标签：#war

Apple is worried enough about supply shortages that it reported about $11.1 billion in inventory, which is almost double the $5.7 billion it reported last September.

The former OpenAI researcher’s fund was forced to unwind public equities after leveraged public bets plummeted. But he still has cards to play.

A memo obtained by WIRED, issued by the water utilities information sharing group WaterISAC, links dozens of cyberattacks against Minnesota water utilities to Tehran.

Satellites show burn scars and fires at AWS data centers and Saudi oil refinery.

"The real magic of a HashMap isn't that it stores data. It's that it knows where to start looking." In the previous article, we learned that a HashMap organises information around unique keys. Instead of searching every stored object one by one, it uses the key to retrieve information quickly. That naturally raises another question. "If millions of objects are stored inside a HashMap, how does it know where to begin?" Surely it isn't remembering the location of every object individually. The answer lies in one of the most important ideas in computer science: Hashing. Don't worry if the word sounds intimidating. Despite its name, the idea behind hashing is surprisingly simple. Imagine a Huge Apartment Building Suppose you're visiting a friend who lives in a building with 5,000 apartments. If nobody told you the apartment number, what would you do? Probably something like this. Apartment 1 ↓ Apartment 2 ↓ Apartment 3 ↓ ... ↓ Friend's Apartment That would take a long time. Now imagine your friend simply tells you: Apartment 1842 Suddenly, you don't search the building. You walk directly to Apartment 1842. The apartment number isn't your friend. It simply tells you where to begin. Hashing works in exactly the same way. Keys Need Locations Suppose our application stores customers. Customer ID → Customer 1001 → Alice 1002 → Bob 1003 → Charlie 1004 → David The system needs a way to answer one question. "Where should Customer 1002 be stored?" Searching every location first would defeat the purpose of using a HashMap. Instead, the system calculates where that key should go. Notice something important. It doesn't compare Customer 1002 against every other customer. It calculates a location directly. Think of a School Locker System Imagine a school with thousands of students. Every student receives a locker. Student ID ↓ Locker Number ↓ Locker Students don't spend every morning searching hundreds of lockers. Their Student ID determines where they should go. The locker number is

A new study estimates only 2,000 U.S. engineers have the expertise to deliver meaningful AI ROI, as enterprises race to hire forward-deployed engineers to implement AI at scale.

AI is an amplifier; strategic focus on the organizational system brings the greatest returns. DORA's 2025 research on AI in software development provides team profiles and success capabilities that can be used to put the research into practice. By Ben Linders

Many students graduate knowing how to code. Very few graduate knowing how to engineer software. That's the uncomfortable truth most Computer Science students discover only after facing their first real interview—or worse, after joining their first job. Every year, thousands of students complete coding challenges, solve hundreds of LeetCode problems, build flashy portfolio websites, and proudly call themselves software engineers. Yet many of them struggle when asked questions like: How would you design this system? Why did you choose this database? How would this application scale to one million users? What happens if the server crashes? How would you secure user data? Suddenly, writing code isn't enough. Because software engineering has never been just about writing code. The Biggest Misconception Many universities unknowingly teach students that success in software engineering equals learning programming languages. Students spend years learning: C C++ Java Python JavaScript Then they learn frameworks: React Node.js Express Spring Boot Django Eventually they believe: "I know React and Node.js. Therefore, I'm a software engineer." Unfortunately... That's only one piece of the puzzle. Programming is a tool. Software engineering is a discipline. Those two are related—but they are not the same thing. Coding Is Like Learning to Write Imagine someone learns English. They memorize grammar. They improve vocabulary. They know punctuation. Does that automatically make them a great author? No. Because writing books requires far more than knowing the language. Software engineering works exactly the same way. Programming languages are simply the language engineers use to communicate with computers. Engineering begins after the syntax ends. Software Is Built Long Before Anyone Writes Code Professional engineers don't immediately open VS Code and start typing. Instead they ask questions. Lots of questions. What problem are we solving? Who will use this product? What happens when t

A guide to python isolated logging with StayPresent's dedicated logger — no root logger mutation, what gets logged, and how to configure it. How StayPresent's Logging Works (Without Breaking Yours) A surprisingly common way for a third-party package to quietly break your application's logging is by calling logging.basicConfig() somewhere in its own code — which mutates the root logger and can silently change formatting, duplicate output, or override handlers you already configured for your own loggers. StayPresent avoids this entirely through python isolated logging : everything it logs goes through its own dedicated logger, never the root one. Table of Contents The Problem with logging.basicConfig() StayPresent's Dedicated Logger What Gets Logged, and at What Level Adjusting Verbosity Attaching Your Own Handler Logging During Multi-Bot Runs Logging During Shutdown Full Example Best Practices Common Mistakes FAQs Conclusion The Problem with logging.basicConfig() logging.basicConfig() configures the root logger, which every other logger in your process falls back to unless it's explicitly configured otherwise. If your bot calls it once at startup, and a dependency somewhere else in your stack calls it again, whichever call happens first usually "wins" silently — no error, just unexpected formatting or duplicate log lines that are hard to trace back to their cause. A well-behaved library avoids touching the root logger at all, and instead logs through its own named logger. StayPresent's Dedicated Logger StayPresent logs exclusively through a logger named "staypresent" , configured with a single dedicated StreamHandler and logger.propagate = False . It never calls logging.basicConfig() , and it never touches the root logger in any way. This means it cannot clobber, duplicate, or reformat log output your own script has already configured for its own, unrelated loggers — StayPresent's logs and your bot's logs coexist without interfering with each other. What Gets Logged,

