Muses of a Reticent Techie

Breaking down complex and latest tech concepts into everyday concepts

recent posts

about

  • Demystifying Vibe Coding: Hype or Value Add?

    Every few years, a new buzzword emerges in software development circles. Recently, one such term is Vibe Coding. It sounds cool, almost like developers are jamming together in a garage band rather than writing code. But is it just hype, or does it genuinely add business value? Let’s break this down in simple terms so even non-technical but IT-associated professionals can understand what this means and why it matters.

    Let’s get to it

    Imagine coding not as a lone activity where developers stare at screens for hours, but more like a live conversation with the system. That’s what Vibe Coding is about. It’s a modern approach where developers write code while continuously interacting with AI-powered assistants, real-time feedback tools, and collaborative environments. Think of it as Spotify “vibes” meeting VS Code – the developer is in sync with the system, and the system nudges back with suggestions, fixes, and optimizations on the fly.

    For example: Traditionally, if a developer wanted to add a new login feature, they would write the code, compile, run, and test – back and forth until it worked. With Vibe Coding, the system suggests snippets instantly, highlights mistakes before you even press “Run,” and sometimes even generates the first draft of the login function. The developer spends less time on syntax errors and boilerplate, and more time thinking about how the feature fits the business needs.

    In other words, Vibe Coding brings flow into software creation. Instead of stop-start-stop cycles, it creates a smoother rhythm that feels more natural, reducing cognitive fatigue and speeding up delivery.

    How it helps

    So, does this actually help businesses, or is it just another shiny new thing? Let’s weigh it against traditional coding.

    Pros of Vibe Coding:

    • Speed: Faster prototyping since AI assists with boilerplate code.
    • Reduced errors: Mistakes are flagged early, reducing costly debugging later.
    • Collaboration: Teams can co-create in real time, even remotely.
    • Focus on business logic: Developers spend less time fixing syntax and more time aligning with business needs.

    Cons of Vibe Coding:

    • Over-reliance on AI: Developers may lose touch with fundamentals if they depend too much on machine suggestions.
    • Learning curve: Teams need time to adopt new tools and workflows.
    • Security risks: Auto-generated code may introduce vulnerabilities if not properly reviewed.

    Observed Benefits: Companies experimenting with vibe-like coding environments (e.g., GitHub Copilot, Replit Ghostwriter, Amazon CodeWhisperer) have reported 20–40% faster development cycles, especially in repetitive or boilerplate-heavy tasks. However, leaders caution that quality review processes are still essential.

    Traditional Coding Pitfalls Today:

    • Too much time spent on repetitive tasks (e.g., setting up authentication, APIs).
    • Debugging cycles consume up to 30–40% of development time.
    • Knowledge silos grow when only a few team members understand specific code areas.

    In essence

    • Vibe Coding = coding with real-time AI-powered feedback, suggestions, and smoother collaboration.
    • It reduces friction in the coding process and helps teams focus on business logic.
    • Pros: speed, fewer errors, better collaboration. Cons: over-reliance, security risks, adoption challenges.
    • Example: A login module that might take 4 hours traditionally can be prototyped in 1–1.5 hours with Vibe Coding tools, though review and security checks still add time.

    Final Thoughts

    At the end of the day, Vibe Coding is not about replacing developers – it’s about making them more effective, more collaborative, and less bogged down by drudgery. The “vibe” is real: when developers are in flow, businesses benefit too.

    “Code with vibes, not just keystrokes – because productivity isn’t about typing faster, it’s about thinking smarter.”

    Bibliography

    • GitHub Copilot Case Study – GitHub
    • Amazon CodeWhisperer Overview – AWS
    • Replit Ghostwriter Insights – Replit

  • Chaos Engineering: People in the Age of AI

    We live in an era where Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer just a futuristic promise—it’s part of everyday business. From chatbots that handle customer queries to predictive systems that detect fraud, AI is everywhere. Yet, beneath the excitement lies a hidden challenge: companies are hitting “coding plateaus.”

    A coding plateau happens when adding more algorithms or code no longer produces better business outcomes. Why? Because business problems aren’t just technical; they’re contextual. AI can identify patterns, but it doesn’t understand why a decision matters in a particular moment. This is where people step in, bringing their deep-seated knowledge, industry context, and the ability to navigate ambiguity. Enter the concept of Chaos Engineering for People in the Age of AI.

    Let’s get to it

    Traditionally, chaos engineering meant deliberately breaking parts of your technical system to see how resilient it is. For example, Netflix would shut down parts of its servers randomly to ensure the rest of its infrastructure kept working. Now, in the AI era, the same principle applies not only to systems but also to people and processes.

