标签：#m

Most data engines can answer a query. I wanted one that could also explain, offline and byte for byte, why that answer belongs to a specific durable state. That question led me to build Hyphae , an open-source data engine in Rust with a deliberately small operational footprint: one native binary; one data directory; no required database, cache, cloud service, embedding provider, or LLM; deterministic KV and structured queries; portable result proofs that can be verified offline. If you read my earlier post about provenance over prediction , this is the next and deliberately narrower step. That work began as a cognitive substrate and clarified the provenance thesis. I have since rebuilt Hyphae as a standalone data engine. The research lineage remains, but the current product does not need an AI stack to be useful. Hyphae 0.1.0 is now available on GitHub , through crates.io, and as signed multiplatform archives in the first public release . The problem was not another query syntax The usual path for an application data feature grows surprisingly quickly. A local library becomes a database service. Search adds another service. Caching adds another. Semantic retrieval adds a model provider. Soon, a feature that should be optional controls whether the application can start at all. There is a second problem hiding underneath that operational stack: a successful response is usually just an assertion from the system that produced it. If I receive a filtered, sorted, limited result, how do I check that: the underlying durable state was not corrupted; the query was executed with the declared semantics; matching rows were not silently omitted; the returned result is tied to the state I actually intended to trust? Checksums help with corruption. Signatures can identify a producer. Neither one, by itself, proves that an arbitrary query result is complete and was reexecuted correctly. Hyphae is my attempt to make those concerns part of the engine instead of application glue. What

Ask any engineering manager whether their team pastes code into ChatGPT and you'll get a nervous laugh. The honest answer is constantly — a stack trace here, a config file there, "just cleaning up this SQL." Most of it is harmless. Some of it carries an AWS key, a database password, or a customer's PII straight to a third-party model. I've spent the last while looking at how teams try to control this, and most of the common approaches quietly fail. Here's what doesn't work, what does, and why. Why this isn't a normal DLP problem Traditional DLP watches email, file shares, and cloud storage. An AI prompt leak skips all of them: the data goes from a browser tab to an AI provider's API over HTTPS and never touches the channels legacy DLP inspects. It's also invisible after the fact. Once a prompt is sent there's no sent-mail copy, no uploaded-file record. If you didn't catch it at the moment of submission, you have no idea it happened. Prevention has to live in the browser , or it doesn't happen at all. The approaches that don't hold up Blocking AI tools outright. Employees just switch to their phone or a personal laptop. You lose the productivity and keep the risk. Network proxies / CASBs. They can see the domain but struggle to inspect encrypted prompt content without heavy MITM infrastructure — and they don't understand a DOCX dropped into a chat window. Policy + training. Sets expectations, stops nothing in the moment. Post-hoc SaaS scanners. Find the exposure after the data already left. Good for audit, useless for prevention. What actually works: intercept in the browser The only place you can reliably read a prompt is where it's typed. A managed browser extension can patch the page's network calls, read the prompt (and any attached files) before they send, scan against your DLP rules, and block anything that matches — all client-side, in well under a second, with no proxy and no rerouted traffic. That's the model I've become convinced is right, and it's the appr

