标签：#us

For a decade the advice was simple: put everything in the cloud and never look back. In 2026 that consensus is cracking. A Barclays survey found 83% of enterprises plan to repatriate at least some workloads from public cloud to private infrastructure, and IDC puts the share expecting to move compute or storage within the year near 80%. The most-cited example is still 37signals, the team behind Basecamp, who left the public cloud and reported saving roughly $7 million over five years. It is tempting to read those numbers as "cloud was a mistake." It was not. The cloud is still the right home for spiky, unpredictable, early-stage workloads where you are buying speed and optionality. What changed is that a lot of companies have now run the same steady, predictable workload on rented hardware for years, paying a premium for flexibility they stopped using. Repatriation is not a reversal of cloud strategy. It is the correction that comes after the bill gets big enough to read carefully. The question worth answering is not "should we leave the cloud" but "which specific workloads no longer earn their cloud premium," and that is a question you can answer with numbers. What is actually driving the move Cost is the headline, and it is real. Organizations that repatriate the right workloads commonly report 30 to 60% lower infrastructure spend for those workloads, because on-demand cloud pricing carries a large convenience margin that only makes sense when your usage is genuinely variable. Run a database at a steady 60% utilization every day for three years and you are paying a premium for elasticity you never touch. But cost is not the only force. Just over half of organizations name data security and privacy as a top driver, and in Europe the regulatory pressure is sharper than the cost case. Frameworks like DORA are already enforceable, and regulators increasingly want evidence of control over where data physically lives, not just a contractual promise from a hyperscaler. Fo

A recent paper argues that AI is often better at doctoring than doctors. Guess who isn't thrilled.

Uber’s GitFarm provides Git operations as a centralized service, eliminating local repository clones across large scale monorepo workloads. The platform uses prewarmed checkouts, ephemeral sandboxes, repository synchronization, and gRPC streaming to reduce resource consumption and startup latency for automation services operating across thousands of repositories. By Leela Kumili

GitHub热门项目 | Scalable CLI | Stars: 427 | 20 stars today | 语言: Rust

I joined DEV in June and started doing what I have been avoiding for a long time. Now and then, I hit...

Nuance is the thing that gets you levelled up, and hedging is the thing that gets you levelled down. They sound almost identical from the outside, and the difference is entirely structural. Ask a junior engineer whether to use SQL or NoSQL and you get an answer. Ask a senior engineer and you often get "well, it depends", which is correct, and delivered badly it costs them the round. The problem is not the nuance. It is the order. Hedging leads with the uncertainty and never arrives at a decision. Judgement leads with the decision and then shows the uncertainty around it. Same knowledge, opposite impression. Why hedging reads badly An interviewer is trying to answer one question: would I trust this person to make a call without me in the room. A candidate who lists options without choosing has actively failed to demonstrate the thing being assessed, no matter how well they understand the options. There is a second, less obvious cost. Refusing to commit removes the interviewer's ability to go deeper. They cannot probe a decision you did not make, so the conversation stays shallow, and shallow conversations produce mid-level scores by default. A candidate who says it depends and stops has told the interviewer nothing except that they know it is complicated. Everyone at this level knows it is complicated. The four-part structure This works for almost any technical choice you will be asked about, and it takes about twenty seconds to deliver. Commit. Name what you would actually ship. One sentence, no preamble. Justify. Give the specific reason, tied to the constraints in the question rather than to general virtue. Cost. Say what you are giving up. Every choice loses something and naming it is the seniority signal. Trigger. State the condition that would change your mind, and ideally what you would watch for it. Notice that all the nuance from "it depends" is present. It is simply arranged behind a decision instead of in place of one. Would you use a relational database o

I am from Rajasthan(State), but because of my job, I am currently living far away from my home and...

The company is testing robots that can swap cables, reset servers, and take on other tasks performed by technicians, fueling concerns among some workers that their jobs could be at risk.

