标签：#war

Enterprises are now talking about AI coding agents in a very predictable way. The first question is usually: "How much more code can it help us generate?" It is not a wrong question. But if that is the only question, the ROI calculation will probably be wrong. Because enterprises are not really buying "more code." They are buying: faster delivery less rework lower maintenance cost better developer experience more stable software quality more controllable security and compliance risk faster translation from product capability to business value Code generation is an input. It is not the outcome. That distinction matters. An AI coding agent can help developers write functions, fix bugs, add tests, generate documentation, understand codebases, and refactor legacy systems. That sounds powerful. But the enterprise question is not: "How many lines of code did it generate today?" The better question is: Did that code reach production faster? Did incidents go down? Did the team spend less time on repetitive work? Did customers get value sooner? If the answer is unclear, generating 100,000 lines of code a day may simply mean producing technical debt faster. The short version: AI coding agent ROI does not end inside the IDE Many teams start measuring AI coding tools with the most obvious numbers: code suggestion acceptance rate lines of code generated number of active users number of prompts time saved on individual tasks These metrics are useful. But they mostly show that the tool is being used. They do not prove that the enterprise is getting value. Enterprise ROI has to be measured across software delivery, quality, risk, and business outcomes. In other words, an AI coding agent is not just a point solution for individual efficiency. It affects the entire software value stream: Request -> Design -> Coding -> Review -> Testing -> Deployment -> Monitoring -> Feedback -> Business outcome If you calculate value only inside the "coding" box, you miss the bigger picture. Why "amo

A cybersecurity startup dangling millions of dollars to acquire zero-day security vulnerabilities in popular software is run by a pair of far-right conspiracy theorists and convicted felons whose most recent ventures included fake intelligence companies and a now-defunct AI-based lobbying platform they operated under assumed names.

A few years ago, securely accessing my servers at home or in a small office from outside was always a headache. Dynamic IP addresses, complex port forwarding settings in the modem interface, and even the need to open rules in the network firewall always presented me with a new problem. Especially outside of corporate projects, when setting up my side products or test environments, these processes caused a loss of time. Cloudflare Tunnel offered a game-changing solution for such self-hosted services. Essentially, a cloudflared daemon (tunnel client) on your local network establishes a single outbound connection to Cloudflare, eliminating the need to open any firewall holes for incoming connections. This model provides significant advantages over traditional methods in terms of both security and ease of use. Why Were Traditional Self-Hosting Methods Challenging? Exposing a self-hosted service to the internet typically brings multiple technical challenges. First, most home or office internet connections have dynamic IP addresses, meaning your IP address changes from time to time. In this case, to access your service via a fixed domain name, you need to resort to solutions like Dynamic DNS (DDNS), which adds an extra dependency and sometimes causes delays. Second, and perhaps most importantly, is the necessity of opening port forwarding rules in your network firewalls (modem/router firewall). This means you need to direct specific ports to your internal IP address to allow incoming connections. This process both increases security risks (internet-facing ports invite brute-force attacks) and causes access problems if not configured correctly. I once experienced a serious panic during a client project when I accidentally exposed a critical internal service port to the outside while dealing with these ports. Since that day, I approach such manual interventions with more skepticism. ℹ️ Port Forwarding Risks Every port you open in your network firewall creates a potential at

When analyzing supply chain data in a production ERP, the idea of sending critical information to a publicly accessible cloud-based LLM always bothered me. Processing sensitive data like proprietary production plans, customer lists, or financial details on third-party servers was an unacceptable risk for me. In such situations, the only way to ensure data security is to run the LLM in a local environment, under our own control. This is where Ollama comes in. Ollama is a tool that allows you to easily run large language models (LLMs) on your local system. This way, you can set up your own AI assistant without an internet connection and without the risk of leaking your data, securely automating your sensitive business processes. In this post, I will step-by-step explore why Ollama is important, how to install and use it, and the data security advantages it offers. Why Ollama is Important: Does it Provide Data Security and Control? The potential of LLMs in modern software development processes and operational workflows is huge, but the privacy and security of corporate data are always a primary concern. Especially in high-security environments like a bank's internal platform or in the financial calculators of my own side product, I need to process user data without sending it externally. In these scenarios, cloud-based LLM services often create a new risk factor rather than a solution. Ollama is designed to close this critical data security gap. By running models on your local machine, it prevents your data from leaving your company network or personal computer. This is a vital advantage, especially for those working in sectors subject to data protection regulations like GDPR and KVKK. Furthermore, because it doesn't require an internet connection, you can continue to benefit from LLM capabilities even in offline environments or during network outages. Since you have full control, you can manage from start to finish which model runs with which data, how much resource t

