标签：#war

An updated government advisory warns that Iranian hackers are exploiting systems used by water and energy providers.

Hey Techie! 🌸 Welcome to my Go series! I'll be sharing what I'm learning in ways that make sense to me, the mistakes I make and the "aha!" moments that help everything click. Whether you're learning Go too or just curious about it, I hope you'll pick up something along the way. Feel free to add any insights or experiences in the comments. Today's topic is... drumroll, please! Slices . Let's dive in! So, what exactly is a slice? When I first came across slices in Go, I thought they were another name for arrays. Turns out, they're not! A slice is internally represented by a small data structure called a slice header . Instead of storing the elements themselves, the slice header stores a pointer to the underlying array, along with its length and capacity . This realization helped me understand why modifying a slice can also modify the original array. Another interesting and convenient thing is how flexible slices are compared to arrays which are fixed size. Slices can grow using functions like append() or be resliced to work with a smaller portion of the underlying array. This flexibility is one of the reasons slices are used so frequently in Go.

Angular apps can now run any agent, with the streaming, tool calls, and shared state already handled. Today we're releasing Angular support for CopilotKit , an open source client that brings any AG-UI agent into your Angular app. It's built with Angular's own patterns, standalone components, dependency injection and signals. You get the building blocks for agent-native apps in Angular: pre-built chat components or a fully headless setup, generative UI, shared state, human-in-the-loop, multimodal attachments, threads and more. Use the CLI to scaffold a full starter Angular app with a Google ADK agent. npx copilotkit@latest init --framework adk-angular Let's see how to set everything up, then go through each of the pieces and give your agent the context. Quickstart docs are on docs.copilotkit.ai/angular . Rainer Hahnekamp (Angular GDE, NgRx core) and Murat Sari helped build the integration and are now taking on its ongoing maintenance. How everything fits together Everything runs on Agent-User Interaction Protocol (AG-UI) , the open protocol that connects agents to user-facing apps. It streams an agent's entire lifecycle as events, the messages, the tool calls, the state changes, which is what keeps your Angular app and the agent in sync. That matters because the agent becomes a choice you can change. The runtime can point at a BuiltInAgent , LangGraph, Google ADK, Mastra, Pydantic AI, Claude Agents SDK or any framework that speaks AG-UI and your Angular code doesn't change. Here's the architecture. ┌──────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────┐ │ ANGULAR APP │ │ COPILOT RUNTIME (Node) │ │ │ │ │ │ provideCopilotKit() │ ─────► │ holds your model keys │ │ <copilot-chat /> │ AG-UI │ connects to your agent │ │ tools · context · state │ ◄───── │ streams events back │ └──────────────────────────┘ └──────────────┬───────────┘ │ ▼ ┌───────────────────────────┐ │ YOUR AGENT + MODEL │ │ LangGraph · ADK · Mastra │ │ OpenAI or a local model │ └─────────────────────────

Etched, founded by three Harvard dropouts, has created new chips and memory components that speed up inference on any AI model -- no GPUs required, it says.

New paper: “ Encryption and Globalization 15 Years Later: End-to-End Encryption and the Third Round of the ‘Going Dark’ Debate “: Abstract : This Article updates and expands on 2012 research on encryption and globalization, analyzing what the authors call “Round 3” of the Going Dark Debate: the current controversies over end-to-end encryption (E2EE). Governments around the world have proposed, and in some cases enacted, laws limiting E2EE for law enforcement and national security purposes. This Article explains the underlying technologies and market developments for a law and policy audience to assess those proposals critically. The Article proceeds in three parts tracking three rounds of the Going Dark Debate. Round 1 covers the Crypto Wars of the 1990s, when U.S. export controls on strong encryption ultimately fell in 1999. Round 2 covers the period roughly 2010 to 2015, when encryption-in-transit became widespread but lawful access remained available through cloud providers, giving rise to what the authors called a “golden age of surveillance” rather than a period of going dark. Round 3 addresses the current debate over E2EE, where no entity between sender and recipient can read the plaintext...

QCon AI New York 2026 (Dec 15-16) has opened registration at The Westin Jersey City Newport. Six tracks on production AI, chaired by Eder Ignatowicz with Faye Zhang and Wes Reisz. First sessions announced in August, full program by November. By Artenisa Chatziou

The next time you’re locked out of your Google account, you can use your face as part of the account recovery process.