    Imagine your fraud detection AI flags 1,000 suspicious transactions in a single day. If left entirely to automation, genuine customers may get blocked. If left entirely to humans, the workload becomes overwhelming. The resilience test is: how well can people and AI handle stress together? How do humans intervene when AI breaks down, and how does AI support humans when scale is too high? That’s the real-world meaning of chaos engineering for people in the AI age.

    Think of it like stress-testing your team’s ability to add context when AI reaches its limits. That context is your hidden weapon in an AI-heavy world.

    How it helps

    So why focus on people when AI seems to be the silver bullet? Because resilience isn’t about perfection—it’s about adaptability. Let’s break it down.

    Traditional focus (AI-first, code-first)

    • Pros: Scalable, fast, data-driven, less prone to fatigue.
    • Cons: Hits plateaus when context is missing, struggles with ambiguity, risks blind spots.

    Chaos engineering for people (AI + human context)

    • Pros: Humans can handle exceptions, apply intuition, challenge assumptions, and bring empathy to decision-making.
    • Cons: Slower than machines, requires constant training, can be inconsistent without proper culture and process.

    By embracing chaos engineering for people, organizations can simulate stressful or failure scenarios—like an AI model drifting off accuracy, or a recommendation engine showing biased results—and check how teams respond. Do they blindly trust the machine? Or do they bring their expertise to challenge the output?

    Real-world case studies

    Netflix

    Netflix popularized chaos engineering by deliberately breaking infrastructure to test resilience. As its recommendation AI grew, Netflix discovered that when AI-driven personalization faltered (for example, recommending irrelevant shows), human product managers quickly shifted priorities—ensuring core streaming performance was maintained. This showed that people + AI resilience was far more valuable than AI perfection.

    Financial Services

    Banks using AI for fraud detection learned through chaos exercises that AI often produced false positives. During one such test, thousands of legitimate transactions were flagged. Human fraud analysts stepped in, applying their knowledge of customer behavior and regulatory context to restore balance. The result: a blended approach where AI handles volume, and people handle nuance.

    Healthcare

    Hospitals adopting AI diagnostics ran chaos drills to see what would happen if the system misdiagnosed rare diseases. Doctors acted as the fail-safes, bringing years of expertise and empathy. Instead of replacing humans, the AI became an assistant—speeding up analysis but never overruling human judgment. Patient outcomes improved when both worked together.

    Practical steps for leaders

    Managers and product leaders often ask, “Okay, but what can I do tomorrow to apply this?” Here’s a checklist to get started:

    • Run tabletop chaos scenarios: Simulate what happens if your AI produces biased or wrong results. Who catches it? How fast?
    • Identify human-in-the-loop points: Map out where human judgment must override AI (e.g., healthcare, financial approvals).
    • Cross-train teams: Ensure product, business, and tech teams understand each other’s roles so context is shared, not siloed.
    • Measure resilience, not just accuracy: Track how quickly and effectively humans can step in when AI falters.
    • Reward context-driven decisions: Encourage teams to challenge AI outputs instead of blindly accepting them.
    • Embed empathy into workflows: Remember that customer trust often depends on how humans handle AI mistakes.

    Why managers and product leaders should care

    If you’re leading a team, chaos engineering for people isn’t just a tech experiment—it’s a leadership strategy. Here’s why:

    • Prepares teams for surprises: AI models will drift, data will be biased, regulations will change. Teams trained in chaos scenarios adapt faster.
    • Protects customer trust: When systems fail, it’s often people who save the customer experience, not code.
    • Builds confidence in AI adoption: Teams won’t fear AI if they know their expertise still matters in the loop.
    • Informs product design: Stress-testing human-AI interactions reveals where workflows break and where product improvements are needed.

    In essence

    • Companies are hitting AI plateaus where coding alone doesn’t solve business challenges.
    • Human context and expertise are critical for bridging gaps AI cannot address.
    • Chaos engineering for people ensures resilience: testing how humans + AI work together under pressure.
    • Pros: better handling of ambiguity, empathy, and context.
    • Cons: slower pace, needs deliberate investment in culture and training.
    • Leaders should use chaos engineering as a strategic tool—not just a technical one—to prepare teams for real-world disruptions.
    • Practical steps include running simulations, rewarding contextual decisions, and cross-training teams.

    “AI may predict the storm, but only people can decide whether to dance in the rain.” 🌧️💃

    Bibliography

    • Gremlin. What is Chaos Engineering? https://gremlin.com/chaos-engineering
    • Harvard Business Review. Why AI Alone Won’t Solve All Your Problems.
    • IEEE Spectrum. The Human Factor in AI Systems.
    • Netflix Tech Blog. The Birth of Chaos Engineering.