Software architecture debates have a problem that most other engineering disciplines don't: the alternative was never built. When a bridge fails, the failure is physical, attributable, and measurable against every other bridge that didn't. The engineering decisions that caused it can be isolated, traced, and corrected — not just in theory, but in the next bridge, because the material itself produces feedback that no amount of professional opinion can override. Steel deflects. Concrete cracks. Physics doesn't care what the architect believed. Software produces no equivalent feedback. A system built around the wrong abstractions compiles, runs, ships, and passes its tests just as readily as one built around the right ones. A bug introduced by a misaligned domain model looks identical, from the outside, to a bug introduced by a typo. A feature that took three times longer than it should have, because the structure made it harder than the business logic warranted, produces no artifact that distinguishes it from a feature that was simply difficult. The cost is real. The cause is invisible. This is the unfalsifiability problem, and it runs deeper than "we can't measure everything." It means that when a system becomes expensive to change, the diagnosis almost always lands on the wrong variable. The domain is complex. The requirements changed. The previous team was careless. Almost never: the structure was wrong, and the structure was wrong because nobody ever built the other version of it to compare against. That version doesn't exist, it never will, and every architectural argument in the industry is conducted in its absence. This would be a purely philosophical problem if there were nothing to do about it. There is something to do about it — but it requires accepting that the standard metric for software quality, whether it works, is measuring the wrong thing entirely. The Metric That Hides the Problem The natural substitute for "is this good engineering" is "does it wor

Why HDI PCB Manufacturing Starts Long Before the First Hole Is Drilled When people think about PCB manufacturing, they usually imagine drilling, plating, imaging, etching, solder mask, and surface finishing. For conventional PCBs, that assumption isn't too far from reality. For HDI (High Density Interconnect) PCBs, however, manufacturing actually begins long before any physical production starts. The success of an HDI project is often determined during engineering review rather than on the factory floor. Manufacturing Starts with Design Decisions A PCB layout may pass every design rule check inside CAD software while still being difficult to manufacture efficiently. Typical examples include: unnecessary stacked microvias excessive sequential lamination extremely aggressive trace and space dimensions unrealistic copper balancing inefficient stack-up planning None of these issues are fabrication defects. They are engineering decisions. The earlier they are identified, the lower the overall project cost becomes. The Stack-Up Is More Important Than Many Engineers Expect One of the biggest misconceptions is that increasing the layer count automatically solves routing problems. In reality, a carefully planned stack-up usually provides greater benefits than simply adding more copper layers. A good stack-up improves: signal integrity impedance consistency EMI performance power distribution thermal behavior More importantly, it creates a PCB that is easier to manufacture repeatedly with stable quality. HDI Is a Balance Between Performance and Manufacturability Many first-time HDI designs focus only on routing density. Experienced engineers usually focus on manufacturability. For example: Should this microvia really be stacked? Can staggered vias achieve the same result? Is another lamination cycle actually necessary? Can the BGA fan-out be optimized differently? Each decision influences fabrication complexity, yield, lead time, and production cost. Why DFM Matters More for H

Reading Lilian Weng's harness engineering survey as a reliability engineer — what self-improving harness papers actually show, and the three invariants every working loop converges on.

