标签：#time

"We can quash the subpoenas, or you could withdraw the subpoenas,” judge told US.

Overview Open WebUI exposed a real Ota lifecycle boundary. This was not mainly a parsing or contract-shape repo. The contract was already strong enough to model: source-checkout verification packaged native runtime through uv run open-webui serve frontend development runtime default Docker Compose runtime What the repo exposed was operational truth after proof: a successful native proof still left a host workload alive the first cleanup fix then widened too far and treated a Compose-owned runtime as the same class of host workload That made Open WebUI a valuable pressure repo. It forced Ota to get more precise about cleanup ownership instead of treating all successful runtime proof as one generic teardown problem. The current pressure contract pins released Ota v1.6.24 . Its latest green matrix run proves the release surface at the exact contract and workflow revision linked below. What Open WebUI exposed in Ota This repo exposed four meaningful weaknesses. 1. proof success was weaker than it looked The first issue was not that runtime proof failed. It was that runtime proof succeeded and still left the native workload alive afterward. In this repo, the packaged native workflow launches: serve:native : launch : kind : command exe : uv args : - run - open-webui - serve - --host - 0.0.0.0 - --port - " 8080" Ota proved that workflow, but the launched process tree was still alive after proof completed. In GitHub Actions, that surfaced through setup-uv post-job cleanup, which blocked while the uv cache was still in use. That was an Ota gap. If proof succeeds but leaves behind repo-owned runtime state that later breaks CI cleanup, the proof surface is still incomplete. 2. native service cleanup widened past its real ownership boundary The first core fix made Ota clean selected native service workloads after successful proof. That was directionally correct, but Open WebUI immediately exposed the next boundary. The Docker workflow uses a native task shape to launch Compose:

Originally published on tamiz.pro . Real-time systems are at the heart of modern interactive applications, from chat platforms to collaborative editing tools and financial dashboards. Delivering a seamless, low-latency experience while ensuring high availability and fault tolerance presents significant architectural challenges. This deep-dive explores how WebSockets, for persistent client-server communication, and Redis, for state management and pub/sub, can be combined with strategic design patterns to build resilient real-time systems. The Core Challenge of Real-Time Resilience The primary challenge in real-time systems is maintaining continuous connectivity and data flow despite inevitable network issues, server failures, or application restarts. A single point of failure can disrupt numerous active user sessions, leading to a poor user experience. Resilience, in this context, means the system's ability to recover gracefully from failures and continue operating, even if in a degraded state. WebSockets: The Foundation for Real-Time Communication WebSockets provide a full-duplex communication channel over a single TCP connection, enabling persistent, low-latency message exchange between client and server. Unlike traditional HTTP requests, WebSockets keep the connection open, eliminating the overhead of connection setup for each message. However, managing a large number of concurrent WebSocket connections and ensuring their availability across a distributed system requires careful design. WebSocket Server Scalability and Load Balancing Directly load balancing WebSocket connections using standard HTTP load balancers can be tricky because WebSockets are long-lived. Sticky sessions are often employed to ensure a client consistently connects to the same backend server. While this works, it can lead to uneven server load and complicates server replacement during failures. A more robust approach involves a dedicated WebSocket gateway layer that can manage connections and

The Problem Sports scoring sounds simple. One team scores a point, the number goes up, everyone sees it. But when you build it as a web application that needs to work on courtside tablets, spectator phones, and wall mounted displays simultaneously, with voice commands and tap controls, the architecture becomes more interesting. The project was Scoring AI, a voice enabled match scoring application for sports courts. Players start a match, share a link, and control the scoreboard from any device. The backend handles real time state synchronization, optimistic locking, idempotent score updates, rate limiting, and WebSocket broadcasting. The team was small. Me and a coworker who handled the CI/CD side. We were at the same level, both full stack, and we designed the system together. He focused on the deployment pipeline and infrastructure automation. I focused on the application layer, the real time system, and the frontend. But the architecture decisions were shared. This article covers the technical decisions we made and how patterns from previous projects influenced them. Why DynamoDB for Live Matches The match scoring data is different from the business data around it. A match lasts about an hour, gets updated frequently, and needs to be read by many viewers at once. After the match is complete, it is archived and rarely accessed. I had seen what happens when you put high frequency state updates into a relational database on a previous project. Row locks, contention, connection pool exhaustion. For Scoring AI, we used DynamoDB for the live match state and PostgreSQL for everything else. The hot path needed fast writes, optimistic locking, and automatic cleanup of abandoned matches. DynamoDB provides all of these. The version field on each match record acts as an optimistic lock. Every score update is a conditional write that checks the version has not changed. The cold path uses PostgreSQL through Kysely for user profiles, subscriptions, pricing plans, payment histor

Microsoft Corp. today released software updates to plug at least 570 security holes in its Windows operating systems and other software, almost triple the number of vulnerabilities the software giant fixed in its record-smashing Patch Tuesday release last month. Microsoft attributed the burgeoning patch counts to vulnerability discoveries aided by artificial intelligence.

