SAFe, Lean, livraison agile, réconciliation des enjeux métiers, pilotage du delivery, réussite projet, Toyota Production System --- ## Introduction Ah, le SAFe, ce savoureux acronyme qui évoque à la fois la sécurité et la promesse d’une livraison agile fluide. Mais derrière cette façade séduisante se cache une réalité plus complexe. Entre les enjeux métiers en constante évolution et le...

Congress loves SLS Senate response to White House budget for NASA: Keep SLS, nix science Gateway is back, baby. Eric Berger – Jun 5, 2025 7:55 pm | 77 Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a hearing on Tuesday, January 28, 2025. Credit: Getty Images | Tom Williams Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a hearing on Tuesday, January 28, 2025. Credit: Getty Images | Tom Williams Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Negotiations over the US federal budget for fiscal year 2026 are in the beginning stages, but when it comes to space, the fault lines are already solidifying in the Senate. The Trump White House released its budget request last Friday, and this included detailed information about its plans for NASA. On Thursday, just days later, the US Senate shot back with its own budget priorities for the space agency. The US budget process is complicated and somewhat broken in recent years, as Congress has failed to pass a budget on time. So, we are probably at least several months away from seeing a final fiscal year 2026 budget from Congress. But we got our first glimpse of the Senate's thinking when the chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) released his "legislative directives" for NASA on Thursday These specific directives concern "reconciliation" for the current budget year, which are supplemental appropriations for NASA and other federal agencies under the purview of Cruz's committee. And this committee does not actually write the budget; that's left to appropriations committees in the House and Senate. Senate space priorities However, Cruz is one of the most important voices in the US Senate on space policy, and the directives released Thursday indicate where he intends to line up on NASA during the upcoming budget fights. Here is how his budget ideas align with the White House priorities in three key areas: Science: The Trump White House budget sought to significantly cut the space agency's science budget, from $7.33 billion to $3.91 billion, including the cancellation of some major missions. Cruz makes no comment on most of the science budget, but in calling for a Mars Telecommunications Orbiter, he is signaling support for a Mars Sample Return Mission. Lunar Gateway: The Trump administration called for the cancellation of a small space station to be built in an elongated lunar orbit. There is very uneven support for this in the space community, but it is being led at Johnson Space Center, in Cruz's home state. Cruz says Congress should "fully fund" the Gateway as "critical" infrastructure. Space Launch System and Orion: The Trump administration sought to cancel the large expensive rocket and spacecraft after Artemis III, the first lunar landing. Cruz calls for additional funding for at least Artemis IV and Artemis V. This legislation, the committee said in a messaging document, "Dedicates almost $10 billion to win the new space race with China and ensure America dominates space. Makes targeted, critical investments in Mars-forward technology, Artemis Missions and Moon to Mars program, and the International Space Station." The reality is that it signals that Republicans in the US Senate are not particularly interested in sending humans to Mars, probably are OK with the majority of cuts to science programs at NASA, and want to keep the status quo on Artemis, including the Space Launch System rocket. Where things go from here It is difficult to forecast where US space policy will go from here. The very public breakup between President Trump and SpaceX founder Elon Musk on Thursday significantly complicates the equation. At one point, Trump and Musk were both championing sending humans to Mars, but Musk is gone from the administration, and Trump may abandon that idea due to their rift. For what it's worth, a political appointee in NASA Communications said on Thursday that the president's vision for space—Trump spoke of landing humans on Mars frequently during his campaign speeches—will continue to be implemented. "NASA will continue to execute upon the President’s vision for the future of space," NASA's press secretary, Bethany Stevens, said on X. "We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President’s objectives in space are met." Congress, it seems, may be heading in a different direction. Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston. 77 Comments

