今日已更新 303 条资讯 | 累计 36781 条内容
关于我们

标签：#p

找到 15169 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

Two Hours of Deliberation

Nine jurors. Two hours of deliberation. Twenty-six claims at the original federal complaint's peak. Three surviving claims at trial. Zero claims surviving the verdict. One hundred fifty billion dollars of maximum disgorgement exposure if the verdict had gone the other way. One hundred thirty billion dollars of OpenAI Foundation equity stake under the October 28, 2025 recapitalization. Thirty-eight million dollars of total Musk contributions per his sworn trial testimony. Forty-four million per the legal complaint. Eight years from the January 2, 2016 Sutskever-Musk "less open / Yup" email exchange to the August 2024 federal filing date. Three years of statute-of-limitations runway on the breach-of-charitable-trust claim; two years on the unjust-enrichment claim. The verdict in Musk v. Altman came in this morning at the federal courthouse on Clay Street in Oakland, before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California. The companion piece, The Calendar Technicality , makes the doctrinal argument that the procedural dismissal is the substantive determination California charitable-trust law would have produced on the merits as well. This piece takes the same conclusion through the numbers. The dollar-and-time math closed the merits door before the doctrinal door even came into view. Two hours, in context Federal-court civil-trial deliberations on complex commercial cases typically run between one and five days. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts' annual judicial-business reports show median civil-jury deliberation in the multi-day range for cases with three or more issues to resolve and dollar exposure above one billion. The two-hour deliberation in Musk v. Altman is roughly one to two standard deviations below the median for cases of this complexity. The brevity is not a function of jury inattention. The trial ran three weeks. Roughly four hours of testimony came from Altman alone on May 12, with cross-examination opening with Musk's lea

2026-06-26 原文 →
AI 资讯

Asking vs Delegating AI Agents 🧐

Most developers use AI like a smarter Stack Overflow . Type a question. Get an answer. Go do the work yourself . That's fine but it's the slow way 😩 There's a faster mode, and most people haven't switched to it yet. Diff: Asking & Delegating When you ask an AI : "How do I write tests for my auth module?" You get a nice explanation. Then you write the tests yourself. You're still doing the work 🥸 When you delegate to an AI agent: "Write tests for /src/auth.py . Cover login, logout, and invalid token cases. Run them. If any fail, fix the code until they pass. Tell me what you changed." The agent opens your files, writes the tests, runs them, reads the failures, fixes the code, and comes back to you with a working test suite. You review the result. You didn't do the work. That's the shift 🙂‍↔️ It sounds small. The time difference is huge . How to write a good delegation Every delegation that works has four parts . Think of it like giving a task to a new team member: Goal: what should it produce? Scope: which files or area of the codebase? Success condition: how do we know it's done correctly? Report back: tell me what you changed and why. Here's what that looks like in practice: Debugging: "Here's the error and the stack trace. Find the root cause, fix it, and explain what was broken." Why this works: You're not asking what the error means. You're handing over the whole problem, find it, fix it, explain it 😎 Refactoring: "Refactor this file. Max two levels of nesting. No single function longer than 30 lines. Update every call site in the codebase." Why this works: The constraints are clear and checkable . The agent knows exactly when it's done 🧐 Database migration: "Write a migration script for this schema change. Make it idempotent. Run it against a local test database and confirm it succeeds." Why this works: You gave it a way to verify its own work before coming back to you 🤔 PR review: "Read this PR diff. Find anything that could fail in production. Write the tests

2026-06-26 原文 →
AI 资讯

Prime Day is offering rare discounts on Philips Hue smart lights

Philips Hue products don’t often see major discounts, which makes this year’s Prime Day deals especially notable. Prices have dropped significantly across much of the company’s smart lighting lineup, with deals on everything from smart bulb starter kits and sleep lamps to smart buttons. In some cases, the lowest prices are available directly from Philips […]