LLM Evaluation System Prompts Scored Rubrics Runtime Guardrails: A Practical Guide for Production Learn how to evaluate LLM outputs in production using system prompts, scored rubrics, and runtime guardrails to prevent hallucinations and ensure quality. TL;DR: To evaluate LLM outputs in production, combine system prompts that define evaluation criteria, scored rubrics using LLM-as-a-judge for dimensions like correctness and relevance, and runtime guardrails that filter or flag unsafe outputs. This approach scales better than human review, adapts via prompt changes, and catches failures that status codes miss, as seen in the Air Canada chatbot case. Why Production LLM Evaluation Demands More Than Status Codes A 200 status code only confirms the server processed the request—it says nothing about whether the generated text is factual, safe, or useful. The Air Canada chatbot that invented a non-existent bereavement discount returned perfectly valid HTTP responses, yet the hallucinated policy led to a tribunal ruling against the airline. Production evaluation must therefore separate operational health (latency, error rates) from output quality (correctness, relevance, harmlessness). Consider a typical API call that succeeds operationally but fails qualitatively: import requests response = requests . post ( " https://api.example.com/v1/chat " , json = { " model " : " gpt-4o " , " messages " : [{ " role " : " user " , " content " : " What is Air Canada ' s bereavement policy? " }]}, headers = { " Authorization " : " Bearer $KEY " } ) print ( response . status_code ) # 200 print ( response . json ()[ " choices " ][ 0 ][ " message " ][ " content " ]) # Output: "Air Canada offers full refunds for bereavement-related cancellations..." A 200 status code and a well-formed JSON body mask a completely fabricated policy. To catch this, you need a separate evaluation layer that scores the output against a rubric. LLM-as-a-judge is a common approach, using a second model to assess the

Everyone who has ever been right about something loud enough to remember it will tell you they called it. The screenshot arrives after the match, after the candle, after the election. And there is no way to know whether it was written on Monday or edited on Friday. This is the quiet rot at the center of most "track records": a prediction you cannot date is not a prediction at all. It is a memory with good lighting. The technical name for the problem is look-ahead . If a forecast can be created, tweaked, or cherry-picked after the outcome is known, then it carries zero information about skill. The only fix is to make the timing of a prediction independently checkable вАФ to prove a document existed in a specific form before a specific moment, without asking anyone to trust you, your server clock, or your database. That is precisely what OpenTimestamps does, using the Bitcoin blockchain as a shared, tamper-evident clock. Why timing is the whole game A forecast is a bet against the future. Its value comes entirely from the fact that the future was unknown when the forecast was fixed. The instant you allow post-hoc editing, every desirable property collapses: calibration becomes meaningless, Brier scores become fiction, and "I predicted this" becomes unfalsifiable. So an honest forecasting system needs one hard guarantee before anything else: this exact text existed at this exact time, and has not changed since. Note what that guarantee does not require. It does not require publishing the forecast publicly in advance (you might want it sealed). It does not require a notary, a lawyer, or a trusted timestamping company that could be subpoenaed, hacked, or simply go out of business. It requires a clock that nobody controls and nobody can wind backward. What "proof of existence" actually means The building block is a cryptographic hash вАФ typically SHA-256. Feed any file into it and you get a 64-character fingerprint. Change a single comma and the fingerprint changes compl

The Quest shipwreck is in worse shape than expected, but it has turned into a thriving marine ecosystem.

In this article, I describe the challenges and the design of a React Native real-time mobile beat-aligned playback system for iOS and Android. The system combines personalization with low-latency, and seamless navigation and was the result of careful analysis and experimentation to address strict mobile and network constraints as well as meet user expectations. By Vladyslav Melnychenko

“You can make a living, you can have a life, and leave 55,000 emails unread with a big fuck off.”