Senior Manager, AccountingRiot GamesShanghai, China2 hours agoApplyRiot Games was established in 2006 by entrepreneurial gamers who believe that player-focused game development can result in great games. In 2009, Riot released its debut title League of Legends to critical and player acclaim. As the most played video game in the world, over 100 million play every month. Players form the foundation of our community and it’s for them that we continue to evolve and improve the League of Legends experience.We’re looking for humble but ambitious, razor-sharp professionals who can teach us a thing or two. We promise to return the favor. Like us, you take play seriously; you’re passionate about games. We embrace those who see things differently, aren’t afraid to experiment, and who have a healthy disregard for constraints.That's where you come in.As a Senior Manager of Accounting, you will oversee all accounting operations for Riot’s China businesses, ensuring full compliance with both US GAAP and PRC GAAP. Reporting to the Director of Accounting, you will collaborate with global and regional finance teams to ensure timely and accurate reporting, oversee statutory audits, and drive accounting operational excellence. This position blends strategic thinking with hands-on execution, requiring deep technical expertise, strong leadership, and the ability to build effective partnerships with key stakeholders.Job Responsibilities:Manage the financial accounting and reporting function for Riot’s China operations, including statutory filings and internal reportingEnsure compliance with both US GAAP and PRC GAAP; work closely with global accounting to ensure alignment on policies and practicesReview journal entries, account reconciliations, and trend analysis for accounts such as revenue, prepaid expenses, fixed assets, accruals, accounts payable and other areasLead the monthly, quarterly, and annual close processes, ensuring completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of financial reportingDevelop, implement, and maintain robust internal controls and accounting policiesReview contracts and significant transactions to assess accounting implications and ensure appropriate treatmentLead accounting transformation initiatives, including process improvements, system implementations, and the adoption of automation technologies or scalable software solutionsServe as a trusted advisor to cross-functional teams including Legal, Finance, Tax, and Business OperationsRequired Qualifications:Bachelor’s degree in Accounting or Finance10+ years of progressive accounting experience including Big 4 public accounting and multinational corporate accounting in a leadership roleStrong understanding of both US GAAP and PRC GAAPHands-on experience managing accounting close, internal controls, and policy implementationProven ability to lead and grow a high-performing teamCPA or equivalent (US, PRC or international certification)Bilingual in Mandarin and EnglishDesired Qualifications:Operational experience in technology, media, or gaming industriesExperience with ERP systems (Yonsuite and Oracle preferred)Prior experience supporting global or regional accounting transformation projectsDon’t forget to include a resume and cover letter. We receive a lot of applications, but we’ll notice a fun, well-written intro that shows us you take play seriously. Create Your Profile — Game companies can contact you with their relevant job openings. Apply

It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:

Villa Air / ARK-architectureSave this picture!© Bilel KhemakhemHouses•Tunis, Tunisia Architects: ARK-architecture Area Area of this architecture project Area:  1500 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project Year:  2024 Photographs Photographs:Bilel Khemakhem Manufacturers Brands with products used in this architecture project Manufacturers:  Trespa, Elements, QUICK-STEP, REVIGLASS, Saint Gobain Glass, Schüco, TOSHIBAMore SpecsLess Specs Save this picture! Text description provided by the architects. Villa Air is a distilled expression of contemporary architecture rooted in the Tunisian landscape. Set within a two-hectare plot in Morneg, this 1,500 m² residence unfolds as a meditative dialogue between built form and topography. The site, defined by its gentle slope and sweeping views, culminates in the striking silhouette of the Jbal Errsas mountain range—a natural horizon that anchors the architectural narrative. From the outset, the project embraces a central duality: the tension between gravitas and lightness, between groundedness and suspension. This dialectic, subtly embedded in the villa's name, structures the entire composition. Distributed across three levels, the house is articulated as a series of horizontal strata punctuated by bold cantilevers. These projections—remarkably slender at just 45 cm thick—embody both structural daring and environmental responsiveness, casting precise shadow lines that temper the Mediterranean sun.Save this picture!Save this picture!Save this picture!Rather than asserting dominance over the terrain, the architecture yields to it. The villa engages the land with measured restraint, allowing the natural contours to guide its form. A textured finish in earthy tones fosters chromatic continuity with the ground, while the massing cascades along the slope, suggesting a geological emergence rather than an architectural imposition. The principal façade distills the project's ethos: a calibrated composition of apertures that frames the landscape as a sequence of living tableaux. Each elevation is attuned to its orientation, choreographing a spatial experience that is both immersive and contemplative. Here, architecture acts not as a boundary, but as a lens.Save this picture!Materiality is approached with deliberate restraint. Pristine white volumes capture the shifting Mediterranean light, animating surfaces in a daily choreography of shadows. Travertine and timber introduce tactile warmth, while concrete elements — subtly tinted with sand pigments — ground the building in its context and enhance its material belonging. Internally, the spatial organization privileges continuity and flow. Circulations are not mere connectors, but choreographed transitions. Double-height volumes channel daylight deep into the core, while vertical pathways become elevated promenades offering ever-evolving perspectives of the surrounding landscape.Save this picture!Save this picture!Save