AI takes the path of least resistance. That one characteristic explains most of what changed for me about architecting a system once an agent was in the loop. It is genuinely faster than I am on frameworks, patterns, and the standard way to wire something up . Since it has read more on them than I have. But "least resistance" means it optimizes for the thing in front of it, e.g., getting an endpoint to work or a test to pass. It cannot optimize for the shape the system needs for your use case because it does not know all details. You still own 100% of that part. Two ways least-resistance goes wrong Left alone, the path of least resistance breaks in two opposite directions. It cuts a corner to make the immediate thing work: collapses a boundary, hardcodes a value, skips the seam that would have let two pieces move independently later. And when you try to correct it, it will over-engineer and reach for patterns, layers, and abstractions you did not ask for and don't need yet. Both come from the same place: it is solving the prompt, not steering the architecture . Here is the version I lived with. My app is layered the usual way: an API layer, a service layer under it, a data-access layer under that, with clear rules about what each one is allowed to do. Database transactions belong in the service layer. The agent kept ignoring that. Commits I had scoped to the service layer kept turning up in the data layer, or up in the API. The worst one was a transaction that opened in the service layer and got committed two layers down. If left at simple prompts, it will run and deliver you something that works, but you'll find that along the way it has quietly broken the boundary and created a brittle system. Here is the flip side, from just the other day. I was working on a bug fix with the agent on its own branch off main. Mid-test, I hit a separate gap, related to the feature but not the bug, and asked the agent to fix that too. It sensibly put the gap on its own branch, but b

Building an AI Operating Layer Episode 1 Why I Didn't Start Sooner Most engineering projects begin with an idea. This one began with a question. For months I found myself watching the explosion of AI tools, frameworks, models, and agent platforms. Every week there seemed to be another breakthrough, another library, and another opinion about where everything was headed. I could have started building immediately. Part of me thought I should have. But I realized something, and it kept bothering me. I wasn't afraid of writing code. I was afraid of solving the wrong problem. When a new technology appears, it's easy to jump straight into implementation. Pick a framework. Choose a model. Build something. Ship it. I didn't want to start there because I had a feeling there was a much bigger picture that I wasn't seeing yet. So I waited. I spent my time reading, experimenting, asking questions, and trying to understand how all of these pieces connected. The more I learned, the more I realized I wasn't actually interested in building another AI application. What fascinated me was the system behind the systems. What happens when you stop looking at models, memory, orchestration, tools, policies, and execution as separate ideas and start seeing them as parts of a much larger ecosystem? That question became the beginning of this project. This isn't a story about predicting the future. It's a story about trying to understand it. I'm sure some of my assumptions will be wrong. I'm sure parts of this architecture will change. If they do, you'll see that too. I don't want this journal to only show the polished results. I want it to capture the discoveries, the wrong turns, the redesigns, and the moments where a better idea replaces an old one. At the center of this journey is a project I'm calling the AI Operating Layer. Today it's mostly architecture, documentation, research, prototypes, and a growing collection of ideas. Maybe that's exactly where projects like this should begin. I'

You correct someone once. Not perfectly, but they get it. Next time, they do not make the same mistake. That is not optimism. That is just how correction works, "with people". I worked with agents on that assumption for a long time before I even noticed I was doing it. The plan that never held Before I had a single written rule anywhere, I would open a new session and ask for a plan first. Resolve the edge cases before touching a line of code, I said. The agent would agree, in whatever way a chat window agrees, and go straight to implementation anyway. I corrected it. Same session, it adjusted. New session, next day, same repo, same everything except the chat history: straight to implementation again. Every single time! So I did what looked reasonable. I wrote the plan myself. I resolved the edge cases myself, the open questions, the gaps the agent skipped past on its way to code. ' Tedious ' is the polite word for it. I was doing the one task I brought the agent in to do, and calling it collaboration. The same recipe, again The second correction arrived the same way. Every repo had its own shape. A recipe, a standard, a way things were supposed to be built here and not there. I would explain it. Full session, good results, the agent following the standard like it understood the standard. New session. Same repo, sometimes the new repo. Explain it again. Word for word, close enough. It was not that the agent forgot how to code. It was that nothing from the last conversation traveled with it into this one. Nothing said in the chat survives it I kept treating this like a training problem. Say it clearer. Say it earlier. Say it with an example next time. None of that was wrong exactly. It was aimed at the wrong layer. The actual mistake was assuming correction compounds the way it does with a person. It does not. A person carries what you told them into the next conversation without being asked to. An agent starts the next session exactly where it started the first one.