Node.js 26 has been released, featuring the Temporal API enabled by default, an updated V8 engine to version 14.6, and the Undici HTTP client upgraded to 8.0. The release also removes deprecated legacy APIs. Developers should note migration points related to NODE_MODULE_VERSION changes. Node.js 26 is current for six months before entering long-term support. By Daniel Curtis

TV Time, the popular TV-tracking app, is shutting down on July 15 as parent company Whip Media pivots toward enterprise AI products.

We’ve all been there: waking up feeling like a zombie despite getting eight hours of sleep. While wearables give us data, they often fail to give us foresight . What if you could predict your stress levels 24 hours in advance? 🚀 In this tutorial, we are going to tackle HRV prediction (Heart Rate Variability) using a state-of-the-art Temporal Convolutional Network (TCN) . By leveraging the Oura Ring API and deep learning, we’ll transform non-stationary biometric time series into actionable insights. Whether you're into time series forecasting or building the next big health-tech app, mastering Temporal Convolutional Networks (TCN) is a game-changer for handling long-term dependencies without the vanishing gradient headaches of traditional RNNs. For those looking for more production-ready examples and advanced biometric signal processing patterns, I highly recommend checking out the deep-dives at WellAlly Blog , which served as a major inspiration for this architecture. The Architecture: Why TCN? Traditional LSTMs are great, but they process data sequentially, making them slow and prone to memory loss over long sequences. TCNs, however, use Dilated Causal Convolutions , allowing the model to look back exponentially further into the past with fewer layers. Data Flow Overview graph TD A[Oura Cloud API] -->|Raw JSON| B(Pandas Preprocessing) B -->|Cleaned HRV/Activity| C{Feature Engineering} C -->|Sliding Windows| D[TCN Model Training] D -->|Dilated Convolutions| E[Stress Trend Prediction] E -->|24h Forecast| F[Dashboard/Alerts] style D fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px Prerequisites To follow along, you'll need: Tech Stack : Python, TensorFlow/Keras, Pandas, Scikit-learn. Data : An Oura Cloud Personal Access Token (or use the mock data generator provided). Difficulty : Advanced (Buckle up! 🏎️). Step 1: Fetching Biometric Data First, we need to pull our "Readiness" and "Sleep" data. Oura provides high-resolution HRV samples (usually 5-minute intervals during sleep).

Doomscrolling on social media is a very common problem and can feel like an endless loop of constantly losing track of time. Instead of tackling this issue with strict limits, a new mindful screen time app called Mivo Scrolling is trying to shake things up. Launched last month, Mivo doesn’t look super different from other […]

The average knowledge worker switches between apps 1,200 times per day, according to a 2024 Harvard Business Review analysis. Each switch is small. The cumulative cost is not. For freelancers managing their own tool stack, the problem is both a productivity drain and a billing leak. What the Research Actually Says The most cited figure comes from Gloria Mark at the University of California, Irvine: it takes an average of 23 minutes and 15 seconds to fully refocus after an interruption. That number gets quoted a lot, but the context matters. Not every app switch is a full context switch. Checking Slack for two seconds is different from switching from deep coding work to a client call. A more useful framing comes from the American Psychological Association, which distinguishes between task switching (changing what you are working on) and tool switching (changing which app you are using for the same task). Both have costs, but tool switching is uniquely wasteful because it does not change the work -- only the interface. You are still working on the same problem but spending cognitive effort navigating a different app. For freelancers, the most expensive switches are the ones between a task manager and a time tracker, between a calendar and a task list, and between a project view and a communication tool. These happen multiple times per hour during active work, and each one breaks the low-level focus that produces billable output. How to Audit Your Current Tool Stack Before consolidating tools, figure out what you actually use. For one week, keep a simple log: every time you open an app to do work (not social media or entertainment), note it. At the end of the week, tally the list. Most freelancers find they use 6-10 tools daily. The typical list looks something like this: Task manager (Todoist, Asana, Notion) Time tracker (Toggl, Clockify, Harvest) Calendar (Google Calendar, Outlook) Communication (Slack, email) File storage (Google Drive, Dropbox) Invoicing (FreshBook

Microsoft today released software updates to plug nearly 200 security holes across its Windows operating systems and supported software, a record number of fixes for the company's monthly Patch Tuesday cycle. Nearly three dozen of those bugs earned Microsoft's most dire "critical" rating, and exploit code for at least three of the weaknesses is now publicly available.

