标签：#p

He’s being prosecuted for giving border officials a code that wiped his phone : The case centers on a feature included in GrapheneOS, a custom Android operating system that runs in place of the software on most modern Google Pixel devices. Tunick’s attorneys confirmed GrapheneOS was running on his phone. The software feature allows the device owner to set a passcode that deliberately wipes the contents of that device if entered instead of the user’s unlock passcode. Tunick’s case also raises ongoing questions about what constitutional rights can be invoked at the border, which the U.S. government has long asserted is not U.S. soil until a person is authorized to enter...

The deal gives Okta identity threat detection capabilities as enterprises seek to secure AI agents and other non-human identities across cloud environments.

Google said a July update resolves the problem on recent devices, with Pixel 9a and 8a getting a fix in September.

The milestone means Tesla is halfway to accomplishing one of the four core product goals Elon Musk has to hit to unlock his full $1 trillion pay package.

Three approaches to the issue of quantum results that can't be verified classically.

Google's AI brain for the next generation of robots Discussion | Link

Best Buy has raised the price of the Asus ROG Astral RTX 5080 OC to $2,099 - the first time a major US retailer is directly selling an RTX 5080 for more than the $1,999 MSRP of the RTX 5090, VideoCardz reports. The ROG Astral RTX 5080 OC now costs 40 percent more than its […]

There are fresh signs that fusion power startup Commonwealth Fusion Systems will list in the next two to three years.

The API Gateway Has Grown Up When API gateways first entered the enterprise architecture conversation, the value proposition was straightforward: put a reverse proxy in front of your APIs, enforce authentication, and add basic rate limiting. Problem solved. That framing was adequate for 2012. It's dangerously incomplete for 2026. Today's API gateway sits at the intersection of integration, security, observability, and increasingly AI — and the organizations that still treat it as a simple routing layer are leaving significant capability on the table while accepting operational risk they don't have to carry. The modern API gateway is an integration hub in its own right, and understanding its full capabilities is essential to building a resilient, scalable API strategy. What Traditional API Gateways Got Right (and Wrong) The first generation of API management platforms — Layer 7, Apigee, legacy enterprise API managers, early Kong — nailed the fundamentals. Authentication enforcement, basic transformations, developer portals with API keys, rudimentary analytics. For the REST API era, this was genuinely valuable. But these platforms had structural limitations that became more painful as API ecosystems scaled: Static configuration : Policy changes required deployment cycles, not dynamic updates Monolithic architecture : The gateway itself became a single point of failure and a scaling bottleneck Reactive observability : Dashboards showed what happened; they didn't predict or prevent problems Protocol silos : REST gateways couldn't route gRPC, GraphQL, or WebSocket traffic without additional infrastructure No integration context : The gateway was blind to the systems it was protecting — it enforced policies without understanding the business logic behind the APIs The Modern API Gateway: A Capability Map Authentication and Authorization — Now Much More Than Token Validation Modern gateways don't just validate that a token exists and hasn't expired. They implement the full

Meta says AI is making it dramatically easier to build and launch new consumer apps, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg telling investors the company has more new consumer products on the way following a recent wave of releases for Facebook Groups, Marketplace sellers, Instagram, and gaming.

Prompt Engineering As a Sport Discussion | Link

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

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

A common MCP setup carries auth the same way: create an API key, paste it into mcp.json or an .env file, restart the client. It works. Now the key sits in plaintext on every machine that runs the agent. It often carries one broad, fixed permission set. Every agent that reads the file gets the same set. And when one agent misbehaves, the fix is rotate the shared key everywhere. There's a second failure that arrives after you add real auth: the agent calls a tool and gets a bare 403. The user doesn't know what to approve. The agent doesn't know what to ask for. Somebody ends up reading server logs. I build multiuser AI systems for production. My agents act on users' Gmail and Slack accounts every day - external agents like Claude Code included. None of those agents receives a provider token. This is the auth chain that makes that work, including the part that took the most design: what happens when consent is missing at call time. A URL instead of a key An external agent doesn't get the Gmail or Slack credential. It gets a URL - a managed MCP endpoint my platform exposes. I call that endpoint the door, and so does the interface further down. Claude Code connects to the door as an OAuth client. Dynamic client registration (DCR) registers its client identity against a configured redirect allowlist. The user signs in and approves the maximum this connection may be granted. The OAuth exchange returns a scoped KDCube bearer tied to that client and grant, not a provider token. The approval screen also resolves those requested capabilities to the accounts behind them. If a required provider is not connected, it is named there with a connect link. The connect step already says what to add - the same shape as the call-time denial later in this post, moved to the front. Approve it, and the connection becomes a card. That card is the whole governance relationship. Nobody registered Claude by hand, and nobody pasted a provider token. The checklist is a ceiling: the most this app