AI home management startup Hint, co-founded by Martha Stewart, wants to become an “AI for your home,” combining property records, maintenance schedules, home documents, and an AI assistant into a single app.

"The best software engineers don't begin by choosing data structures. They begin by understanding what the system needs to do." In the previous article, we learned that data structures never stopped being important after DSA. Their role simply changed. During coding interviews, we often ask ourselves: "Which data structure will solve this problem efficiently?" In Low-Level Design, experienced engineers ask a different question: "What behaviour should this system optimise?" At first glance, these questions sound similar. In reality, they lead to completely different ways of thinking. This article is about understanding why behaviour—not implementation—is where every good design begins. Why Beginners Often Think About Data Structures Too Early Imagine someone asks you to design an online food delivery platform. Many beginners immediately start thinking: Should I use a HashMap? Will I need a Queue? Should I store everything in a Tree? Would a Graph be useful? These aren't bad questions. They're simply being asked too early. Before choosing any data structure, we need to understand what the system is actually expected to do. Software engineering isn't about selecting tools first. It's about understanding problems first. Every Software System Is Really a Collection of Behaviours Let's consider a food delivery application. From a user's perspective, it looks like this. Customer Places Order │ Restaurant Accepts │ Assign Delivery Partner │ Track Delivery │ Order Delivered It looks like one workflow. But an engineer sees something very different. Each step represents a different behaviour. Let's break them apart. Behaviour 1 — Retrieve Existing Information A customer opens an order they placed yesterday. Customer ↓ Order ID ↓ Retrieve Order The system already knows exactly which order it needs. The challenge is retrieving it quickly. Behaviour 2 — Choose the Best Candidate A restaurant has multiple delivery partners nearby. Available Drivers ↓ Choose Best Driver ↓ Assign Ri

With the Light Phone, Kaiwei Tang and Joe Hollier have spent over a decade exploring the value of simplicity in our relationship to technology, partnering along the way with players like Andrew Yang, Kendrick Lamar, and Pete Davidson. Now, with a new flip phone and a growing wave of “attention activists” pushing back against Big Tech, they think the rest of […]

The build method in Flutter widgets is synchronous. That means it doesn’t like to wait for anything. But sometimes, we need to wait for a value to arrive in order to display it. Let’s think of a simple weather app that displays only the temperature of a city. The app needs to make a request to the backend, get the temperature value, and finally display it. It will have to wait for a response from the backend, but as we discussed, the build method does not like to wait for anything. So how do we solve this issue? Enter: FutureBuilder . FutureBuilder takes a value of type Future and displays widgets until it is resolved. In fact, we can specify which widgets to display not only while loading but also when an error occurs. Let’s see how we can use FutureBuilder in a simple app. First, create an app in a directory of your choice: flutter create future_builder --platforms = macos You can choose whichever platform you want. Open the project in your preferred IDE, and navigate to lib/main.dart . Replace the entire content of the file with the following: import 'package:flutter/material.dart' ; void main () { runApp ( const MyApp ()); } class MyApp extends StatelessWidget { const MyApp ({ super . key }); @override Widget build ( BuildContext context ) { return MaterialApp ( home: const MyHomePage ()); } } class MyHomePage extends StatelessWidget { const MyHomePage ({ super . key }); Future < int > _getTemperature () async { await Future . delayed ( Duration ( seconds: 3 )); // Dummy delay of three seconds. return 25 ; } Future < int > _getTemperatureError () async { await Future . delayed ( Duration ( seconds: 3 )); throw Exception ( 'An error occurred while retrieving the temperature value.' ); } Future < int ? > _getTemperatureEmpty () async { await Future . delayed ( Duration ( seconds: 3 )); return null ; } @override Widget build ( BuildContext context ) { return Scaffold ( body: Center ( child: FutureBuilder ( future: _getTemperature (), builder: ( context , snapshot )