this picture!The architecture explores a central paradox: the reconciliation of intimacy with openness, of enclosure with exposure. This tension is resolved through a refined gradation of thresholds, where interiors dissolve into terraces and open platforms, softening the boundaries between inside and out. Twin infinity pools extend the architectural geometry toward the horizon, amplifying the sensation of lightness and spatial suspension. Water and sky converge in a silent dialogue, completing the project's aspiration to exist not merely in the landscape but in symbiosis with it. Villa Air stands as a testament to a site-specific Mediterranean modernism — one that privileges clarity, precision, and sensory depth. More than a functional residence, it evokes a poetic condition of dwelling: a place where form, matter, and perception converge in quiet resonance.Save this picture! Project gallerySee allShow less About this officeARK-architectureOffice••• MaterialConcreteMaterials and TagsPublished on May 30, 2025Cite: "Villa Air / ARK-architecture" 30 May 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1030593/villa-air-ark-architecture&gt ISSN 0719-8884Save世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?是否 You've started following your first account!Did you know?You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream

Democratic senators are probing whether RealPage, a software company accused of colluding with landlords to raise rents, lobbied for a proposed ban on states regulating AI for the next decade. In a letter to RealPage CEO Dana Jones, five Democratic senators — Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Tina Smith (D-MN) — ask for more information about the company’s “potential involvement” in a provision attached to Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill, which bars state laws that impact AI or “automated decision” systems for 10 years.The senators argue that the provision could scuttle attempts to stop RealPage from feeding sensitive information from groups of landlords into an algorithm and using it to recommend noncompetitive rental prices.In 2022, a report from ProPublica linked RealPage to rising rent prices across the US, alleging that its algorithm allows landlords to coordinate pricing. The Department of Justice and eight states sued the company last year, claiming it “deprives renters of the benefits of competition on apartment leasing terms.” Meanwhile, cities like Minneapolis, Jersey City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco have passed laws meant to ban the use of rent-setting software, and several states, including Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington, have legislation in the works.“Republicans are trying to give a green light to RealPage’s rent-hiking algorithm.”As it stands, the senators argue the Republican budget reconciliation bill would block pending legislation and stop states from enforcing any regulation that puts limitations on RealPage’s rent-setting algorithm. The bill proposes preventing states from enforcing “any law or regulation” covering a broad range of automated computing systems, which would likely apply to the algorithms used by RealPage.And while the moratorium’s most high-profile proponents are giants like OpenAI, lawmakers believe RealPage might have spent millions pushing for it too. “In light of this, we seek information on RealPage’s lobbying efforts, and on how the Republicans’ reconciliation provision would help the bottom line of RealPage and other large corporations by allowing them to take advantage of consumers,” the letter states.The senators say RealPage “stepped up” its Congressional lobbying in response to local legislation that would affect its business. They cite a report from The Lever, which found that the National Multifamily Housing Council, a trade group that represents RealPage, increased its lobbying spending from $4.8 million in 2020 to $9 million in 2024. The Lever also found that the trade group disclosed that it lobbied on “issues surrounding the risks and opportunities posed by artificial intelligence,” as well as “federal policies affecting usage of data, artificial intelligence, software,” and other technology used in real estate.Related“RealPage ramped up its million dollar spending campaign in Congress and lo and behold, Republicans in Congress passed a provision to block states from protecting renters,” Senator Warren told The Verge. “Americans are being squeezed by rising rents, but instead of helping, Republicans are trying to give a green light to RealPage’s rent-hiking algorithm.”The Senators have asked RealPage how much money the company spent on Congressional lobbying in each year since 2020, as well as which firms and individuals it “engaged or contracted with” during the same period. They also want to know how much it spent on lobbying targeted toward AI legislation, as well as how RealPage would be impacted by the budget reconciliation bill in states with pending legislation on rent-setting software. The senators ask RealPage to respond by June 10th, 2025.If passed, the bill — currently awaiting consideration in the Senate — could have far wider-ranging impacts than RealPage. In addition to blocking states from regulating AI chatbots, it could also affect any laws covering things like deepfakes, automated hiring systems, facial recognition, sentencing algorithms, and more. See More:

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More We’re seeing AI evolve fast. It’s no longer just about building a single, super-smart model. The real power, and the exciting frontier, lies in getting multiple specialized AI agents to work together. Think of them as a team of expert colleagues, each with their own skills — one analyzes data, another interacts with customers, a third manages logistics, and so on. Getting this team to collaborate seamlessly, as envisioned by various industry discussions and enabled by modern platforms, is where the magic happens. But let’s be real: Coordinating a bunch of independent, sometimes quirky, AI agents is hard. It’s not just building cool individual agents; it’s the messy middle bit — the orchestration — that can make or break the system. When you have agents that are relying on each other, acting asynchronously and potentially failing independently, you’re not just building software; you’re conducting a complex orchestra. This is where solid architectural blueprints come in. We need patterns designed for reliability and scale right from the start. The knotty problem of agent collaboration Why is orchestrating multi-agent systems such a challenge? Well, for starters: They’re independent: Unlike functions being called in a program, agents often have their own internal loops, goals and states. They don’t just wait patiently for instructions. Communication gets complicated: It’s not just Agent A talking to Agent B. Agent A might broadcast info Agent C and D care about, while Agent B is waiting for a signal from E before telling F something. They need to have a shared brain (state): How do they all agree on the “truth” of what’s happening? If Agent A updates a record, how does Agent B know about it reliably and quickly? Stale or conflicting information is a killer. Failure is inevitable: An agent crashes. A message gets lost. An external service call times out. When one part of the system falls over, you don’t want the whole thing grinding to a halt or, worse, doing the wrong thing. Consistency can be difficult: How do you ensure that a complex, multi-step process involving several agents actually reaches a valid final state? This isn’t easy when operations are distributed and asynchronous. Simply put, the combinatorial complexity explodes as you add more agents and interactions. Without a solid plan, debugging becomes a nightmare, and the system feels fragile. Picking your orchestration playbook How you decide agents coordinate their work is perhaps the most fundamental architectural choice. Here are a few frameworks: The conductor (hierarchical): This is like a traditional symphony orchestra. You have a main orchestrator (the conductor) that dictates the flow, tells specific agents (musicians) when to perform their piece, and brings it all together. This allows for: Clear workflows, execution that is easy to trace, straightforward control; it is simpler for smaller or less dynamic systems. Watch out for: The conductor can become a bottleneck or a single point of failure. This scenario is less flexible if you need agents to react dynamically or work without constant oversight. The jazz ensemble (federated/decentralized): Here, agents coordinate more directly with each other based on shared signals or rules, much like musicians in a jazz band improvising based on cues from each other and a common theme. There might be shared resources or event streams, but no central boss micro-managing every note. This allows for: Resilience (if one musician stops, the others can often continue), scalability, adaptability to changing conditions, more emergent behaviors. What to consider: It can be harder to understand the overall flow, debugging is tricky (“Why did that agent do that then?”) and ensuring global consistency requires careful design. Many real-world multi-agent systems (MAS) end up being a hybrid — perhaps a high-level orchestrator sets the stage; then groups of agents within that structure coordinate decentrally. For agents to collaborate effectively, they often need a shared view of the world, or at least the parts relevant to their task. This could be the current status of a customer order, a shared knowledge base of product information or the collective progress towards a goal. Keeping this “collective brain” consistent and accessible across distributed agents is tough. Architectural patterns we lean on: The central library (centralized knowledge base): A single, authoritative place (like a database or a dedicated knowledge service) where all shared information lives. Agents check books out (read) and return them (write). Pro: Single source of truth, easier to enforce consistency. Con: Can get hammered with requests, potentially slowing things down or becoming a choke point. Must be seriously robust and scalable. Distributed notes (distributed cache): Agents keep local copies of frequently needed info for speed, backed by the central library. Pro: Faster reads. Con: How do you know if your copy is up-to-date? Cache invalidation and consistency become significant architectural puzzles. Shouting updates (message passing): Instead of agents constantly asking the library, the library (or other agents) shouts out “Hey, this piece of info changed!” via messages. Agents listen for updates they care about and update their own notes. Pro: Agents are decoupled, which is good for event-driven patterns. Con: Ensuring everyone gets the message and handles it correctly adds complexity. What if a message is lost? The right choice depends on how critical up-to-the-second consistency is, versus how much performance you need. Building for when stuff goes wrong (error handling and recovery) It’s not if an agent fails, it’s when. Your architecture needs to anticipate this. Think about: Watchdogs (supervision): This means