀐다. 로봇이 단독으로 침실을 정리하는 데 걸리는 시간과 비교해보자. 현재 가장 발전한 단일 휴머노이드 로봇들의 가사 작업 수행 속도는, 같은 작업을 인간이 하는 것보다 보통 3배에서 10배 느리다. 동작이 느린 것도 있

The engineering team at Meta recently outlined how the company migrated a data ingestion platform that transfers several petabytes of MySQL social graph data daily to improve reliability and operational efficiency. The team used techniques like reverse shadowing and continuous checksum monitoring to ensure zero downtime during the transition. By Renato Losio

Soon-to-be-laid-off Meta contractors say they’re being treated differently than Mark Zuckerberg’s full-time employees, who stand to receive more generous severance packages.