Cutting LLM costs in Spring AI starts with two choices: which model answers a request, and what defaults your ChatClient adds to every one it sends. Neither is worth changing until you can see where the tokens go. That is why this article starts with measurement. This is Part 1 of four, and it covers the first three of ten cost drivers. Driver #0 tells you where the money actually goes; #1 and #2 are the two decisions that shape every request your application sends. The remaining seven attach to what you build here. A note on the numbers: where a price ratio matters for the argument (input vs. output, cache read vs. write), this series quotes real July 2026 list prices with a link. All other examples use a flat rate of $1 per million input tokens, so you can redo the calculation with your own provider's price sheet. You should do that, because these prices change every few months. Driver #0 — Spring AI observability measurement: you cannot cut what you cannot see Provider invoices and usage dashboards usually show your spending by model and by token type — input, output, and cached. That is useful, but it is not enough. The numbers cannot tell you which feature, client, or advisor inside your application was responsible for that usage. Spring AI integrates with Spring Boot's Micrometer-based observability to fill this gap. Its core AI components automatically emit that data. ChatModel , EmbeddingModel , and ImageModel implementations (support varies by provider) publish model-level observations, including token usage where available. ChatClient (including advisors) and VectorStore report execution observations and traces rather than token usage metrics. Each metric includes built-in tags, such as the model name and token type. These tags separate models and providers, but not callers: every request to the same model carries the same tag values, so they cannot tell two features apart on their own. Spring AI marks tags as low- or high-cardinality: low-cardinality tags

Spring AI's defaults are built for a fast start; they do not guarantee a low monthly cost. Shipping an LLM feature is easy — making it cost-efficient is not. This series shows the spots where money leaks, along with the control that closes each one. Spring AI 2.0 reached GA on 12 June 2026 . It needs Spring Boot 4 , moves the tool-calling loop out of the ChatModel , adds tool search, and extends structured outputs. Tool search and the extended structured-output controls point in the same direction: they determine how many tokens your application sends and receives. The bill grows quietly. A chatbot with a 2,000-token system prompt, run 100,000 times a month, sends 200 million tokens of the same text. At an example rate of $1 per million input tokens, that is $200 a month — before a single user message. Then add conversation history, which is sent in full on every turn. Add retrieved RAG documents and the JSON schema of every registered tool. The input side can grow 10× with no change in traffic at all. Output tokens cost several times more per token than input tokens, and reasoning models bill their hidden "thinking" as output too. The provider sets the prices. The framework gives you controls that can reduce the number of tokens you pay for. This series works through ten cost drivers, numbered #0 to #9. Each one is a place where tokens repeat or grow without anyone deciding they should, and each comes with the Spring AI control that cuts it. They are spread across four parts. Part 1 is live. Parts 2 to 4 follow in August 2026. Part 1 — Token Usage: Measure Cost Before You Pick a Model (Drivers #0–#2) Provider dashboards show what you spent, but not which feature spent it. Spring AI's observability closes that gap, and from there you can match each model to its task and stop features from carrying defaults they never needed. Part 2 — Prompt Caching and Chat Memory: Where the Tokens Go (Drivers #3–#5) This part covers limiting response length, bounding how much conve

A few weeks ago I wrote about the WordPress Abilities API — what it is, why WordPress 6.9 shipped it, and what it means for how plugins will talk to each other and to AI agents going forward. That post was theory. This one is the part where theory meets a composer.json file and a stubborn bug at 1 AM. This is the story of building AbilityGuard — a plugin that monitors Abilities API usage in production, so you actually know what's happening when abilities get registered, called, and (occasionally) abused. 👀 Why monitoring, and why now Here's the thing about the Abilities API that got me nervous the first time I really understood it: it's a capability surface . Any plugin can register an ability. Any authorized caller — a human-triggered action, an automation, or increasingly, an AI agent — can invoke one. That's the whole point of the API, and it's genuinely exciting. But it also means your site now has a growing list of "things that can be done to it programmatically," and most WordPress admins have zero visibility into that list. I've spent enough years debugging WordPress sites in production to know what happens when you can't see something: you find out about it during an incident, not before. Slow queries, rogue cron jobs, plugin conflicts — they all follow the same pattern. Nobody notices the small thing until the small thing becomes the outage. So the idea for AbilityGuard was simple: give site owners a dashboard and a log for every ability registered on their site, every time one gets called, and by whom. Not another abstract "security scanner" — just honest, readable visibility into a part of WordPress that's brand new and mostly invisible right now. 🔌 Where I started: hooking into the registry, not fighting it The Abilities API exposes a central registry ( wp_get_ability_registry() under the hood, with helper functions layered on top). My first instinct was to intercept ability calls by wrapping core functions — and I killed that idea within the hour. Wrapp

Yesterday, pgvector released 0.8.6! So today, we wrote about some useful patterns for queries combining pgvector indexes with regular 'ole scaler filters. Spoiler: iterative index scans launched in pgvector 0.8 make it easy (with some tradeoffs). submitted by /u/winsletts [link] [留言]

Commonwealth Fusion Systems raised $1 billion as the startup moves toward its first commercial fusion power plant.

The SkyNomad N90 Max is the latest electric SUV from Xiaomi and its first extended-range EV, with a claimed range of over 1,705 km (about 1,059 miles). It will come in both five- and seven-seat configurations, as well as an N90 Max Camping Edition. One of the big features of the N90 is its highly […]