having components whose job it is to simply watch other agents. If an agent goes quiet or starts acting weird, the watchdog can try restarting it or alerting the system. Try again, but be smart (retries and idempotency): If an agent’s action fails, it should often just try again. But, this only works if the action is idempotent. That means doing it five times has the exact same result as doing it once (like setting a value, not incrementing it). If actions aren’t idempotent, retries can cause chaos. Cleaning up messes (compensation): If Agent A did something successfully, but Agent B (a later step in the process) failed, you might need to “undo” Agent A’s work. Patterns like Sagas help coordinate these multi-step, compensable workflows. Knowing where you were (workflow state): Keeping a persistent log of the overall process helps. If the system goes down mid-workflow, it can pick up from the last known good step rather than starting over. Building firewalls (circuit breakers and bulkheads): These patterns prevent a failure in one agent or service from overloading or crashing others, containing the damage. Making sure the job gets done right (consistent task execution) Even with individual agent reliability, you need confidence that the entire collaborative task finishes correctly. Consider: Atomic-ish operations: While true ACID transactions are hard with distributed agents, you can design workflows to behave as close to atomically as possible using patterns like Sagas. The unchanging logbook (event sourcing): Record every significant action and state change as an event in an immutable log. This gives you a perfect history, makes state reconstruction easy, and is great for auditing and debugging. Agreeing on reality (consensus): For critical decisions, you might need agents to agree before proceeding. This can involve simple voting mechanisms or more complex distributed consensus algorithms if trust or coordination is particularly challenging. Checking the work (validation): Build steps into your workflow to validate the output or state after an agent completes its task. If something looks wrong, trigger a reconciliation or correction process. The best architecture needs the right foundation. The post office (message queues/brokers like Kafka or RabbitMQ): This is absolutely essential for decoupling agents. They send messages to the queue; agents interested in those messages pick them up. This enables asynchronous communication, handles traffic spikes and is key for resilient distributed systems. The shared filing cabinet (knowledge stores/databases): This is where your shared state lives. Choose the right type (relational, NoSQL, graph) based on your data structure and access patterns. This must be performant and highly available. The X-ray machine (observability platforms): Logs, metrics, tracing – you need these. Debugging distributed systems is notoriously hard. Being able to see exactly what every agent was doing, when and how they were interacting is non-negotiable. The directory (agent registry): How do agents find each other or discover the services they need? A central registry helps manage this complexity. The playground (containerization and orchestration like Kubernetes): This is how you actually deploy, manage and scale all those individual agent instances reliably. How do agents chat? (Communication protocol choices) The way agents talk impacts everything from performance to how tightly coupled they are. Your standard phone call (REST/HTTP): This is simple, works everywhere and good for basic request/response. But it can feel a bit chatty and can be less efficient for high volume or complex data structures. The structured conference call (gRPC): This uses efficient data formats, supports different call types including streaming and is type-safe. It is great for performance but requires defining service contracts. The bulletin board (message queues — protocols like AMQP, MQTT): Agents post messages to topics; other agents subscribe to topics they care about. This is asynchronous, highly scalable and completely decouples senders from receivers. Direct line (RPC — less common): Agents call functions directly on other agents. This is fast, but creates very tight coupling — agent need to know exactly who they’re calling and where they are. Choose the protocol that fits the interaction pattern. Is it a direct request? A broadcast event? A stream of data? Putting it all together Building reliable, scalable multi-agent systems isn’t about finding a magic bullet; it’s about making smart architectural choices based on your specific needs. Will you lean more hierarchical for control or federated for resilience? How will you manage that crucial shared state? What’s your plan for when (not if) an agent goes down? What infrastructure pieces are non-negotiable? It’s complex, yes, but by focusing on these architectural blueprints — orchestrating interactions, managing shared knowledge, planning for failure, ensuring consistency and building on a solid infrastructure foundation — you can tame the complexity and build the robust, intelligent systems that will drive the next wave of enterprise AI. Nikhil Gupta is the AI product management leader/staff product manager at Atlassian. Daily insights on business use cases with VB Daily If you want to impress your boss, VB Daily has you covered. We give you the inside scoop on what companies are doing with generative AI, from regulatory shifts to practical deployments, so you can share insights for maximum ROI. Read our Privacy Policy Thanks for subscribing. Check out more VB newsletters here. An error occured.