Originally published on tamiz.pro . Introduction Over-the-air (OTA) updates are a critical component of modern software ecosystems, yet they introduce complexity through network instability, device fragmentation, and rollback challenges. Meanwhile, AI agents are emerging as powerful tools for autonomous workflow orchestration. This article explores how to architect resilient developer workflows by integrating AI-driven decision-making with OTA update management systems. The Chaos of OTA Updates OTA updates face three primary challenges: Unreliable Network Context : Mobile devices frequently lose connectivity during updates Device State Fragmentation : Managing compatibility across 1000+ device configurations Rollback Complexity : Traditional systems lack real-time failure detection Traditional solutions rely on retries and checksum validation, but these fail to address root causes like partial updates on low-memory devices or race conditions during state transitions. AI Agent Innovation Framework AI agents introduce three transformative capabilities: Predictive Update Scheduling # Pseudocode for AI-driven update scheduling agent . observe ( network_quality , battery_level , device_usage ) recommendation = neural_net . predict ( update_success_probability ) if recommendation . confidence > 0.9 : schedule_update () elif recommendation . alternative : queue_deferred_update () Dynamic Rollback Orchestration AI agents can implement context-aware rollback strategies: Immediate rollback for critical OS failures Graceful deferral for non-essential app updates Predictive rollback based on anomaly detection in system metrics Device State Pattern Recognition Machine learning models analyze historical update data to: Predict failure patterns across device models Optimize binary delivery sequencing Automatically generate compatibility matrices Architectural Implementation A resilient workflow combines: graph TD A[OTA Coordinator] --> B[AI Agent Orchestration Layer] B --> C[Updat

Originally published at https://blog.pathvector.dev/protocol-lab-trace-19/ — part of the free Protocol Lab series. This post is part of Protocol Lab , a free, hands-on series for learning networking protocols by building and breaking them in a container lab. All the lab material — topologies, configs, and scripts — lives in the repo: github.com/pathvector-studio/protocol-lab . Every IP packet carries a TTL (time to live) that each router decrements by one. When it reaches zero, the router drops the packet and sends back an ICMP time-exceeded message. traceroute turns this rule into a map: send probes with TTL 1, 2, 3, … and each dying probe reveals the router at that distance. Reading guide: rfc-notes/traceroute-ttl.md Prerequisite: TCP Lab 07: Handshake and Teardown (reading captures) Expected time: 40–55 minutes. The Goal This lab builds a real multi-hop path and shows the mechanism: client → r1 → r2 → server , with two Linux routers in the middle, traceroute from the client lists each hop: 10.0.1.2 (r1), 10.0.2.2 (r2), 10.0.3.2 (server), a packet capture shows the ICMP time-exceeded replies (from r1 for TTL 1, from r2 for TTL 2) that traceroute is built on. By the end, you should be able to explain this table: Probe TTL Dies at Reply 1 r1 ( 10.0.1.2 ) ICMP time-exceeded from r1 2 r2 ( 10.0.2.2 ) ICMP time-exceeded from r2 3 server ( 10.0.3.2 ) reaches the destination What You Will Learn What the IP TTL field is for (loop protection) and how routers decrement it. What an ICMP time-exceeded message is and who sends it. How traceroute uses increasing TTLs to discover each hop. Why the hops appear in order, and why the last hop is the destination itself. The difference between forwarding (routers) and being an endpoint. This lab does not cover: UDP vs ICMP vs TCP traceroute probe types in depth (we use ICMP mode). Load-balanced paths (ECMP) where hops can vary between probes. Why some hops show * * * (rate limiting or filtered ICMP) in the real internet. Where to Rea

Hey DEV, I'm Tobore. Let's actually connect. I've been on here for a while now, mostly writing and...

In the wake of a massive hours-long gridlock event, San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie has told state regulators it's time to put more requirements on robotaxi operators like Waymo.

Don't expect that number to shrink any time soon.

One features an optical illusion spoof of 'They Live.'

submitted by /u/ScottContini [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Blockpair [link] [留言]