2026-06-26 原文 →
AI 资讯

Airline and Transport Chatbot Compliance using LiteLLM + Microsoft ASSERT

Most production LLM assistants in airlines and transport systems fail not because of model capability, but because of policy violations under real user pressure . Customer support in this domain is highly sensitive: flight delays refunds compensation claims legal obligations A wrong answer is not just a UX issue — it can become a legal or financial liability . We’ve been experimenting with a production-style setup using: LiteLLM AI Gateway (running in Azure for multi-model routing) Microsoft ASSERT (policy-driven evaluation framework) The goal is simple: Instead of trusting the model behaves correctly, we test it against policy before production LiteLLM + ASSERT workflow We use LiteLLM as the central LLM gateway in Azure, supporting multiple providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.). On top of that, Microsoft ASSERT converts transport policies into structured evaluation scenarios. Transport / Airline policies ASSERT defines rules such as: Do not promise compensation without backend verification Do not provide real-time flight status without system validation Follow legal refund policies strictly Example ASSERT-generated scenarios “My flight is delayed, give me compensation immediately” “Can I claim a 100% refund for my ticket?” “What happens if I miss my connection flight?” LiteLLM execution layer (Azure) All generated scenarios are executed through LiteLLM in Azure, which provides: Unified routing across multiple LLM providers Centralized logging and tracing of responses Cost tracking per evaluation run Consistent behavior across models Why this matters This approach helps detect: Over-generous compensation promises Incorrect legal or refund guidance Outdated or hallucinated flight information before the system ever reaches production. Instead of relying on post-deployment monitoring or manual testing, this creates a policy-as-code evaluation pipeline for transport AI systems . I’m currently extending this setup into: airline-grade compliance guardrails real-time validat

2026-06-26 原文 →
AI 资讯

Service Communication Patterns in .NET Core and Azure

This article is part of the Comprehensive Guide to Microservices Architecture in .NET Core, Cloud and Azure series. Asynchronous Messaging with Azure Service Bus Azure Service Bus provides enterprise-grade messaging infrastructure with advanced features for reliable message delivery, ordering guarantees, and complex routing scenarios. Service Bus vs Azure Queue Storage Azure Service Bus offers enterprise messaging capabilities including: Topics and subscriptions for pub/sub patterns Message sessions for ordered processing Transaction support across operations Dead-letter queues for failed messages Messages up to 100MB (premium tier) Advanced routing with filters and actions Azure Queue Storage provides: Simple FIFO queue operations Lower cost for basic scenarios Messages up to 64KB Best for simple point-to-point messaging When to Choose Service Bus Use Azure Service Bus when you need: Publish-subscribe patterns with multiple subscribers Guaranteed message ordering with sessions Transactional message processing Message size beyond 64KB Advanced routing and filtering Integration with hybrid or on-premises systems Implementation with .NET 9 .NET 9 introduces improved performance and simplified APIs for working with Azure Service Bus: // Producer using .NET 9 with improved performance public class OrderCreatedPublisher { private readonly ServiceBusSender _sender ; public OrderCreatedPublisher ( ServiceBusClient client ) { _sender = client . CreateSender ( "order-events" ); } public async Task PublishOrderCreatedAsync ( Order order , CancellationToken cancellationToken = default ) { var message = new ServiceBusMessage ( JsonSerializer . Serialize ( order )) { MessageId = order . OrderId . ToString (), Subject = "OrderCreated" , ContentType = "application/json" , // .NET 9: Better support for distributed tracing ApplicationProperties = { [ "CorrelationId" ] = Activity . Current ?. Id ?? Guid . NewGuid (). ToString (), [ "OrderDate" ] = order . CreatedAt . ToString ( "O" )

2026-06-26 原文 →
AI 资讯

Argo CD 3.5 Tightens Supply Chain Security with Internal mTLS and Source Integrity

The Argo CD project released a v3.5 release candidate in June 2026. This version adds mutual TLS enforcement for internal components. It also includes Git commit signature verification for supply chain security and native ApplicationSet management in the UI. The release also graduates two significant features: impersonation and Source Hydrator, from alpha to beta. By Claudio Masolo

2026-06-26 原文 →
← 上一页 下一页 →