Teams treat "externalize the rules" as two different decisions depending on the stack. In Node, it's "which npm package handles conditionals." In Java, it's "do we adopt Drools." Both framings are wrong in the same way — they turn an architecture decision into a product decision before anyone's actually designed the seam. The seam is the same regardless of language: rules become data instead of control flow, the boundary between your service and the rule layer is typed on both sides, and a contract test catches the moment a rule change would silently break what your code expects back. Get that seam right and it barely matters whether you're calling it from Express or Spring Boot. Get it wrong and you've just moved your if statements into a config file and called it progress. The seam: rules as data, not control flow The actual pattern is small. Instead of branching logic living inline in a handler or a service method, you define a typed input, a typed output, and a rule set that maps one to the other — evaluated somewhere the calling code doesn't need to know the internals of. That's it. That's the whole architectural move. Everything else — which engine, which language, how it's hosted — is an implementation detail on top of that seam. Most of the friction teams run into with a low-code layer in Node.js or a Java service isn't the rule engine choice. It's skipping the typed boundary and finding out three months later that a rule change silently returns a shape the calling code wasn't built to handle. Node.js: keeping the boundary typed Here's the seam in a TypeScript service. The route handler never sees a conditional — it sees a typed input going in and a typed decision coming out: interface PricingInput { userTier : " free " | " pro " | " enterprise " ; cartTotal : number ; couponCode ?: string ; } interface PricingDecision { discountPercent : number ; reason : string ; } async function evaluatePricingRule ( input : PricingInput ): Promise < PricingDecision > { c

Every morning, an online store receives the previous day’s orders from a marketplace partner. The file comes in JSON format. The company needs to add those orders to its main MongoDB orders collection. The sales manager also needs a CSV report that can be opened in Excel. That sounds like a small task. Import the file, copy the documents, export the report. But in practice, a few things can break the process. A date can be imported as a string. A field can have the wrong name. One batch may use total , while the main collection uses totalAmount . A temporary collection can keep old records and trigger duplicate key errors. A CSV export can create null values because the mapping points to fields that do not exist. And then there is customer data. The manager may need the sales numbers, but they probably do not need real customer names or internal customer IDs. This article walks through a real daily workflow: Import marketplace JSON ↓ Store the batch in a temporary MongoDB collection ↓ Copy the orders into the main orders collection ↓ Mask customer fields during export ↓ Create a CSV report The goal is not just to move data from JSON to CSV. The goal is to make the process repeatable, easier to check, and safer to share. The workflow The workflow has three jobs: Import Yesterday Orders ↓ Add Orders to Main ↓ Export Daily Sales Report The important part is the parent relationship between the jobs. Add Orders to Main depends on Import Yesterday Orders , so it only runs after the JSON file is imported successfully. Export Daily Sales Report depends on Add Orders to Main , so the CSV is created only after the main orders collection has been updated. This prevents the report from being generated when data is missing or incomplete. The incoming JSON file The partner sends a file with yesterday’s completed orders. A single order looks like this: { "orderId" : "ORD-2026-07-201" , "customerId" : "CUST-1003" , "customerName" : "Sofia Rossi" , "orderDate" : "2026-07-21T08:20:00

I love InertiaJS to the point where it's becoming a personality trait I tend to want to use it for everything, but adding Inertia to an existing Laravel API gets awkward fast. Same thing happens in the other direction: you start with a full Inertia frontend and then realize you want to expose some of that data as a public API too. The naive solutions are: Sprinkle if ($request->wantsJson()) into your controllers Maintain two separate routes that return the exact same data Neither feels right. So I made inertia-split Starting fresh with Inertia: serve both from the same controller class ProjectController extends Controller { use HasHybridResponses ; public function index () { return $this -> respond () -> component ( 'Projects/Index' , [ 'projects' => Project :: all (), ]); // Inertia request → renders the Svelte/Vue/React component // API request → returns JSON } } The controller doesn't check anything. Inertia requests get an Inertia response, API clients get JSON. Existing API? Don't touch it If you just want to make an existing API method Inertia-aware, one annotation is enough: #[InertiaComponent('Users/Show')] public function show ( User $user ): array { return [ 'user' => $user ]; } The method body stays exactly as it was. Inertia requests get the component rendered with your data as props. Everything else gets the same JSON as before. Methods without the annotation are completely unaffected. Wait, how does this even work? The package can out Inertia's ResponseFactory for its own in the service provider (opt-in): $this -> app -> singleton ( ResponseFactory :: class , HybridResponseFactory :: class ); // checks if it's an Inertia request and returns appropriate response Good old OOP. Thank you polymorphism. Wrap-up Whatever the direction of your problem, making Inertia and API endpoints use the same controller is a big win. You're still responsible for writing routes and wiring middlewares, but this should save a lot of time and effort. Still in beta, use accor