A pattern I’ve seen many times in software projects is that documentation starts too late and documents the wrong thing. A team ships a feature, the code works, the tests pass, and everyone moves on. Maybe someone adds a README section, maybe not. If they do, it usually explains how to run something, how to call an endpoint, or what a component does. That kind of documentation is useful, but it often misses the part future developers need most. It misses the decision. Six months later, someone opens the same part of the codebase and asks the usual questions. Why is this data model shaped like this? Why is this rule handled in the backend instead of the frontend? Why is this integration synchronous? Why does this permission check live here? Why did the team choose this simple approach instead of something more flexible? The code can show what exists, but it rarely explains why it exists. That is where a lot of engineering context disappears. The Problem Is Not Always Missing Documentation When people complain about documentation, the usual diagnosis is that there is not enough of it. The README is outdated. The setup instructions are incomplete. The API docs are missing examples. The architecture diagram no longer matches reality. All of those problems are real. But I think there is another documentation problem that is easier to miss: the docs describe the system without preserving the reasoning behind it. This matters because software is full of trade-offs. A piece of code may look strange because it was written badly, but it may also look strange because it was solving a constraint that is no longer visible. Maybe the team chose a simpler data model because they were still validating the product. Maybe they avoided a generic abstraction because they had only one real use case. Maybe they accepted duplication because the two workflows looked similar but were expected to diverge. Without the reasoning, future developers have to guess. That guessing creates waste. So

Microsoft’s Secure Boot has had a serious vulnerability for most of its existence. An industry-wide standard Microsoft invented to protect Windows, and later Linux, devices from firmware infections has been trivial to bypass for 13 of its 14 years of existence. The discovery was made by researchers at security firm ESET after identifying 11 firmware images, at least one from 2013, that were known to be defective but remained signed by the software company anyway. The images are known as shims , which were invented to extend Secure Boot to Linux devices and utility software. Using a technique simple enough to be performed by novice hackers, these old, forgotten shims can be used to completely circumvent the protection, which is embedded into the UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) of the device’s motherboard. The gaffe is the result of the failure by Microsoft, which oversees the signing of shims, to revoke the publicly available images once vulnerabilities were found in them...

As software developers, we often spend most of our time building APIs, databases, authentication systems, and web applications. That's certainly been my focus recently, especially working with Go, JWT authentication, and backend services. Last week, however, I had the opportunity to participate in the KijaniSpace Hackathon , held at Zone01 Kisumu , and it introduced me to an entirely different side of software development. Our challenge was to build solutions using: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) The Copernicus API IoT devices where applicable It was an opportunity to see how software can interact with our physical world. What is GIS? GIS (Geographic Information Systems) is a technology used to collect, analyze, visualize, and manage data that has a geographic location. Imagine not just storing information like: Temperature Population Vegetation Buildings Roads ...but also knowing exactly where that information exists on Earth. That location data allows developers to build intelligent systems capable of answering questions like: Which farms are experiencing drought? Which roads are likely to flood? Which areas are losing forest cover? Where should new infrastructure be built? GIS transforms ordinary data into meaningful geographic insights. Discovering the Copernicus Program Before this hackathon, I had heard very little about Copernicus. Copernicus is the European Union's Earth Observation Programme. It provides free satellite imagery and environmental data collected by the Sentinel satellite missions. Through its APIs, developers can access information about: Land cover Vegetation health Weather patterns Water bodies Air quality Climate changes Disaster monitoring What amazed me most is that much of this data is openly available for developers to build impactful applications. Where IoT Fits In Some teams also explored Internet of Things (IoT) solutions. IoT devices can collect real-world information through sensors measuring: Soil moisture Temperature Humidi

The call usually comes about eleven months in. Go-live happened, sort of. Finance is still closing the month in a spreadsheet, the warehouse team keeps a parallel notebook, and someone has quietly stopped using the CRM entirely. The system technically works. Nobody trusts it. Odoo rarely fails because Odoo is bad software. It fails because the implementation encoded somebody's misunderstanding of the business into 40 custom modules, and now every fix breaks two things. Panorama Consulting's 2026 ERP Report still puts cost overruns and schedule slippage among the most persistent problems across ERP projects of every size — and in our experience the overrun is almost never in licensing. It's in the rework. Here's the triage sequence we actually run when we inherit a broken deployment, in the order we run it. Step 1: Read the database before you read the code Skip the codebase for a day. Open PostgreSQL and ask the system what people are really doing. A few queries tell you more than a week of stakeholder interviews: Row counts per model over time. If crm.lead stopped growing in March, sales abandoned the module in March. Nobody will volunteer this in a meeting. ir.model.fields where state = 'manual' . Every field created through Studio or a quick patch. A healthy mid-size deployment has a few dozen. We've opened databases with 900. That number is a direct measure of how much undocumented business logic is floating outside version control. stock.quant versus what the warehouse counts. Any gap here means inventory valuation is wrong, which means the P&L is wrong, which is usually the real reason finance went back to Excel. ir_cron last-run timestamps and failure counts. Silently dead crons are behind a surprising share of "the system doesn't update" complaints. Direct SQL writes. Grep the custom modules for self.env.cr.execute with UPDATE or INSERT . Every one of those bypasses the ORM, so computed fields never recomputed and stored values are now lying to you. This ste