1046 posts · Page 31 of 88. ← Blog
Part four of the API Security series: treat every byte crossing the boundary as hostile, validate against a schema you control, parameterize at the data sink, and never let a client-supplied URL become a pivot into your network.
Treating every input as hostile: schema/DTO validation (allow-list, reject unknown fields), injection defenses (parameterized queries), and SSRF — allow-listing destinations and blocking internal/link-local ranges including via redirects.
Why a consistent, machine-readable error model (RFC 9457 problem+json) and idempotency keys are the difference between an API clients can trust and one that quietly double-charges them.
The two things that make an API safe to build on: a consistent machine-readable error model (RFC 9457 problem+json, stable error codes, no leaked internals) and idempotency (the Idempotency-Key pattern so retries don't double-charge).
Choosing and scaling the data layer without cargo-culting: how to pick relational versus NoSQL by access pattern, why every index is a tax on writes, and why your shard key is the highest-stakes decision you will make.
Choosing and scaling the data layer: relational vs NoSQL by access pattern, indexing (B-tree/hash/LSM), normalization vs denormalization, replication, partitioning/sharding and the shard-key decision, and the distributed-transaction trade-off.
The three trustworthy-AI properties regulators and users press on hardest — where bias enters a system, why the fairness definitions contradict each other so you must choose one deliberately, and why an explanation you can read is not the same as an explanation you can trust.
The trustworthy-AI properties regulators care about: where bias enters, why fairness notions conflict (you must choose one), disaggregated evaluation, mitigation with Fairlearn/AIF360, and explainability (SHAP/LIME) — with the honest caveat that LLM rationales are not faithful explanations.
Two tightly-linked OWASP LLM risks that turn a clever prompt injection into real-world damage — and the Python patterns that shrink the blast radius: treat model output as untrusted input, and give agents the least agency they can get away with.
Two OWASP risks that turn an injection into damage: insecure output handling (model output is untrusted input — never eval/shell/SQL it unescaped) and excessive agency (least-privilege tools, allow-lists, human approval for irreversible actions, audit logs).
Assembling a full retrieval-augmented generation pipeline in Python on watsonx.ai — ingest and chunk documents, embed them with slate, retrieve by cosine, rerank for precision, then generate a grounded, cited answer with a Granite model, shown both from scratch and with langchain-ibm.
Build a full RAG pipeline in Python on watsonx: chunk (with Docling for parsing), embed and store, retrieve, rerank, and generate a grounded, cited answer with a Granite model — shown both from scratch and via the idiomatic langchain-ibm assembly, with notes on scaling to watsonx.data/Milvus.
Assembling a full retrieval-augmented generation pipeline in Python — chunk and embed with NeMo Retriever, shortlist by cosine, sharpen with a reranker, then ground a ChatNVIDIA answer that cites its sources — first from scratch, then the idiomatic LangChain wiring.
Build a full RAG pipeline in Python on NVIDIA's stack: chunk and embed with NeMo Retriever, shortlist by cosine, rerank, then generate a grounded, cited answer with ChatNVIDIA — shown both from scratch and the idiomatic LangChain assembly, with notes on scaling to a vector DB.
How to invoke a managed Agent for Amazon Bedrock from Go — where the server owns the reason-act loop, and your job is to call InvokeAgent, range the event stream, accumulate the answer chunks, and read the trace for observability.
Agents for Amazon Bedrock from Go: the managed reason-act loop that runs server-side (vs the DIY Converse loop), invoking an agent alias with InvokeAgent, streaming the response and trace events, and keeping multi-turn state with a SessionId.
Making an LLM system faster and cheaper without touching the weights — the levers an application engineer actually controls, from streaming and caching to token trimming, model routing, and Go's real superpower: concurrency with a rate limiter.
Make LLM systems faster and cheaper without retraining: TTFT vs throughput, exact and semantic response caching, prompt caching, token reduction, model routing and cascades, and Go concurrency with a worker pool and rate limiter.
The capstone of the Evaluating Agents in Go series: how to score a conversation instead of a single reply, how to attribute errors across a coordinator and its sub-agents, and how to build rubric, safety, and hallucination judges in Go when the framework hands you no eval package.
The capstone of the Evaluating Agents in Go series: how to score a conversation instead of a single reply, how to attribute errors across a coordinator and its sub-agents, and how to build rubric, safety,...
A production RPC is more than a request and a response. Every call should carry a deadline so it can't hang forever, metadata for cross-cutting concerns like auth and tracing, and it should pass through interceptors that apply logging, authentication, and metrics uniformly. These three mechanisms are how a gRPC system becomes observable, secure, and resilient — and they're the pieces beginners most often skip.
A production RPC is more than a request and response. Every call should carry a deadline so it can't hang forever, metadata for cross-cutting concerns like auth and tracing, and pass through interceptors that apply logging, authentication, and metrics uniformly. These three mechanisms make a gRPC system observable, secure, and resilient.
The habits that made you good at prompting standard models can actively hurt you with reasoning models. "Let's think step by step" is redundant — even counterproductive — when the model already thinks natively. Few-shot examples can constrain reasoning that's better left free. The shift from standard to reasoning models isn't just picking a different model; it's unlearning some prompting reflexes and learning where deep thinking actually earns its cost.
The habits that made you good at prompting standard models can actively hurt you with reasoning models. 'Let's think step by step' is redundant when the model already thinks natively. The shift isn't just picking a different model — it's unlearning some prompting reflexes and learning where deep thinking earns its cost.