Today I'm excited to launch RegionCheck , a tool for testing, monitoring, and debugging endpoints from cloud regions around the world. The idea is simple - test an endpoint's DNS and HTTP connectivity and response from a defined set of cloud regions. Whether you're troubleshooting an API, validating a deployment, checking DNS propagation, or investigating latency, seeing the results from multiple cloud regions can quickly reveal issues that aren't obvious from your own machine. What is RegionCheck? RegionCheck lets you run endpoint checks from AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud regions without provisioning infrastructure or maintaining test instances. Current capabilities include: HTTP endpoint testing DNS lookups TLS certificate validation Continuous monitoring with alerts Side-by-side comparison across cloud providers and regions Shareable result pages for collaboration API/MCP access for automation and agents Why I built it When debugging production issues, I often wanted to answer questions like: Is DNS returning the same result everywhere? Or is geo-DNS returning the results intended? Is TLS certificate propagation for my CDN working as intended? Is one region significantly slower than another? Is my CDN caching working as expected? Are my geo-HTTP redirects working as intended? (For some interesting examples try www.yahoo.com and www.cnn.com in non-US regions) There are many tools that exist that provide these answers, but nothing that answers all of these questions in one place. That's what RegionCheck aims to provide. Who it's for RegionCheck is designed for engineers who work with cloud infrastructure, including: DevOps engineers Site Reliability Engineers (SREs) Platform engineers Backend developers Anyone who likes to take a peek at backend infrastructure Try it out RegionCheck is available at https://regioncheck.io You can run free checks directly from the website; or create an account to access monitoring, alerting, the API, and additional features. I'd love

Your customers would rather message you on WhatsApp than fill in a contact form. That's fine at ten conversations a day. At a hundred, messages get missed, nobody knows which rep is on which deal, and at month-end somebody rebuilds the commission sheet by hand and gets it wrong. The usual answer is a $49–$499/month WhatsApp SaaS platform, priced per seat, with your customer data living in someone else's database. This post is the other answer: the same workflow on Google Sheets + Apps Script — and the one piece I see teams get wrong every single time, with the code to fix it. Where DIY WhatsApp automation actually breaks It isn't the messaging. Wiring a WhatsApp webhook into a sheet is a couple of hours of work, and I've written that build up separately — the webhook, the AI reply, and the lock that stops two reps chasing the same lead are all in Build a WhatsApp Sales Inbox in Google Sheets . I won't repeat it here. The part that breaks is the commission math . Someone writes =IF(revenue>10000, revenue*0.08, revenue*0.05) into a column, and three things kill it: A single sale spans two tiers — the formula charges the whole amount at one rate. The tiers change in July , and now every historical row recalculates at the new rate. A customer refunds in August on a sale from June, and nobody can unwind it without breaking the audit trail. So that's what this post builds: a tiered commission engine that survives rule changes and refunds. 1. Put the tiers in a table, never in a formula This is the whole trick. Make a Commission Rules tab, one row per rule: rule_id | rep_id | effective_from | effective_to | tier_1_cap | tier_1_pct | | | | | tier_2_cap | tier_2_pct | tier_3_pct --------+----------+----------------+--------------+------------+------------+----------- R1 | ALL | 2026-01-01 | | 10000 | 0.05 | | | | | 50000 | 0.08 | 0.10 R2 | rep_ayse | 2026-06-01 | | 10000 | 0.06 | | | | | 50000 | 0.09 | 0.12 rep_id is either a specific rep or ALL (the house default). Percenta

RAG, Agents, & Code Security: Applied AI Frameworks in Production Today's Highlights This week's highlights feature a practical guide to building RAG-powered knowledge bots with Laravel and pgvector, alongside major strides in AI agent orchestration with a new resource discovery specification. Additionally, we examine AWS's new agentic code security service, demonstrating the application of AI frameworks to critical enterprise workflows. RAG in Laravel: Embeddings and pgvector for a Knowledge-Base Bot (Dev.to Top) Source: https://dev.to/adityakdevin/rag-in-laravel-embeddings-and-pgvector-for-a-knowledge-base-bot-3l2g This post delves into implementing Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) within a Laravel application to create a more informed knowledge-base chatbot. It directly addresses the common challenge where large language models (LLMs) lack domain-specific knowledge by leveraging embeddings and pgvector to incorporate proprietary data. The article builds upon a previous discussion on streaming AI responses, now focusing on integrating custom information for enhanced chatbot accuracy and relevance. The technical approach involves generating vector embeddings for a knowledge base's documents, storing these representations in a PostgreSQL database using the pgvector extension, and then performing similarity searches. When a user query is received, its embedding is generated, used to retrieve the most semantically relevant documents from the knowledge base, and these documents are then fed as context to the LLM. This process dramatically improves the chatbot's ability to answer questions based on specific, internal data rather than relying solely on its general training. This practical guide demonstrates a tangible workflow for overcoming LLM hallucinations and improving contextual understanding in custom applications. It highlights how robust RAG architecture, even within a PHP framework like Laravel, can be achieved using battle-tested database technologies and