Most web applications contain at least one vulnerability from the OWASP Top 10. A typical security audit takes 2-3 weeks and costs upward of $10,000. An LLM can compress the initial audit down to a few hours because it scans code for patterns rather than specific CVEs. Below are 15 vulnerabilities found while auditing production code with Claude. Each includes the vulnerable code, the fixed version, and a prompt to reproduce the finding. Classification follows OWASP Top 10 (2021). Order reflects frequency of occurrence: most common first. Methodology: how to run an AI security audit The audit consists of three passes. First, a broad scan: the LLM receives the entire project and looks for vulnerability patterns. Second, deep analysis: each identified pattern is verified in context (middleware, ORM, framework). Third, verification: manual review of every finding, because LLMs produce false positives. Prompt for the broad scan: Perform a security audit of this code. For each finding, include: 1. CWE ID and name 2. OWASP Top 10 category 3. Severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low) 4. The vulnerable code snippet 5. Attack vector -- exactly how an attacker would exploit this 6. Fixed code Ignore stylistic comments. Focus on security only. Start with injection attacks, then broken access control, then the rest. This prompt works because it defines the output structure and prioritizes categories. Without explicit instructions, the LLM mixes critical vulnerabilities with remarks about email validation. More on structured AI code review: AI Code Review Checklist . A03:2021 -- Injection 1. SQL Injection via string concatenation The most common finding. Shows up even in projects using an ORM, because developers switch to raw queries for complex filters. Vulnerable code: // API endpoint for user search app . get ( ' /api/users ' , async ( req , res ) => { const { search , sortBy } = req . query ; const query = ` SELECT id, name, email FROM users WHERE name LIKE '% ${ search } %' ORDER

A lot of AI memory systems start with the same temptation: "Just save the useful thing." That sounds harmless until the knowledge base becomes a junk drawer. Half the notes are too specific, a few are duplicates, some are obsolete, and nobody knows which ones the agent should trust. In ai-assistant-dot-files , the memory system is deliberately slower. It uses a promotion lifecycle: Capture -> Candidate -> Audit -> Approve -> Index -> Retrieve -> Expire That lifecycle is documented in docs/runbooks/memory-engineering.md , and the important word is not "capture." It is "candidate." Nothing writes directly to memory The framework has a durable memory layer: Knowledge Items in shared/knowledge/ , ADRs in docs/adrs/ , the domain dictionary, team topology, a feature archive, and a registry at shared/memory-registry.json . But a lesson from a delivery does not jump straight into shared/knowledge/ . It first becomes a Candidate Record. That record has required fields: Source Type Evidence Tags Expiration condition Then memory-engineer audits it: Is it reusable? Is it already covered? Is it too speculative? Does it belong as a Knowledge Item, or should it become a rule change, prompt edit, or ADR instead? Only after that does a human approve the destination. The design is intentionally similar to code review. Durable memory changes future behavior, so they deserve a paper trail. Rejection is a feature One of my favorite parts of the memory runbook is that it has explicit rejection rules. Do not promote a memory when it is: a one-off already covered too speculative That makes "zero candidates promoted this cycle" a healthy result, not a failure. This is where memory engineering starts to look less like note-taking and more like gardening. The point is not to preserve every leaf. The point is to keep the soil useful. Expiration matters The lifecycle also includes expiration. A Knowledge Item can become stale when the underlying code, agent, or pattern changes. It can be supers

As much as 50 percent of some teams affected by reductions, and more could be coming.