  • Breaking the Monolith in 2025: Microservices vs Modular Monolith

    Why This Matters?

    In 2025, businesses need scalable, resilient, and fast-to-market applications. Traditional monolithic architectures often slow down innovation, making releases cumbersome and introducing risks of system-wide failures.
    The rise of Microservices and the more balanced approach of a Modular Monolith present two strong options for modern architecture.
    But which one fits your needs? Let’s break it down in simple terms.

    Let’s get to it

    Imagine you run an e-commerce app. In a monolithic system, the product catalog, cart, payments, and delivery tracking are all part of one giant codebase. If you need to update the payment feature, you must test and deploy the entire application.
    This slows you down and makes even small changes risky.

    Enter Microservices: you split that big app into small, independent services – one for products, one for payments, one for delivery. Each service runs independently and can be deployed without impacting the others.
    Sounds amazing, right? But it comes with complexity – managing many small services is not easy.

    Now, a Modular Monolith is like a well-organized house. Everything is in the same building (same codebase), but each room (module) has clear boundaries and rules.
    You keep the simplicity of deployment while avoiding the chaos of a “big ball of mud.”

    Real-world analogy:
    – Monolith = A single large warehouse where all goods are kept together. Easy to manage initially, but hard to scale.
    – Microservices = Multiple warehouses across cities – super scalable but needs logistics and coordination.
    – Modular Monolith = One big warehouse divided into well-marked sections. Easier to manage and somewhat scalable.

    How it helps

    Microservices vs Modular Monolith: A Practical Comparison

    Aspect Microservices Modular Monolith
    Deployment Independent deployments per service Single deployment for the whole app
    Scalability Excellent (scale individual services) Limited to horizontal scaling of the entire app
    Complexity High (network calls, service discovery, CI/CD) Moderate (still one codebase)
    Performance Network overhead between services Faster (in-process calls)
    Cost Higher (infra, DevOps, monitoring) Lower (simpler infra)

    Pros of Microservices

    • Independent deployments and faster scaling
    • Better fault isolation – one service failing doesn’t crash the entire app
    • Tech flexibility (use different languages per service)

    Cons of Microservices

    • Complex to implement (requires DevOps maturity)
    • Harder debugging and monitoring (distributed tracing needed)
    • Network latency and higher infra costs

    Pros of Modular Monolith

    • Simple to deploy and maintain
    • Fewer infrastructure requirements
    • Better performance due to in-process communication

    Cons of Modular Monolith

    • Still a single point of failure
    • Scaling is less granular (entire app scales together)
    • Requires strict discipline to avoid module coupling

    Microservices Code Example (Spring Boot)

    Below is a basic structure of a Spring Boot Microservice for a Product service: 

    
// ProductServiceApplication.java
@SpringBootApplication
@EnableEurekaClient // For service discovery
public class ProductServiceApplication {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        SpringApplication.run(ProductServiceApplication.class, args);
    }
}

// ProductController.java
@RestController
@RequestMapping("/products")
public class ProductController {
    @GetMapping
    public List<String> getProducts() {
        return List.of("Laptop", "Phone", "Tablet");
    }
}

// application.yml
server:
  port: 8081
spring:
  application:
    name: product-service
eureka:
  client:
    service-url:
      defaultZone: http://localhost:8761/eureka/

    This example registers the service with a Eureka Server for discovery, a common pattern in microservices architecture.

    Modular Monolith Code Example (Spring Boot)

    A Modular Monolith uses packages/modules to enforce boundaries. Here’s an example structure: 

    
// Module: product
package com.example.app.product;

@Service
public class ProductService {
    public List<String> getProducts() {
        return List.of("Laptop", "Phone");
    }
}

// Module: order
package com.example.app.order;

@Service
public class OrderService {
    private final ProductService productService;

    public OrderService(ProductService productService) {
        this.productService = productService;
    }

    public String placeOrder() {
        return "Order placed for: " + productService.getProducts().get(0);
    }
}

    Key difference: Both modules are in the same codebase, but structured with clear boundaries and interfaces. You can use Java 17 modules or tools like ArchUnit to enforce modular rules.

    In essence

    • Monoliths are simple but become a bottleneck at scale.
    • Microservices offer agility and scalability but bring operational complexity.
    • Modular Monolith is the sweet spot for many teams in 2025 – structured, modular, and less costly.
    • Start simple, evolve when needed: Don’t jump into microservices without a clear need and team capability.

    “Break the monolith, but don’t break your team doing it.”

    Bibliography

  • Optimizing Angular Apps for Core Web Vitals in 2025

    Why This Matters?