In [1], the authors present a method for constructing a symbolic (nominal) representation for real-valued time series data. A symbolic representation is desirable because then it becomes possible to use many of the effective algorithms that require symbolic representation, like hashing and Markov models. The authors claim that one of the most useful time series operations is measuring the similarity between two time series data sets. To do this on the original time series, the Euclidean distance formula can be used. Therefore, for a time series transformation to be useful, distance measures applied to the corresponding transformations should provide some guaranteed lower bound on the true distance. This is a basic requirement for almost all time series algorithms in data mining. Non-symbolic transformations like Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) and Piecewise Aggregate Approximation (PAA) models have this lower-bounding property. However, the authors claim no previously proposed symbolic representations do, which limits their usefulness. Additionally, the authors observe that most raw time series data sets have very high dimensionality. This is problematic because time series mining algorithms are $\mathcal{O}(cn)$, where n is the number of dimensions. Therefore, preferably any transformations on the original time series will reduce the dimensionality to a more manageable size. Unfortunately, the authors observe, previously proposed symbolic representations preserve the original time series dimensionality. Next, the authors present their symbolic representation, SAX (Symbolic Aggregate approXimation), which addresses each of the previously mentioned shortcomings of symbolic representations. SAX is unique in that it uses an intermediate transformation, PAA, and then nominalizes the PAA representation into a sequence of characters'a string. By using the intermediate PAA representation, SAX enjoys two benefits: It is able to exploit the dimensionality reducing propertie

The writer and anti-bullying activist is on social media, but to protect her nervous system, she prefers not to be alerted.

Harness Base Definition: The Control System Outside the Model Previously, we split Agent into several minimal parts: Model: judge the next step Loop: keep the process moving Tools: interact with the real world State: keep the task connected At this point, a natural question appears: If Agent already has model, loop, tools, and state, why talk about Harness? An even easier confusion is: Is Harness a higher-level, smarter Agent that manages other Agents? That sounds plausible, but it bends the architecture in the wrong direction. Harness is not another Agent. It is not a larger prompt, and it is not a framework name. It is the control system outside the model. Continue with the same small CLI Agent: User says: help me figure out why this project's tests are failing, and fix it. If this CLI Agent is only a demo, it can be simple: send user input to model model says read file program reads file put result back into prompt model says edit file program edits file model says run tests program runs tests This chain can work once and already look like an Agent. But as soon as someone else really uses it, questions appear. What if the model wants to execute rm -rf ? What if it wants to read private files under the user's home directory? If it runs for ten minutes and the user interrupts, how is the working state saved? After a tool error, should the next model turn see the full log or only a summary? If the same task continues tomorrow, where does the session resume from? If a modification looks successful but no test verified it, how does the system know it is done? If a user says the Agent damaged a file, how do we reconstruct what happened? These questions do not belong to the model itself. They should not be left for the model to decide. The model only generates the next-step judgment from the current context. Permission, execution environment, session lifecycle, observability logs, verification criteria, and governance policy are engineering responsibilities outside the

PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY for Real-Time Multi-Tenant Events: Ditching Polling and WebSocket Complexity I've shipped real-time features in CitizenApp using three different approaches: naive polling (embarrassing), Redis pub/sub (overkill), and now PostgreSQL's native LISTEN/NOTIFY. The third option is what I should have started with. Most teams reach for Redis or RabbitMQ the moment they need real-time updates. It's the conventional wisdom. But here's the truth: if you're already running PostgreSQL, you have a battle-tested pub/sub system sitting right there. It handles multi-tenancy correctly, scales to thousands of concurrent connections, and eliminates an entire infrastructure dependency—which matters when you're deploying to Render or Vercel where every added service is friction. Why LISTEN/NOTIFY beats the alternatives Polling is dead. HTTP requests every 2-5 seconds for "new notifications"? That's technical debt masquerading as simplicity. It wastes bandwidth, kills your database with unnecessary queries, and users see stale data. Redis is powerful but expensive. Not just in dollars—in operational overhead. You need to manage connection pools, handle failover, monitor memory usage, and keep another service running in production. At CitizenApp's scale (thousands of concurrent tenants), we were paying $50/month for Redis on top of Render just to broadcast notifications that PostgreSQL could handle natively. WebSockets without a broker are a nightmare. If you're running multiple FastAPI workers (and you should be), a WebSocket connection to Worker A doesn't know about events published by Worker B. You need a message broker to fan-out events across processes. Unless you use PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY, which handles that automatically. PostgreSQL's pub/sub is: Transactional. Notifications only fire after a transaction commits. Tenant-aware. Use channel names like tenant_123_notifications and broadcast only to the right subscribers. Zero extra infrastructure. It's part