Async route: vì sao Promise reject trong Express 4 không tới error middleware, và cách Fastify tự bắt lỗi Một async route handler trông giống một handler bình thường, nhưng cơ chế truyền lỗi của nó khác hẳn. Express 4 bọc lời gọi handler bằng try/catch đồng bộ; một hàm async return về một Promise trước khi Promise đó settle, nên try/catch đồng bộ không bắt được rejection. Kết quả: lỗi rơi ra khỏi handler dưới dạng unhandledRejection , không tới error middleware, không được gửi thành 500 JSON , và từ Node 15 mặc định làm process crash. Fastify đi hướng khác — pipeline hook tự await handler, rejection được framework bắt và chuyển tới setErrorHandler . Hiểu điểm khác biệt này giải thích vì sao cùng một dòng code await db.query(...) lại có hai hệ quả production hoàn toàn khác nhau giữa hai framework. Cơ chế hoạt động Trong Express 4, Layer.handle_request gọi handler đồng bộ trong một khối try/catch . Nếu handler ném exception đồng bộ, catch được, forward qua next(err) . Nhưng handler async không ném — nó return về một Promise. Đến khi Promise reject, control đã ra khỏi khối try/catch từ lâu: // Đây là bản giản lược của cách Express 4 gọi handler: try { const ret = handler ( req , res , next ) // với async handler, ret là Promise (đã pending) // handler đã "return" — try/catch không còn hiệu lực với reject xảy ra sau } catch ( err ) { next ( err ) // chỉ chạy khi handler ném đồng bộ } Vì Express 4 không await ret và cũng không ret.catch(next) , một Promise reject không có bên nào bắt. Node emit unhandledRejection ở tầng process. Cách sửa chuẩn là wrapper: // asyncHandler: bọc handler async, forward reject vào next(err) export const asyncHandler = ( fn ) => ( req , res , next ) => Promise . resolve ( fn ( req , res , next )). catch ( next ) app . get ( ' /orders/:id ' , asyncHandler ( async ( req , res ) => { const order = await db . orders . findById ( req . params . id ) if ( ! order ) { res . status ( 404 ). json ({ error : ' not_found ' }); return } res . json ( order

Google's upcoming event in August will introduce new Pixel devices.

Ars analysis suggests the 9-year-old console could keep selling for years.

I hesitated to write this. Not because I don’t have an opinion about AI in software engineering, but...

When I wrote about shifting the engineering process left — spec sessions, autonomous agents, humans reviewing output rather than writing code — a question kept coming up. Where does the Product Owner fit in all of this? It’s the right question. And I think the answer is more interesting than “the PO disappears.” Let’s start with acceptance criteria. We invented them to bridge a gap. The team needed to know when something was done. The PO needed confidence that what got built matched the intent. Acceptance criteria were the contract between the two. But if the Spec Session is where intent gets defined — by the whole team, together, before the agent runs — that gap closes. What the team agreed on in the room is the definition of done. The spec is the acceptance criteria. You don’t need a separate validation step because the planning and the agreement happened at the same time. The tighter the loop, the less ceremony you need around it. There’s a caveat though. The spec is a necessary contract. It’s not a sufficient one. Simon Martinelli’s work on the AI Unified Process validates the spec-driven approach technically. But his model is about the artifact — requirements at the center, AI generating everything else from them. How the team actually builds shared understanding before the spec exists isn’t something it addresses. That’s not a criticism. It’s just a different question. A spec written after a real Spec Session — where the team worked through edge cases together, disagreed, got to resolution — is different from a spec written by one person and signed off asynchronously. Same artifact. Different quality of shared understanding. That distinction matters when the agent hits an edge case the spec didn’t anticipate. So what’s actually left for a dedicated PO? Two things. And they’re very different. The first is product thinking — challenging intent, representing user needs, asking why before the agent runs with something. That’s valuable. But it doesn’t require a ded

Hi everyone, I'm Marc, the founder of ClaimMate AI. I've been building an AI software engineering platform that helps developers generate code, explain existing code, debug issues, create tests, review code, and build applications from simple prompts or voice. I'm still in the early stages and would really appreciate honest feedback from other developers. Why I Built It I wanted one workspace where developers could chat with AI, generate code, debug problems, and iterate on ideas without constantly switching between multiple tools. I'd Love Your Feedback If you have a few minutes, I'd appreciate any thoughts on: Is the interface easy to understand? Which feature would you use most? What would stop you from using it regularly? What feature is missing? You can try it here: https://ClaimMateAI.pro I'm not looking for praise—I genuinely want constructive feedback that will help improve the product. Thanks for your time!