    Google’s Core Web Vitals (LCP, CLS, FID, INP) now heavily influence SEO rankings and user experience.
    A slow, jumpy, or unresponsive Angular app can cost you users and revenue. In 2025, with Google’s new
    Interaction to Next Paint (INP) metric, optimization is no longer optional — it’s critical for survival in the digital ecosystem.

    Let’s get to it

    Imagine you open an online food delivery app, click on your favorite restaurant, and it
    takes 4 seconds to show the menu. Meanwhile, the “Add to Cart” button jumps as ads load. Annoying, right?
    That’s what poor Core Web Vitals feel like.

    In simple terms, Core Web Vitals are three key things every web page must do well:

    1. Load Fast (LCP – Largest Contentful Paint)
      Users should see the main content quickly.
      Example: The main hero image or headline appears in under 2.5s.
    2. Stay Stable (CLS – Cumulative Layout Shift)
      No jumping buttons or moving forms.
      Example: The “Pay Now” button should stay where it is.
    3. Respond Quickly (INP – Interaction to Next Paint)
      Pages should react instantly to clicks and taps.
      Example: Clicking “Add to Cart” updates the cart immediately.

    Why does Angular need extra care? Because Angular apps are JavaScript-heavy Single Page Applications (SPA).
    They render dynamically in the browser, which can slow down loading, cause layout shifts, and delay interactivity — unless optimized with techniques like
    Server-Side Rendering (SSR), hydration, lazy loading, and Angular Signals.

    Example: Angular SSR Setup (Angular Universal)

    
// Install Angular Universal
ng add @nguniversal/express-engine

// Build SSR version
npm run build:ssr

// Serve SSR app
npm run serve:ssr

    Example: Angular Signals for Reactive State

    
import { signal, effect } from '@angular/core';

export class ProductComponent {
  quantity = signal(0);

  constructor() {
    effect(() => {
      console.log('Quantity updated:', this.quantity());
    });
  }

  addToCart() {
    this.quantity.update(q => q + 1);
  }
}

    Using Signals instead of traditional Change Detection significantly reduces overhead, improving INP and responsiveness.

    How it helps

    Angular Optimization vs Traditional Methods

    Aspect Angular (Optimized) Non-Optimized Angular / Other Frameworks
    Initial Load Time < 2.5s with SSR + code splitting 4-6s on average with client-side render
    Layout Stability High, using responsive design + CSS containment Often poor due to ads or delayed images
    Interactivity Fast with Angular Signals & zoneless change detection Delayed with heavy zones and unused scripts

    Angular vs React in Core Web Vitals

    Metric Angular (With Optimizations) React (With Optimizations)
    LCP 2.2s (SSR + preloading) 2.1s (Next.js out-of-box SSR)
    CLS 0.08 (with proper CSS strategy) 0.06 (React strict mode helps)
    INP 180ms (Signals + OnPush) 170ms (Hooks + concurrent features)

    Pros of Angular Optimization

    • Better SEO ranking due to improved Core Web Vitals.
    • Reduced bounce rates → more conversions.
    • Angular 19 features like Signals improve interactivity drastically.

    Cons

    • SSR setup adds complexity and hosting cost.
    • More build complexity with hydration and lazy loading.

    In essence

    • Core Web Vitals = SEO + UX → Non-negotiable in 2025.
    • Angular apps are heavy → Optimize using:
      • Server-Side Rendering (Angular Universal)
      • Image optimization & preloading
      • Angular Signals for state updates
      • Lazy loading and route-level code splitting
    • Competing with React? Angular is on par if optimized well.

    “Fast apps make happy users. Slow apps make fast exits.”

    Bibliography

  • The Future of API Design: GraphQL Federation and Beyond

    The Future of API Design: GraphQL Federation and Beyond

    Let’s get to it:

    In today’s world, most companies have shifted from one big application to many smaller microservices.
    Each microservice does its own job — one might handle payments, another handles products, another users, and so on.

    Here’s the problem:
    When you use GraphQL with microservices, you often end up with a single giant GraphQL “gateway” that has to know about all the microservices.
    As your company grows, so does that GraphQL gateway — until it becomes a bottleneck. Every change in one service can ripple through the entire system, making updates risky and slow.

    Enter GraphQL Federation 2.0
    Federation is like a city with multiple neighborhoods — each microservice can have its own mini GraphQL schema and work independently, but still appear to clients as one unified GraphQL API.

    In Federation 2.0:

    • Each service defines the part of the graph it owns.
    • The gateway stitches all the parts together dynamically.
    • You can add/remove services without disrupting the whole API.