Most people, when a prompt stops working, write more . They add clarifications, repeat instructions in different words, hedge against edge cases they haven't encountered yet. The prompt doubles in length. The output gets worse. This is the opposite of what you should do. A long prompt is not a precise prompt. It is an ambiguous prompt that happens to have a lot of words in it. Every sentence that does not tightly constrain the output is a sentence that dilutes the sentences that do. Why Long Prompts Underperform When a language model processes your prompt, it attends to all tokens simultaneously — but not equally. Attention is probabilistic. Instructions that are buried in filler, repeated in slightly different forms, or surrounded by low-information prose get proportionally less weight. The model's ability to track which constraint takes precedence over which degrades as the signal-to-noise ratio of the prompt drops. In quantitative trading, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is the single most important property of any strategy signal — a strategy that works in backtesting but fails live is almost always a noise problem, not a signal problem. The same principle applies directly to prompts. Every redundant qualifier, every throat-clearing sentence, every hedge phrase is noise riding on top of your actual instruction signal. The model's attention mechanism cannot distinguish intent from filler. It weighs them together, which means your real constraints compete for attention against your own verbal padding. A concrete way to see this: take a 600-word prompt and a 120-word prompt that contains the same core logic. The 120-word version, if well-constructed, will frequently outperform the 600-word one. Not because brevity is a virtue in itself, but because removing the surrounding noise forces the remaining tokens to do all the work — and they accumulate proportionally more attention weight. This is not speculative. It is the same mechanism behind why prompt drift happens

Build starts limited alpha testing later this month.

Get ready for more AI characters in Fortnite. Developer Epic Games is going to let Fortnite creators publish experiences featuring characters with AI-powered voices starting on July 30th, and ahead of that launch, it's created 36 characters with "consistent voices and personas" that creators can use as NPCs. The characters include Fortnite staples like Agent […]

From data preparation and tokenizer selection to pretraining, LoRA, RLHF, evaluation, and production monitoring, this guide covers the major stages involved in training an AI model. Training an artificial intelligence model is not simply a matter of loading a dataset onto a GPU and running a few commands. A successful model requires a measurable objective, legally usable and carefully cleaned data, an architecture suited to the problem, controlled optimization, independent evaluation, and continuous monitoring after deployment. In large language model development, a mistake in any one of these stages can waste millions of training examples and a significant amount of compute. This guide explains the model development process primarily through the training of large language models. However, fundamental concepts such as dataset splitting, loss functions, overfitting, and evaluation also apply to computer vision, speech, and predictive models. The goal is not to provide a single fixed recipe. Instead, it is to explain which training approach is appropriate for which problem and to clarify the cost difference between training a model from scratch and adapting an existing model. In Brief: How Is an AI Model Trained? First, the target task and success criteria are defined. Data is collected, reviewed for licensing and privacy, cleaned, and divided into training, validation, and test sets. The model generates predictions from the input data. The difference between the prediction and the correct target is measured using a loss function. Backpropagation calculates how each parameter contributed to the error, and an optimization algorithm updates the parameters. This process is repeated under controlled conditions until the model achieves acceptable results in independent tests and safety evaluations. What Does Training a Model Actually Mean? A neural network initially contains a large number of numerical parameters. During training, the model generates a prediction for a giv

T-Mobile to restore free lines lost during plan migration, but price hikes remain.

Google says these changes could endanger user privacy and security.

As wildfire smoke threatens air quality and safety for millions, here’s your playbook to keep your family safe from the damaging effects of smoke.