Shipped this week Workflows are now a first-class Bizbox primitive — PR #86 · v2026.603.0 The biggest drop this week. @DennisDenuto landed Workflows as a company-scoped concept that sits alongside issues and routines — not shoehorned into either. What that means in practice: Google ADK-backed execution — workflow pipelines run as ADK agents, with phase state persisted as run records. Human handoffs baked in — pipelines can pause and wait for a human before resuming. Deliverables that survive — artefacts from each run are persisted and surfaced in the UI. A pipeline graph in the UI — topologically ordered, showing live phase state and console output. This is the foundation. More on what we can build on top of it below. Workflow human-handoffs now route through ClickUp — PR #91 · v2026.605.0 The day after Workflows landed, @angelofallars wired up the last kilometre: when ADK Python code calls input() inside a pipeline, Bizbox now intercepts that call and sends a ClickUp message to collect the human reply — instead of blocking the process forever. A few things that were fixed along the way: input() monkey-patching now works consistently across Python environments (was silently failing in some setups). Failed workflow runs no longer submit deliverables. You only see artefacts from runs that actually completed. ClickUp awaiting-human bridge adapter ships as a pure plugin — PR #78 · v2026.601.0 This one technically crossed the line on the last day of May (23:56 UTC, 31 May), so it's in scope. @ralphbibera ported the ClickUp transport and adapter as a genuine plugin — implementing the AwaitingHumanBridgeAdapter registry interface — without touching bridge core at all. What that gives you: ClickUp works through the same provider-agnostic layer as any future provider (Slack, Discord, whatever comes next). The core doesn't know ClickUp exists. Included: send/poll/reaction transport, message templates for request_confirmation and ask_user_questions interactions, brain_is_think

After IBM's stock crashed last week on warnings of poor mainframe sales, the CEO explained that AI wrecked corporate hardware budget, temporarily.

Java is everywhere in backend systems, enterprise applications, and production environments. But when it comes to numerical computing, data manipulation, and scientific-style operations, Python's NumPy ecosystem has become the standard. I wanted a similar experience in Java: a lightweight, dependency-free library for working with multidimensional arrays and linear algebra. That idea became NumPy4J. What is NumPy4J? NumPy4J is an open-source numerical computing library for Java inspired by NumPy. It provides: Multidimensional arrays (NDArray) NumPy-style broadcasting Array creation utilities Reshaping and slicing Element-wise operations Linear algebra operations Example: NDArray A = NDArray . of ( new double []{ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 }, 2 , 2 ); NDArray B = NDArray . ones ( 2 , 2 ); NDArray C = A . add ( B ); Matrix operations: NDArray result = LinearAlgebra . matmul ( A , B ); Solving equations: NDArray x = LinearAlgebra.solve(A, b); Why build another numerical library? There are already excellent Java math libraries available. The goal of NumPy4J is different: Provide a NumPy-like API experience Make multidimensional arrays a first-class concept in Java Keep the API simple and approachable Create a foundation for future scientific computing features Testing approach To make sure behavior stays consistent, NumPy4J uses Python NumPy as a reference implementation. Test cases are generated with NumPy and validated against the Java implementation, covering: Broadcasting Matrix operations Reshaping Transpose Linear solving Element-wise calculations What's next? The roadmap includes: More NumPy-compatible operations Matrix decompositions (QR, LU, Cholesky) Eigenvalue computation More statistics functions Performance improvements Try it out If you work with Java and need NumPy-style numerical operations, I would love for you to try NumPy4J, provide feedback, and contribute ideas. GitHub: https://github.com/darius1973/numpy4j Documentation: https://darius1973.github.io/numpy4j/inde

First four compatible titles can be run with an 11-year-old graphics card.

The new feature lets users wirelessly transfer more data types from an iPhone without needing to download a separate app.

The long-held understanding among security researchers and network defenders is that it's impossible to negotiate in good faith with an extortion racket because there's no incentive for the other side to actually walk away.