    Example (non-technical analogy):
    Imagine a travel booking site:

    • Flights Service knows about flights.
    • Hotels Service knows about hotels.
    • Reviews Service knows about reviews.

    In a non-federated GraphQL setup, you’d have to put all flight, hotel, and review data into one schema inside the gateway — a pain to maintain.
    With Federation, each service manages its own schema, and the gateway combines them on-the-fly. This keeps things modular, faster to develop, and easier to scale.

    How it helps:

    Comparing Federation to REST and gRPC

    Feature GraphQL Federation 2.0 REST gRPC
    Single endpoint for all data Yes (via unified graph) Each service has its own URL Each service has its own RPC method
    Strong typing Yes No built-in typing Yes (Protocol Buffers)
    Over-fetching / Under-fetching issues No (fetch exactly what you need) Common problem Rare
    Performance in microservices Optimized via subgraphs Many network calls Fast binary transport
    Ease of onboarding High for devs, clear schema Variable, depends on docs Steeper learning curve
    Cross-service schema evolution Federated ownership makes it safer Needs coordinated updates Needs proto changes

    Pros of GraphQL Federation 2.0:

    • Decentralized ownership — teams work independently.
    • Easy scaling — add/remove microservices without major rewrites.
    • A single source of truth for clients.
    • Better developer experience with strong typing and autocomplete.

    Cons:

    • Steeper initial setup.
    • Requires consistent schema design discipline across teams.
    • Gateway adds an extra layer — must be optimized for performance.

    In essence:

    Barebones Apollo Gateway + Node.js Example

    
// gateway.js
const { ApolloServer } = require('@apollo/server');
const { ApolloGateway } = require('@apollo/gateway');

const gateway = new ApolloGateway({
  serviceList: [
    { name: 'products', url: 'http://localhost:4001/graphql' },
    { name: 'reviews', url: 'http://localhost:4002/graphql' },
  ],
});

const server = new ApolloServer({ gateway });

server.listen({ port: 4000 }).then(({ url }) => {
  console.log(`🚀 Gateway ready at ${url}`);
});

    
// products.js
const { ApolloServer, gql } = require('apollo-server');

const typeDefs = gql`
  type Product {
    id: ID!
    name: String
  }
  type Query {
    products: [Product]
  }
`;

const resolvers = {
  Query: {
    products: () => [{ id: '1', name: 'Laptop' }],
  },
};

new ApolloServer({ typeDefs, resolvers })
  .listen({ port: 4001 })
  .then(({ url }) => console.log(`Products service at ${url}`));

    Summary

    • Problem: Microservices + GraphQL can create scaling bottlenecks in a single gateway.
    • Solution: GraphQL Federation 2.0 decentralizes ownership of schemas.
    • Benefit: Teams work independently, services scale better, clients still see one unified API.
    • Comparison: Federation keeps the benefits of GraphQL but scales like REST/gRPC microservices.
    • Code: Apollo Gateway + subservices = plug-and-play federation.

    “APIs are like orchestras — Federation is the conductor that keeps all the microservices in tune.”

    Bibliography:

  • Event-Driven Architecture: The Backbone of Scalable Systems

    Event-Driven Architecture: The Backbone of Scalable Systems

    Official Definition:

    Event-Driven Architecture (EDA) is a software design pattern in which decoupled components communicate through events — discrete messages that signal a change in state. These events are typically produced, transmitted, detected, and consumed asynchronously.

    Let’s Get to It

    Imagine a restaurant where orders are placed at the counter. Instead of one chef taking every request in order, different chefs are notified only when a dish relevant to them is ordered. That’s how Event-Driven Architecture works in tech!

    In EDA, systems don’t constantly check for updates (like traditional polling); they listen and react. Components emit “events” (e.g., PaymentCompleted, InventoryUpdated), and other services respond to those events independently. This allows systems to be more responsive, resilient, and scalable.

    Think of a music band: when the drummer speeds up, the rest adjust instantly. That’s an event-driven jam session — decentralized yet harmonious.

    How It Helps

    When to Use EDA:

    • When system components need to be decoupled and operate independently
    • When you expect high-volume, real-time data flow (e.g., payments, fraud detection, sensor data)
    • When scalability and fault isolation are key (e.g., microservices, cloud-native apps)
    • For audit logs, analytics pipelines, or reactive notification systems

    Common Patterns in EDA:

    • Event Notification: Event is a signal, no payload expected (e.g., “new user registered”)
    • Event-Carried State Transfer: Event includes data to act on (e.g., “order placed with full details”)
    • Event Sourcing: System state built from a sequence of past events
    • CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation): Separates read and write models, often combined with EDA

    Pitfalls to Watch Out For:

    • Lack of observability – debugging can become a nightmare without tracing
    • Event schema drift – versioning events must be handled carefully
    • Harder to manage consistency – requires eventual consistency mindset
    • Overuse – not every interaction needs to be event-driven; sometimes simple RPC is better

    Comparison: EDA vs Traditional Request-Driven

    Aspect Request-Driven Event-Driven
    Communication Synchronous Asynchronous
    Coupling Tightly coupled Loosely coupled
    Scalability Limited by bottlenecks Highly scalable
    Error handling Direct response codes Dead letter queues, retries
    Complexity Simpler to trace Harder to debug
    Latency Immediate but can block Responsive but eventually consistent

    Pros:

    • Scales independently and elastically
    • Improves system responsiveness
    • Great for microservices and distributed systems
    • Enables real-time analytics and alerting

    Cons:

    • Complex debugging and tracing
    • Event schema versioning can be tricky
    • Harder to reason about state without tooling

    In Essence

    • Event-Driven Architecture decouples systems using asynchronous messaging
    • Helps scale microservices and backend systems efficiently
    • Ideal for real-time processing (e.g., payments, fraud detection, notifications)
    • Use tools like Apache Kafka, RabbitMQ, AWS EventBridge, or Azure Event Grid
    • Requires good observability and schema governance to maintain stability

    Visual Diagram:

    What Is Event-Driven Architecture? | Hazelcast

    On a Funny Note

    “If microservices are the band members, then events are the rhythm they follow — always in sync, even when no one’s conducting.”

    Bibliography

  • Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) for Real-World Applications

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) for Real-World Applications

    Definition

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is an architecture that enhances language models by combining external knowledge retrieval with text generation. Instead of relying only on what the model was trained on (which might be outdated or generic), RAG retrieves relevant documents from a knowledge base and uses them as context for a more accurate and grounded response.

    In simple terms, RAG turns a language model from a “know-it-all” into a “go-find-and-tell” assistant.

    Let’s Get To It

    Let’s imagine you’re asking an AI chatbot:

    “What’s the latest policy on electric vehicle subsidies in India?”

    A traditional LLM might give you a guess based on data it saw during training. But with RAG, here’s what happens:

    1. Your query is first converted into a vector (a numeric fingerprint).
    2. That fingerprint is used to search a vector database full of real documents.
    3. The top-matching documents are passed to the language model.
    4. The model generates an answer based on actual documents, not just its memory.

    Analogy: RAG is like a student who doesn’t just bluff the answer — instead, they flip through their notes first, then write a thoughtful response.

    How It Helps

    Feature Traditional LLM RAG
    Access to real-time data ❌ ✅
    Domain specificity ❌ ✅
    Hallucination risk High Low
    Model retraining needed Often Rare
    Easy to update knowledge base ❌ ✅

    Pros:

    • More accurate and context-aware responses
    • Easy to personalize per user or company
    • Low maintenance: update your documents, not your model

    Cons:

    • Requires infrastructure (vector DB, retrieval logic)
    • Slower than pure generation due to the retrieval step
    • Still not fully immune to hallucination

    Build One Yourself

    If you’re excited to try RAG, here’s a minimal stack to get started:

    • LLM: OpenAI GPT-4o or Claude 3
    • Embedding model: text-embedding-3-small or sentence-transformers
    • Vector DB: Pinecone, Weaviate, or ChromaDB
    • Frameworks: LangChain, LlamaIndex, Haystack

    DIY Example: Ask a question → Convert it to embedding → Fetch top 5 matching documents → Pass to GPT → Show answer

    You can wrap this in a Flask API or build a chatbot UI in React/Angular. Most frameworks now support plug-and-play pipelines.

    Real World Use Cases

    • Enterprise Search Assistants: Ask questions over internal docs, SOPs, policies, and get grounded answers.
    • Healthcare Summarization: Summarize patient notes using up-to-date medical knowledge.
    • AI Legal Copilots: Extract clauses and legal implications from contracts.
    • Developer Docs Search: Assist developers by searching across APIs and internal tools.
    • Customer Support Bots: Responses are grounded in company-specific knowledge, not generic fluff.

    What’s Next

    • Multimodal RAG: Combine text with images, tables, and audio for richer context.
    • Streaming RAG: Live data retrieval from APIs, dashboards, or real-time feeds.
    • Autonomous Agents + RAG: AI agents that plan, retrieve and generate on the fly.
    • Private RAG on Device: On-device, private LLMs with local document search.

    On a Funny Note

    “RAG is basically the AI equivalent of a student frantically Googling before answering a viva… but with a 10x better poker face.”

