2026-01-26 19:00:04
\ benchANT compares MongoDB and ScyllaDB architectures, with a focus on what the differences mean for performance and scalability
When choosing a NoSQL database, the options can be overwhelming. One of the most popular choices is MongoDB, known for its easy use. But the highly performance-oriented ScyllaDB is one of the rising challengers. This benchANT report takes a closer technical look at both databases – comparing their architectures from an independent, technical angle.
Both MongoDB and ScyllaDB promise a high-available, performant and scalable architecture. But the way they achieve these objectives is much more different than you might think at first glance. For instance, an experience report demonstrates how ScyllaDB can easily be operated on AWS EC2 spot instances thanks to its distributed architecture while MongoDB’s distributed architecture would make this a very challenging task.
To highlight these differences, we provide an in-depth discussion of the internal storage architecture and the distributed architectures enabling high-availability and horizontal scalability.
Note: We also just released a benchmark quantifying the impact of these differences.
\
:::tip Read the DynamoDB vs MongoDB Benchmark Summary
Download this Comparison Report
:::
\
Both databases are implemented in C++ and recommend the use of the XFS filesystem. Moreover, MongoDB and ScyllaDB are building upon the write-ahead-logging concept, Commit Log in ScyllaDB terminology and Oplog in MongoDB terminology. With write-ahead-logging, all operations are written to a log table before the operation is executed. The write-ahead-log serves as a source to replicate the data to other nodes, and it is used to restore data in case of failures because it is possible to `replay` the operations to restore the data.
MongoDB uses as default storage engine a B+-Tree index (Wired Tiger) for data storage and retrieval. B+-Tree indexes are balanced tree data structures that store data in a sorted order, making it easy to perform range-based queries. MongoDB supports multiple indexes on a collection, including compound indexes, text indexes, and geospatial indexes. Indexing of array elements and nested fields, allowing for efficient queries on complex data structures, are also possible. In addition, the enterprise version of MongoDB supports an in-memory storage engine for low latency workloads.
\ ScyllaDB divides data into shards by assigning a fragment of the total data in a node to a specific CPU, along with its associated memory (RAM) and persistent storage (such as NVMe SSD). The internal storage engine of ScyllaDB follows the write-ahead-logging concept by applying a disk persistent commit log together with memory based memtables that are flushed to disk over time. ScyllaDB supports primary, secondary and composite indexes, both local per node and global per cluster. The primary index consists of a hashing ring where the hashed key and the corresponding partition are stored. And within the partition, ScyllaDB finds the row in a sorted data structure (SSTable), which is a variant of the LSM-Tree. The secondary index is maintained in an index table. When a secondary index is queried, ScyllaDB first retrieves the partition key, which is associated with the secondary key, and afterward the data value for the secondary key on the right partition.
\ These different storage architectures result in a different usage of the available hardware to handle the workload. MongoDB does not pin internal threads to available CPU cores but applies an unbound approach to distributed threads to cores. With modern NUMA-based CPU architectures, this can cause a performance degradation, especially for large servers because threads can dynamically be assigned to cores on different sockets with different memory nodes. In contrast, ScyllaDB follows a shard per core approach that allows it to pin the responsible threads to specific cores and avoids switching between different cores and memory spaces. In consequence, the shard key needs to be selected carefully to ensure an equal data distribution across the shards and to prevent hot shards. Moreover, ScyllaDB comes with an I/O scheduler that provides built-in priority classes for latency sensitive and insensitive queries, as well as the coordinated I/O scheduling across the shards on one node to maximize disk performance. Finally, ScyllaDB’s install scripts come with a performance auto-tuning step by applying the optimal database configuration based on the available resources. In consequence, a clear performance advantage of ScyllaDB can be expected.