One of the biggest takeaways from Chapter 3 of AI Engineering was realizing that building an AI model is only part of the challenge. Figuring out 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 can be just as difficult. With traditional software, it's usually easy to tell whether something works. If a calculation is wrong or a test fails, you know there's a bug. But AI doesn't always work that way. A model can generate multiple reasonable answers to the same question, making it much harder to determine which one is actually better. That made me think: 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼 𝘄𝗲 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝗳 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗜 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴? 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝘀 𝗡𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗞𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗘𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 Reading this section made me realize how difficult it is for evaluation benchmarks to keep up with the pace of AI development. The chapter explains that GLUE (General Language Understanding Evaluation) was introduced in 2018 to measure how well language models performed on common natural language tasks. But within about a year, models had already become so good at it that researchers introduced SuperGLUE in 2019 as a more difficult benchmark. GLUE evaluates tasks such as: Question answering Sentiment analysis Sentence similarity Text classification The chapter also mentions newer benchmarks like: SuperGLUE MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding) MMLU-Pro Each one was introduced because the previous benchmark was no longer challenging enough. What I found interesting is that a model getting a higher benchmark score doesn't always mean it understands language better. Sometimes it simply means the model has become very good at solving that particular benchmark. 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗘𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗽𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁𝘆 Another section I really enjoyed was the explanation of entropy and perplexity. The chapter explains entropy as a measure of how much information a token carries and how difficult it is to predict the next token in a sequence. Perplexity measures uncertainty. If a model is very uncertain about what comes next, its perplexity will be higher. If

SK Hynix is experiencing a boom credited to AI. It will ride that to a multibillion-dollar U.S. IPO, expected to take place on Friday.

Ask a room full of engineers to name the most popular integrated circuit ever made and you will hear guesses about famous microprocessors or memory chips. The real answer is far humbler: an eight-pin timer chip designed in 1971 that is still manufactured by the billion every single year. It is the 555 timer , and more than half a century after its debut it remains one of the first chips a student wires up and one of the last a veteran gives up on. A chip designed by one engineer The 555 was designed by Swiss-born engineer Hans Camenzind , working under contract to Signetics , and it reached the market in 1972. What made it remarkable was not raw speed or complexity but flexibility. Inside its tiny package sit a couple of dozen transistors, a handful of resistors, and two voltage comparators arranged around a simple voltage divider. Feed it a supply voltage, add one or two external resistors and a capacitor, and it will generate precise time delays and oscillations without any software at all. That analog-first design philosophy is exactly why it endured. By some estimates the 555 has been produced at a rate of around a billion units a year for decades, which comfortably earns it the title of probably the most popular IC ever made. It has flown on spacecraft, blinked in toys, and sat quietly on countless hobbyist breadboards. What the 555 actually does The 555 has three classic operating modes, and understanding them covers most of what you will ever need: Monostable — one stable state. A trigger produces a single output pulse of a fixed length set by an external resistor and capacitor. Think of a debounced button press or a timed relay. Astable — no stable state. The output oscillates continuously between high and low, producing a square wave. This is your blinking LED, your simple tone generator, or a rough clock source. Bistable — a basic flip-flop that latches between two states, useful as a simple set/reset memory element. None of this requires firmware, a cryst

Every beginner developer hits the same issue at some point. You learn a few basics, finish a tutorial, and then you have no idea what to build next. That gap can feel bigger than learning the code itself, because now the question is not “How do I write this?” but “What should I build at all?” This article is for that moment. I want to make it simple, practical, and useful, because project ideas do not need to be too advanced to be valuable. A good project is one that teaches you something, keeps you going, and gives you enough confidence to build the next one. Why project ideas are important There’s a common thing that I have noticed in most of the beginners, that is, watching too many tutorials. Tutorials are helpful, but actual learning starts when you try to build something on your own. That is when you start facing real decisions, small bugs, unclear logic, and the feeling of connecting different parts into one working product. That is one of the reasons why project ideas matter so much. The right idea gives you direction, but it also gives you energy. When the project feels too huge, you get stuck. When it feels too small or boring, you stop caring. The sweet spot is a project that feels possible and still a little exciting. This matters even more today. Tools like ChatGPT or Copilot can help you write code faster, but that doesn't solve the real problem beginners have. Writing the code was never the hard part for long but knowing what to build is. Start with problems you already know The easiest project ideas often come from your own life. Think about small things you do every day that feel annoying, repetitive, or messy. A simple to-do list, habit tracker, note saver, expense log, study planner, or meal planner can all become strong beginner projects if you build them well. This works because the problem is already familiar to you. You do not have to invent a fake use case or force a complicated feature list. You already know what the app should do, what feel