    Bibliography

  • Federated Compute: Smarter Collaboration

    Federated Compute: Smarter Collaboration

    Definition

    Federated Compute is a distributed computation approach where multiple devices or systems perform computations locally on their own data, and only share the computed results or model updates—never the raw data itself. This technique is crucial in privacy-sensitive domains like healthcare, finance, or edge AI, where data decentralization is key.

    According to Google AI: “Federated computation enables devices to collaboratively learn a shared prediction model while keeping all the training data on device, decoupling the ability to do machine learning from the need to store the data in the cloud.”

    Let’s get to it

    Imagine you and four friends are trying to find out who earns the most without anyone revealing their actual salary. Traditionally, you’d all just write down your salaries and give them to someone who compares them. But what if you’re all privacy-conscious?

    Instead, in the federated compute way:

    • Everyone does some math locally using their own salary and a shared algorithm.
    • You all send back just the results (not the salaries) to a central system.
    • That system computes the answer — who earns the most — without ever knowing your actual numbers.

    Now, replace “salary” with patient medical records or bank transaction data, and “answer” with AI models or risk scores, and you get why this is powerful.

    Federated compute allows different parties (like hospitals, banks, or even mobile devices) to collaborate without compromising privacy, bandwidth, or legal constraints. It’s like training AI on everyone’s data without ever copying or exposing the data.

    This makes it the next big leap for:

    • Healthcare research across hospitals
    • Cross-bank fraud detection
    • Personalized AI on your devices (think Siri or Google Assistant)

    It’s privacy-first, regulation-friendly, and designed for the de-centralized future of AI.

    How it helps

    Pros:

    • Privacy-preserving: Raw data stays local, reducing exposure and compliance risks.
    • Bandwidth-friendly: Only updates are transmitted, saving network resources.
    • Scalable: Can be applied across thousands or millions of distributed nodes or edge devices.
    • Regulation-ready: Aligns well with laws like GDPR and HIPAA.
    • Real-time intelligence: Edge devices can learn and improve without server dependency.

    Cons:

    • System complexity: Requires orchestration of models across distributed environments.
    • Security risks: Though data isn’t shared, update interception or poisoning is possible.
    • Device constraints: Computation happens locally, so devices must be powerful enough.
    • Model drift: Variability in local data may skew global model if not balanced.

    In essence

    • Federated Compute = local computing + global intelligence
    • It’s like voting on insights without revealing your actual ballot
    • Ideal for privacy-sensitive industries (healthcare, finance, IoT, etc.)
    • It empowers devices to think globally but act locally
    • Requires smart orchestration to maintain performance and security

    How Federated Compute Works

    On a Funny Note

    “Why send secrets to the cloud, when your device can whisper wisdom on its own?” — The Federated Philosopher

    Bibliography

  • DevOps and the Economies of Scale: The Rise of AI

    DevOps and the Economies of Scale: The Rise of AI

    As artificial intelligence (AI) continues its swift integration into every corner of the tech world, many engineering teams are left asking: Are we innovating or just inflating our cloud bill?

    Challenge: Adoption vs. the Hidden Cost

    It’s tempting. With the explosion of generative AI tools and APIs, teams are adopting AI for everything from log analysis to incident prediction to synthetic monitoring. But here’s the catch—AI isn’t free, and it’s not even “cheap at scale.”

    Consider the cost of:

    • High-performance GPUs or cloud-based inference endpoints
    • Storing, securing, and preprocessing terabytes of telemetry and observability data
    • AI-specific tooling and pipelines added on top of existing CI/CD stacks
    • Skilled AI/ML engineers—not exactly entry-level hires

    For large enterprises, these are “scale problems.” For small teams or early-stage startups, this could mean burning runway faster than the AI model spits out a summary.

    Pitfalls: Over-Investment, Under-Utilization

    We’ve seen it happen: companies spin up expensive AI observability tools or buy into LLM integrations for DevOps—but barely leverage them. A $30k/month platform producing insights no one reads? Ouch.

    What makes it worse?

    • Teams don’t retrain or fine-tune models—they use generic ones that provide generic insights.
    • False expectations: AI won’t magically fix flaky tests or bad deployments.
    • High latency and unexpected outages from relying on third-party AI APIs.

    The question is: If the AI dashboard is only saving you 2 hours/month but costing you 500+, is it worth it?

    Keystone for Decision: When Does AI Actually Fit?

    Here’s where AI genuinely pulls its weight in DevOps:

    • Massive Log Volume Triage: Using vector stores + LLMs to detect novel errors across petabytes of logs.
    • Predictive Scaling: AI models learning real traffic trends to auto-tune infrastructure without overprovisioning.
    • Incident Summarization: AI generates postmortems or incident reports faster than humans with less bias.