\ ScyllaDB allows the user to control whether data should reside in the DB cache or bypass it for rarely accessed partitions. ScyllaDB allows the client to reach the node and cpu core (shard) that owns the data. This provides lower latency, consistent performance and perfect load balancing. ScyllaDB also provides ‘workload prioritization’ which provides the user different SLAs for different workloads to guarantee lower latency for certain, crucial workloads.
\
\ \
The MongoDB database architecture offers two cluster modes that are described in the following sections: a replica set cluster targets high availability, while a sharded cluster targets horizontal scalability and high availability.
The MongoDB architecture enables high availability by the concept of replica sets. MongoDB replica sets follow the concept of Primary-Secondary nodes, where only the primary handles the WRITE operations. The secondaries hold a copy of the data and can be enabled to handle READ operations only. A common replica set deployment consists of two secondaries, but additional secondaries can be added to increase availability or to scale read-heavy workloads. MongoDB supports up to 50 secondaries within one replica set. Secondaries will be elected as primary in case of a failure at the former primary.
\
\ Regarding geo-distribution, MongoDB supports geo-distributed deployments for replica sets to ensure high availability in case of data center failures. In this context, secondary instances can be distributed across multiple data centers, as shown in the following figure. In addition, secondaries with limited resources or network constraints can be configured with a priority to control their electability as primary in case of a failure.
\
\
MongoDB supports horizontal scaling by sharding data across multiple primary instances to cope with write-intensive workloads and growing data sizes. In a sharded cluster, each replica set consisting of one primary and multiple secondaries represents a shard. Since MongoDB 4.4 secondaries can also be used to handle read requests by using the hedged read option.
To enable sharding, additional MongoDB node types are required: query routers (mongos) and config servers. A mongos instance acts as a query router, providing an interface between client applications and the sharded cluster. In consequence, clients never communicate directly with the shards, but always via the query router. Query routers are stateless and lightweight components that can be operated on dedicated resources or together with the client applications.
\ It is recommended to deploy multiple query routers to ensure the accessibility of the cluster because the query routers are the direct interface for the client drivers. There is no limit to the number of query routers, but as they communicate frequently with the config servers, it should be noted that too many query routers can overload the config servers. Config servers store the metadata of a sharded cluster, including state and organization for all data and components. The metadata includes the list of chunks on every shard and the ranges that define the chunks. Config servers need to be deployed as a replica set itself to ensure high availability.
Data sharding in MongoDB is done at the collection level, and a collection can be sharded based on a shard key. MongoDB uses a shard key to determine which documents belong on which shard. Common shard key choices include the _id field and a field with a high cardinality, such as a timestamp or user ID. MongoDB supports three sharding strategies: range based, hash based and zone based.
\ Ranged sharding partitions documents across shards according to the shard key value. This keeps documents with shard key values close to one another and works well for range-based queries, e.g. on time series data. Hashed sharding guarantees a uniform distribution of writes across shards, which favors write workloads. Zoned sharding allows developers to define custom sharding rules, for instance to ensure that the most relevant data reside on shards that are geographically closest to the application servers.
\
Also, sharded clusters can be deployed in a geo-distributed setup to overcome data center failures, as depicted in the following figure.
\
Unlike MongoDB, ScyllaDB does not follow the classical RDBMS architectures with one primary node and multiple secondary nodes, but uses a decentralized structure, where all data is systematically distributed and replicated across multiple nodes forming a cluster. This architecture is commonly referred to as multi-primary architecture.
A cluster is a collection of interconnected nodes organized into a virtual ring architecture, across which data is distributed. The ring is divided into vNodes, which represent a range of tokens assigned to a physical node, and are replicated across physical nodes according to the replication factor set for the keyspace. All nodes are considered equal, in a multi-primary sense. Without a defined leader, the cluster has no single point of failure. Nodes can be individual on-premises servers, or virtual servers (public cloud instances) composed of a subset of hardware on a larger physical server. On each node, data is further partitioned into shards. Shards operate as mostly independently operating units, known as a “shared nothing” design. This greatly reduces contention and the need for expensive processing locks.