The US House of Representatives just narrowly passed a budget bill, which has been referred to by President Trump and others as "one big, beautiful bill." Hidden amongst the cuts to health care, debt add-ons and tax breaks for the rich is a ten-year ban of state AI laws. You read that right. States would be banned by the federal government from enforcing laws that regulate AI for the next decade.The vote fell largely along party lines, with nearly every Republican member of the House approving the bill. This marks one of the most significant federal actions on technology policy in decades and it was buried in a budget bill that has nothing to do with AI.This isn't law just yet. The budget bill has to pass through the Senate and it could have a difficult road. It's expected that Democratic lawmakers will challenge the AI regulation ban under what's called the Byrd Rule, which prohibits "extraneous" provisions to the federal budget during the reconciliation process.To view this content, you'll need to update your privacy settings. Please click here and view the "Content and social-media partners" setting to do so.Even some Senate Republicans seem wary of the ban. Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee expressed concern that it would override state legislation that protects artists from deepfakes in her state. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has also pushed back on the idea on the grounds that it could "tamp down on people's efforts to address" issues posed by AI.ADVERTISEMENTAdvertisementSupporters of the ban argue that it would stop a potentially confusing patchwork of differing state AI laws until Congress can craft its own federal legislation. This is pretty odd coming from the "states' rights" crowd, but whatever.Opponents, like many Democratic lawmakers and advocacy organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, call it a dangerous giveaway to big tech firms, as these companies stand to benefit the most from a completely unregulated market. They also say it poses a serious danger to Americans, as it would leave the citizenry unprotected from any associated risk. Current state laws address issues including deepfakes and discrimination in automated hiring.“Make no mistake, the families who have come to this committee and begged for us to act won't benefit from this proposal,” said Democratic Rep. Lori Trahan during a subcommittee hearing on the matter. “But you know who will? The big tech CEOs who are sitting behind Donald Trump at his inauguration."To view this content, you'll need to update your privacy settings. Please click here and view the "Content and social-media partners" setting to do so.The budget bill, as passed by the House, also includes cuts to Medicaid totaling an estimated $625 billion and cuts to SNAP, otherwise called food stamps, totaling $300 billion. It could also force $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, which serves senior citizens, as a byproduct of adding nearly $4 trillion to the national deficit. It also ends the EV tax credit. All of this pays for an extension and expansion of previous tax cuts that disproportionately favor high-income earners.If you buy something through a link in this article, we may earn commission.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that House Republicans narrowly passed early Thursday would strip state legislatures of AI oversight and scale back consumer protection and climate initiatives while funding border surveillance, among many other provisions.The budget reconciliation bill still needs to be approved by the Senate, where some Republicans have voiced concerns with aspects of the text. But with President Donald Trump pushing for its passage into law, they could face an uphill battle in fighting for changes.Here are some of the key tech and science provisions in the House version of the text:Moratorium on state AI lawsStates would be stripped of their power to enforce laws regulating artificial intelligence models and “automated decision systems” for 10 years under the budget package. That would likely preempt hundreds of AI-related bills being considered in 2025, as well as dozens that have passed into law — and on top of that, the broad “automated decision” language could nix regulating all kinds of computer systems not frequently classed as AI.Republican supporters say the rule is necessary to let US companies innovate and keep up with rivals in China, and the idea has been promoted by OpenAI. More than 60 AI-related state bills have been enacted so far, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), many of which could be impacted by the proposed pause. The bills do everything from addressing algorithmic discrimination to regulating how AI can be used by government agencies.Critics worry the definition could also hamstring laws covering all kinds of systems that feature automation or use machine learning. That might include rules championed by state-level Republicans, who have passed numerous social media regulations in recent years. “Until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can’t call for a moratorium”A couple Republican senators have expressed concern over the moratorium. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), eyeing a run for governor, spoke at a recent congressional hearing about her state’s AI law that seeks to protect a musician’s right to their voice’s likeness. “We certainly know that in Tennessee we need those protections,” Blackburn said, according to The Washington Post. “And until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can’t call for a moratorium.”Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who publicly opposed Medicaid cuts in the House bill, also pushed back on the state law pause. “I would think that, just as a matter of federalism, we’d want states to be able to try out different regimes that they think will work for their state,” Hawley recently told Business Insider. “And I think in general, on AI, I do think we need some sensible oversight that will protect people’s liberties.”The provision could also face a challenge in overcoming the “Byrd rule,” which bars “extraneous” additions in reconciliation bills. Cuts to green energy tax creditsBiden-era tax credits for electric vehicles would be deprecated within two years if the House package is signed into law, and wind and solar energy credits would be phased out by 2032. The slashed credits include a $7,500 credit for purchasing eligible EVs, or $4,000 for an eligible used one, as well as credit for home refueling infrastructure.Updates shortly before the vote also rolled back key climate programs from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act even further than the bill initially did, though they also pared down an effort to roll back credits for nuclear reactors.Scaling back funding for consumer financial protectionThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which had already been decimated by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), would see its funding capped further under the bill. House Republicans seek to cap the amount it can receive from the Federal Reserve at 5 percent of the system’s total operating expenses, rather than the current 12 percent. That would reduce the resources the consumer protection agency would have to respond to consumer complaints over things like imminent foreclosures and credit card fraud, and regulate digital payments services.Border tech fundingThe bill includes billions of dollars to lock down US borders, including $12 billion to reimburse states for border security. In addition to the $46 billion it would invest to build and “modernize” the wall between the US and Mexico, the bill would also provide $1 billion in funding for technology to detect drugs and other contraband being brought across the border. Another $2.7 billion would go toward surveillance systems that House Homeland Security Republicans described as “ground detection sensors, integrated surveillance towers, tunnel detection capability, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), and enhanced communications equipment.”Limiting gender-affirming careHealth care plans beginning in 2027 that are purchased through the Affordable Care Act marketplace would be barred from offering gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy and surgery. Similarly, the bill would prohibit Medicaid from covering “gender transition procedures” for minors and adults while requiring coverage for detransition.See More:

This is dangerous.No Rules, No ExceptionsThe latest version of the Republicans' Budget Reconciliation Bill — the "one big, beautiful bill," as President Trump has called it — includes a clause that would ban all AI regulation in the US at the state level for a full decade. Over 100 organizations, CNN reports, are calling for lawmakers not to pass it.According to CNN, 141 policy groups, academic institutions, unions, and other organizations have signed a letter demanding that legislators in Washington walk back the sweeping deregulatory provision, urging that the bill would allow AI companies to run wild without safeguards or accountability — regardless of any negative impact their technology might have on American citizens.The letter warns that under the proposal, Americans would have no way to institute regulatory safeguards around and against AI systems as they "increasingly shape critical aspects of Americans' lives," including in areas like "hiring, housing, healthcare, policing, and financial services."There aren't any exceptions outlined in the bill, which declares instead that "no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the ten year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act," as 404 Media was first to flag last week."The AI preemption provision is a dangerous giveaway to Big Tech CEOs who have bet everything on a society where unfinished, unaccountable AI is prematurely forced into every aspect of our lives," Emily Peterson-Cassin of the nonprofit Demand Progress, whose organization wrote the letter, told CNN.Forseeable HarmIn the letter, the groups emphasize that such a drastic moratorium on regulatory action would mean that even in cases where a company "deliberately designs an algorithm that causes foreseeable harm — regardless of how intentional or egregious the misconduct or how devastating the consequences — the company making that bad tech would be unaccountable to lawmakers and the public."Transformational new technologies can be riddled with unknown, chaotic, and sometimes quite destructive outcomes. And as the writers of the letter note, regulation can serve to fuel innovation, and not stifle it by way of a thousand Silicon Valley lobbying-dollar-funded cuts."Protecting people from being harmed by new technologies," reads the letter, "including by holding companies accountable when they cause harm, ultimately spurs innovation and adoption of new technologies.""We will only reap the benefits of AI," it continues, "if people have a reason to trust it."More on the bill: New Law Would Ban All AI Regulation for a DecadeShare This Article