    But for small teams or narrow use-cases, a well-tuned regex or threshold alert might outperform AI—with less cost, complexity, and failure points.

    Takeaways: Decoding AI Adoption in DevOps

    • Start with need, not hype: Ask what problem AI is solving and whether a simpler tool already exists.
    • Evaluate cost-to-impact ratio: If AI is a nice-to-have, treat it as an experiment, not a dependency.
    • Measure ROI continuously: AI tools must evolve with your infra, or they’ll become expensive shelfware.
    • Don’t ignore the human cost: Hiring and upskilling for AI is real. It can’t be “just another script.”

    On a Funny Note:

    We once set up an AI-powered alert system that notified us every time our non-AI monitoring system failed. So technically, the AI worked… it just turned us into an overpaid “AI-monitor-monitoring” team.

    So yes, before adding another AI tool into your DevOps stack, remember: even AI needs monitoring. And maybe a hug.

    #ShipSmart #NotJustShiny #DevOpsWithJudgment

    Bibliography

    • McKinsey & Company: “The state of AI in 2023: Generative AI’s breakout year”
    • Google Cloud Blog: “AI in DevOps: How ML models are helping SRE teams”
    • OpenAI: “Function-calling & Observability Use Cases for GPT models”
    • Thoughtworks Technology Radar: “When not to use AI: Reducing Tooling Overload”
    • Martin Fowler: “Microservices and Observability: The AI Trap”

  • Designing Multi-Tenant Micro Frontends with Angular 19 and Module Federation

    Official Definition:

    Micro Frontends is a design approach where a frontend app is broken into smaller, semi-independent “micro apps” that can be developed, deployed, and scaled separately — just like microservices in the backend world.

    Module Federation, introduced with Webpack 5, allows JavaScript applications to dynamically load code from other applications at runtime. Angular 19 has taken this a notch higher with streamlined support, standalone components, and lazy loading baked in.

    In a multi-tenant setup, the same core app is served to multiple clients (tenants), each with customized branding, features, and access control — without deploying separate instances per client.

    Let’s Get to It

    Okay, let’s skip the buzzwords.

    Imagine you’re running an online learning platform. You have 20 schools onboard, and each wants its own logo, theme, dashboard widgets, and maybe some custom reports.

    Do you:

    • Clone the app 20 times?
    • Add 20 if-else statements everywhere in code?
    • Or… break it into micro frontends and load just what each tenant needs, on the fly?

    With Angular 19 + Module Federation, each part of your UI — Dashboard, Profile, Reports — can be a separate app. The main shell (layout) loads the right pieces dynamically depending on which tenant logs in. You control branding, routes, and even features — per tenant, per module.

    In short: cleaner separation, faster updates, happier devs.

    High-Level Implementation

    1. Shell App (Host): Handles layout, routing, and tenant detection. Loads remote modules dynamically.
    2. Remote Apps (Micro Frontends): Feature-specific Angular apps. Expose entry points with Webpack’s exposes.
    3. Tenant Configuration Service: JSON or API-driven feature toggles, branding, and rules per tenant.
    4. Shared Component Libraries: Common UI components and styling tokens.
    5. Routing Strategy: Shell handles master routing; remote apps load lazily and independently.
    6. Branding & Theming: Angular CDK + SCSS with dynamic CSS tokens loaded per tenant.
    7. CI/CD & Deployment: Each micro app has its own pipeline. Shell fetches remote entrypoints from an environment-configurable registry.

    ⚖️ How It Helps

    Feature Traditional SPA Micro Frontends with Module Federation
    Deployment Monolithic, risky Independent, safe
    Branding Per Tenant Complex, code-heavy Config-driven, dynamic
    Team Autonomy Shared repo, bottlenecks Separate repos, parallel velocity
    Tech Upgrade One giant leap Module-by-module
    Load Time Full bundle upfront Lazy-loaded per route
    Debugging All-in-one mess Scoped and local

    Advantages:

    • Each team owns a domain end-to-end
    • Less coordination overhead
    • Safer deployments
    • Real-time customization by tenant

    Drawbacks:

    • Initial setup complexity
    • Shared state management needs strategy
    • Runtime dependency mismatches (e.g., ag-grid, PrimeNG)

    In Essence

    • Use Angular 19’s standalone components to simplify modules.
    • Use Module Federation for dynamic remote app loading.
    • Apply config-driven theming and routing per tenant.
    • Use independent CI/CD for each micro app.
    • Share common libraries via sharedMappings.

    On a Funny Note

    “Building a monolith in 2025 is like using a fax machine to send memes. It works… but why!?”

    Bibliography