If you've built even a simple AI agent, you've probably noticed that the "agent loop" itself is deceptively simple: the model gets a message, decides whether to call a tool, gets the result back, and repeats until it has an answer. But real-world agents need a lot more than that bare loop to actually work well. What happens when a conversation gets so long it blows past the model's context window? What if a tool call gets interrupted halfway through and leaves your message history in a broken state? What if you want the agent to keep a running todo list of what it's working on, or delegate parts of a task to a specialized sub-agent, or read and write files as part of its job? You could bolt all of this onto your agent manually. Or, if you're using Deep Agents, you get most of it for free through something called middleware . This post walks through what middleware actually is, why Deep Agents ships with a default stack of it, and how each piece behaves, with runnable code for each one so you can see it working instead of just reading about it. So What Is Middleware, Really? If you've done any web development, the term "middleware" probably already rings a bell. It's the same idea here. Middleware is code that sits around the core agent loop and gets a chance to run before or after certain things happen, like before a tool call executes, after the model responds, or right before messages are sent to the model. Instead of writing all of this logic directly inside your agent, you attach separate, independent pieces of middleware that each handle one specific concern. This matters for two reasons: You don't have to build common behaviors from scratch. Things like managing a todo list, summarizing long conversations, or handling file access are problems almost every non-trivial agent runs into. Deep Agents ships default middleware for these so you don't reinvent them every time. You can customize behavior without touching the agent's core logic. Need a custom summarizati

Most apps start their access control with something like this: function canEditReportsSummary ( role ) { return [ ' EDITOR ' , ' ADMIN ' ]. includes ( role ); } It works, right up until you have a dozen pages, each with a few sections, each needing independent read/write rules per role. Now you've got dozens of these little arrays scattered across the codebase, and adding a new role means hunting down every single one and hoping you didn't miss any. 0 There's a much simpler model that scales cleanly: a three-level permission tree — page → section → { r, w } - plus one generic function that walks it. No new library, no framework lock-in, just a data structure and ~5 lines of code. The shape of the data Instead of scattering role checks in code, define one permission tree per role . Three levels deep: Page — the top-level feature/route ( dashboard , reports , settings ) Section — a sub-area within that page ( overview , summary , billing ) Action — r (read) or w (write) { "dashboard" : { "overview" : { "r" : true , "w" : false }, "analytics" : { "r" : true , "w" : false } }, "reports" : { "summary" : { "r" : true , "w" : false }, "export" : { "r" : false , "w" : false } }, "settings" : { "general" : { "r" : true , "w" : false }, "billing" : { "r" : false , "w" : false } } } This one blob fully describes what a single role can see and do. Give each role its own tree, e.g. for three common roles: Page Section Viewer Editor Admin dashboard overview r r, w r, w dashboard analytics r r r, w reports summary r r, w r, w reports export – r r, w settings general r r r, w settings billing – – r, w Notice how this reads almost like a spreadsheet a product owner could fill in — that's the point. It's declarative data, not scattered if statements, so non-engineers can review it and engineers don't have to guess what a role does. The generic access-check function Once permissions are just nested objects, checking access is one small, reusable, framework-agnostic function: function

The most dangerous overengineering does not look careless. It looks thoughtful. It has clean interfaces, reusable components, configurable behavior, extension points, and an architecture diagram that makes the system appear ready for anything. Then the next feature arrives. A change that should take one afternoon touches seven layers, breaks three abstractions, and forces the team to understand a framework built for requirements that never appeared. That is what makes overengineering difficult to recognize. It rarely presents itself as unnecessary complexity. It presents itself as responsible engineering. It Usually Begins With a Reasonable Fear Developers do not overengineer because they want to make systems harder. They usually remember an earlier project that became painful. Maybe duplicated business logic spread across several screens. Maybe a component could not support a second use case. Maybe an integration became impossible to replace. Maybe a narrow implementation eventually required an expensive rewrite. The next time a similar problem appears, the team tries to protect itself. What if this feature grows? What if another team needs it? What if product asks for configuration? What if we add more providers? What if the rules change? These are reasonable questions. The problem begins when imagined requirements receive the same architectural weight as real ones. A single approval flow becomes a workflow engine. Two similar components become a universal rendering framework. One pricing exception becomes a configurable rules platform. The team tries to avoid future pain and creates immediate friction instead. The first use case now has to support requirements that do not exist. Developers must understand extension points nobody uses, configuration nobody needs, and interfaces protecting boundaries that have not appeared. Thinking about the future is not the mistake. Building the future before there is evidence is. Reuse Is Expensive Before the Pattern Is Stable

I honestly thought learning REST APIs would be easy. At first, creating a simple GET or POST endpoint feels straightforward and you start thinking, "I've got this." Then reality hits. Every API needs middleware, validation, error handling, controllers, database integration, authentication, authorization, testing, pagination, CORS, environment variables, deployment and a dozen other things. Somewhere along the way, you realize you didn't just sign up to build an API—you signed up to build an entire backend ecosystem. 😂💻