\ All nodes communicate with each other via the gossip protocol. This protocol decides in which partition which data is written and searches for the data records in the right partition using the indexes.
When it comes to scaling, ScyllaDB’s architecture is made for easy horizontal sharding across multiple servers and regions. Sharding in ScyllaDB is done at the table level, and a table can be sharded based on a partition key. The partition key can be a single column or a composite of multiple columns. ScyllaDB also supports range-based sharding, where rows are distributed across shards based on the partition key value range, as well as hash-based sharding for equally distributing data and to avoid hot spots.
\ Additionally, ScyllaDB allows for data to be replicated across multiple data centers for higher availability and lower latencies. In this multi-data-center or multi-region setup, the data between data centers is asynchronously replicated.
On the client side, applications may or may not be aware of the multi datacenter deployment, and it is up to the application developer to decide on the awareness to fallback data-center(s). This can be configured via the read and write consistency options that define if queries are executed against a single data center or across all data centers. Load balancing in a multi datacenter setup depends on the available settings within the specific programming language driver.
\
\
When it comes to scalability, the significantly different distribution approaches of both ScyllaDB and MongoDB need to be considered, especially for self-managed clusters running on-premises or on IaaS. MongoDB’s architecture easily allows scaling read-heavy workloads by increasing the number of secondaries in a replica set.
Yet, for scaling workloads with a notable write proportion, the replica sets need to be transformed into a sharded replica set and this comes with several challenges. First, two additional MongoDB services are required: n query routers (mongos) and a replica set of config servers to ensure high availability. Consequently, considerably more resources are required to enable sharding in the first place. Moreover, the operational complexity clearly increases. For instance, a sharded cluster with three shards requires a replica set of three mongos instances, a replica set of three config servers and three shards – each shard consisting of one primary and at least two secondaries.
\ The second challenge is the repartitioning of data in the sharded cluster. Here, MongoDB applies a constantly running background task that autonomously triggers the redistribution of data across the shards. The repartitioning does not take place as soon as a new shard is added to the cluster, but when certain internal thresholds are reached. Consequently, increasing the number of shards will immediately scale the cluster but may have a delayed scaling effect. Until MongoDB Version 5.0, MongoDB engineers themselves recommend to not shard, but rather to scale vertically with bigger machines if possible.
\ Scaling a ScyllaDB cluster is comparably easy and transparent for the user thanks to ScyllaDB’s multi-primary architecture. Here, each node is equal, and no additional services are needed to scale the cluster to hundreds of nodes. Moreover, data repartitioning is triggered as soon as a new node is added to the cluster. In this context, ScyllaDB offers clear advantages over MongoDB. First, thanks to the consistent hashing approach, data does not need to be repartitioned across the full cluster, only across a subset of nodes. Second, the partitioning starts with adding the new node, which eases the timing of the scaling action. This is important, since repartitioning will put some additional load on the cluster and should be avoided at peak workload phases.
The main scalability differences are summarized in the following table:
\
\
When you compare two distributed NoSQL databases, you always discover some parallels, but also numerous considerable differences. This is also the case here with ScyllaDB vs MongoDB. \n Both databases address similar use cases and have a similar product and community strategy. But when it comes to the technical side, you can see the different approaches and focus. Both databases are built for enabling high availability through a distributed architecture. But when it comes to the target workloads, MongoDB enables easily getting started with single node or replica set deployments that fit well for small and medium workloads, while addressing large workloads and data sets becomes a challenge due to the technical architecture.
\ ScyllaDB clearly addresses performance critical workloads that demand for easy and high scalability, high throughput, low and stable latency, and everything in a multi datacenter deployment. This is also shown by data intensive use cases of companies such Discord, Numberly or TRACTIAN that migrated from MongoDB to ScyllaDB to successfully solve performance problems.