If you run ClickHouse in production, you're probably on 26.3 LTS. And now 26.8 LTS has been announced, which means the LTS-to-LTS upgrade conversation starts again. Here's the thing most release posts skip: this is not a one-release hop. Going from 26.3 LTS to 26.8 LTS means crossing 26.4, 26.5, 26.6 and 26.7 as well. Every breaking change in those four releases applies to you, and some of the ones most likely to ruin your day aren't in 26.8 at all. So instead of writing another "here are the 26.8 features" post, I wanted to write the thing I'd actually want before scheduling this upgrade: what breaks, what silently changes, what order to do things in, and what you get for the trouble. A note on release timing As of writing (27 August 2026), 26.8 has been announced but is not fully released yet. The release branch is cut and versioned (v26.8.1.1-lts), but the tag and Docker images have not been published yet, and the upstream changelog still marks the 26.8 section as in progress. By the time you read this, the tag has probably landed. Check for yourself: curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/master/utils/list-versions/version_date.tsv \ | awk -F '\t' '$1 ~ /^v26\.8\./ {print "26.8 is released - newest: " $1 " (" $2 ")"; f=1; exit} END {if (!f) print "26.8 not released yet"}' version_date.tsv is the list ClickHouse maintains of every released version and its date, so this is the most direct answer available - no auth, no rate limit, nothing to download. As of writing it prints 26.8 not released yet . Worth knowing: the Docker image will lag whatever that command tells you. The Docker Official Images repo trails the GitHub tags by a few patch versions - clickhouse:lts currently resolves to 26.3.20.7 even though 26.3.24.4 has already shipped. So don't treat a missing image as evidence the release hasn't happened. Either way, the timing works in your favour. Historically ClickHouse LTS releases pick up several patch releases quickly - 26.7 had

I’ve been working on a desktop utility called Ripper, a Python + CustomTkinter app that downloads video and audio from supported sites (starting with YouTube). The app itself has been a bit rough to build and maintain — but distributing it has been the annoying part. GitHub won’t host my repository, let alone the EXE, due to there size and I don’t want to rely on sketchy file hosts or temporary mirrors. So I finally figured out a temporary setup that’s stable and easy for users to follow. This post explains the distribution workflow and why I’m using it. Why I’m Using this Approach The EXE and source code are too large to push to GitHub, even when the ffmpeg EXE is zipped, and one of my main goals is that I don't want the user to have to hassle with getting ffmpeg. So, I set up a public Google Drive folder where users can get the zipped EXE file and use the app right away. But I want to emphasize that there’s nothing malicious. Google Drive Hosts the EXE Google Drive ended up being the simplest reliable host. It gives me: A clean public link No ads No expiration No weird redirects Instant updates when I replace the file Here’s the current download link: Download Ripper (Google Drive) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w6rMgCAcSEteAssXIGJmYHrtyPHY99tC/view This is the only official download source. GitHub Pages Hosts Everything Else Since GitHub Pages can host static content, I built a simple project page that contains: https://codebunny20.github.io/ The official download link Feature list Tech stack Build instructions Planned features Version notes Development updates This page is now the “home base” for Ripper. Any time I push a new version, I update the Google Drive file and update the GitHub Pages site with the new version info. It keeps everything centralized without relying on GitHub Releases. Why This Setup Works Better It’s not fancy — but it’s reliable. I can update the EXE instantly I can update the GitHub Pages site just as fast Users always have one clean,

Yesterday, I published a post titled "My Book 'AI, Ego & Regret' Paperback Is Live. Kindle Is...

Intro There's a pitch behind every AI coding assistant: it makes you faster. Fewer keystrokes, less boilerplate, more shipped features per sprint. The pitch is half true. What it leaves out is the gap between a tutorial demo and a real codebase under real pressure. In a demo, every suggestion is correct because the demo was built to make the suggestion look correct. In production, the assistant doesn't know your architecture, your team's conventions, or the ticket you're actually trying to close. It just knows what tends to come next in code that looks like yours. That gap is where the noise lives. The instant-accept trap Say a developer is mid-flow, wiring up a new endpoint. The assistant suggests a validation helper that looks reasonable, so they hit tab. It compiles, tests pass, they move on. Three weeks later a teammate finds two nearly identical validation helpers in the codebase: one written by a human eight months ago, one autocompleted last sprint. Nobody meant to duplicate logic. The suggestion was locally correct and globally redundant, and nothing about "correct code that compiles" caught that. (This is an illustrative scenario, not a specific incident, but most teams running Copilot or similar tools for more than a few months will recognize the shape of it.) Architecture creep, one suggestion at a time No single autocompleted line breaks your architecture. That's exactly the problem. An assistant trained on generic patterns will happily suggest a new abstraction, a new dependency, a new way of doing something you already do three other ways elsewhere in the codebase, because it has no visibility into "elsewhere." Accept enough of these one at a time and the codebase drifts into a dozen small dialects of the same idea, none of them wrong in isolation. The review tax The real cost isn't the code that's obviously bad, that gets caught. It's the code that's plausible enough to pass a quick glance and wrong enough to need real review time later. If you accept

Hey everyone! I bring you my development journey on what I have discovered, accomplishments for this...

👋👋👋👋 Looking back on your week -- what was something you're proud of? All wins count -- big or small...

July wasn’t a particularly pleasant month for me. I was affected by the restructuring of the company...

In remote software demos, the biggest problem is not always the product itself. Sometimes the audience simply doesn’t know where to look. A button may be visible. A setting may already be on screen. The presenter may be explaining everything correctly. But if attention isn’t directed clearly, people can still get lost. After doing a lot of screen sharing and software demos, I kept noticing the same small UX problems. 1. The cursor is visible, but not necessarily noticeable When you're presenting your own screen, you always know where your pointer is. The audience doesn’t. On a large monitor, a compressed video call, or a busy application UI, the pointer can easily disappear visually even though it is technically visible. This becomes especially obvious when you say something like: “If you look over here…” You know exactly what “here” means. The audience may need another second or two to find it. That delay sounds minor, but during a demo it can happen again and again. A presenter moves on to the next step while part of the audience is still trying to locate the previous one. 2. Moving the pointer is not the same as directing attention A common workaround is to move the mouse around whatever you want people to notice. I’ve done this many times myself. Circle the button with the cursor. Move back and forth over a chart. Quickly point between two settings. It works, but it also adds visual noise. Eventually I realized there are really two different actions happening: Navigation — using the mouse to operate the software. Attention — telling the audience where to look. During a demo, those aren’t always the same thing. Sometimes I don’t want to click anything or change the interface. I just want to say: Look here. 3. Highlighting something can interrupt the demo There are plenty of powerful screen annotation tools available. They make sense when you want to draw arrows, write notes, add shapes, or explain something in detail. But during a live product demo, switching int

Last post, I said "the book is under review." Now the paperback is live. The Kindle edition is...

Standardized driver interface aims to let devices talk to AI and each other.

The JVM ecosystem offers a wide range of powerful frameworks, each with its own strengths and capabilities. In a modern distributed architecture, however, applications are not always built using the same framework. Services developed with frameworks such as Quarkus, Micronaut, and Spring Boot may need to communicate seamlessly as part of the same system. This guide demonstrates how RabbitMQ can enable cross-framework asynchronous communication between JVM applications. We will build two applications using different frameworks: a Quarkus application that publishes LeaveRequest messages and a Micronaut application that consumes and processes them. The first application, built with Quarkus, publishes a LeaveRequest object as a message to RabbitMQ. The second application, built with Micronaut, receives the LeaveRequest message and processes it according to the application's business logic. By the end of this guide, you will have a practical understanding of how two applications built with different Java frameworks can communicate asynchronously using RabbitMQ. Lets begin the journey To ensure that both applications use a consistent message contract, create a separate Gradle project named common. This project will contain the shared LeaveRequest model and can be referenced as a dependency by both the Quarkus and Micronaut applications. @Introspected @Serdeable public record LeaveRequest ( String personName , String personRole , String facilityName , String wardName , String shiftName , String leaveReason , String recipientName , String recipientEmail , String recipient , String subject ) {} The dependency on the common project will be dependencies { annotationProcessor ( "io.micronaut:micronaut-inject-java:5.1.12" ) implementation ( "io.micronaut.serde:micronaut-serde-jackson:3.1.1" ) } The @Introspected and @Serdeable annotations enable Micronaut to generate the metadata required for efficient introspection and serialization. Connecting Quarkus to RabbitMQ To connect th

This week on “Uncanny Valley,” senior writer Will Knight talks his recent visit to China and the future of AI collaboration.