And to provide further insights into their respective performance capabilities, we provide a transparent and reproducible performance comparison in a separate benchmark report that investigates the performance, scalability, and costs for MongoDB Atlas and ScyllaDB Cloud.
\
See the complete benchANT MongoDB vs ScyllaDB comparison for an extended version of this technical comparison, including details comparing:
\
2026-01-26 18:52:38
This article explains how Android manages application processes using the Zygote process. It covers Linux process hierarchies, why Zygote exists, how Android starts app processes efficiently, and how the system maintains control over performance and resources.
2026-01-26 18:48:58
Crypto wallets often force users to choose between security, privacy, and usability. Since 2017, Mixin Messenger has been quietly building a different paradigm. With over $1 billion in assets under management and support for 2,900+ assets across 42 blockchains, the platform represents a contrarian bet: that users shouldn't have to sacrifice self-custody for a Web2-like experience.
\ Today, we sit down with Sonny Liu, CMO at Mixin, to understand how they're rethinking the relationship between social communication, asset privacy, and blockchain infrastructure.
\ Ishan Pandey: Hi Sonny, thank you for joining our "Behind the Startup" series. Please tell us about yourself and what drew you to Mixin's mission of integrating privacy-first communication with multi-chain asset management?
\ Sonny Liu: Hi everyone, I'm Sonny from Mixin, currently responsible for product marketing. Mixin is a very forward-looking company. From the very beginning, the team has treated privacy, security, and usability as core product principles, not features you add later, but the foundation of everything we build.
\ In 2017, we launched our first product—Mixin, a private crypto wallet and messenger. At that time, most wallets like MetaMask, Electrum, and Trust Wallet were primarily built for asset management. They had relatively high learning curves, were better suited for users with existing blockchain knowledge, and were not very friendly to newcomers. Most of them were also designed mainly for web use. We often refer to that period as the Wallet 1.0 era.
\ It wasn't until around 2025 that wallets like OKX Wallet and Phantom began integrating social features, which we describe as the Wallet 3.0 era. However, Mixin had already combined social communication with asset management back in 2017, with privacy and ease of use as first principles. That's why we believe Mixin was ahead of its time.
\ As for why we deeply integrate privacy-first communication with multi-chain asset management—that's a great question. Even outside of crypto, people generally do not want their assets or related communications to be exposed, whether it's financial information or personal messages. While transparency is a core feature of blockchains, as crypto increasingly takes on real asset value, the demand for privacy becomes much more urgent.
\ The Mixin team recognized this clearly as early as 2017. Only by combining communication privacy and asset privacy can users truly protect themselves from unwanted exposure. Looking at 2026 and the strong performance of privacy coins like ZEC and XMR, it's clear that privacy and security are becoming fundamental user needs—not nice-to-haves.
\ Ishan Pandey: Mixin was founded in 2017 around a problem that remains unsolved today: giving ordinary users a safe, intuitive way to manage crypto assets without sacrificing privacy or self-custody. How has the market's understanding of this problem evolved since you started, and where do you see the biggest gaps today?
\ Sonny Liu: I touched on this earlier, but let me expand. You can essentially trace market demand by watching how decentralized wallets evolved. Wallet 1.0 was purely about custody, holding your assets. Wallet 2.0 improved usability and basic transfers. Wallet 3.0 added trading, market data, or social layers on top.
\ If you ask me what the biggest gap is today, I'd say privacy without hesitation. Almost no wallets treat privacy as a foundational design principle. Most treat it as an optional add-on or premium feature. Mixin was built with privacy at the protocol level inside a decentralized network. That's the missing piece in the wider ecosystem.
\ What we're seeing now is the market slowly catching up to what we understood in 2017: users need privacy not because they have something to hide, but because financial security and communication security are inseparable in the digital age.
\ Ishan Pandey: Most crypto wallets add privacy features as optional layers, and no Web3 firm provides a built-in encrypted messenger. But Mixin built privacy into the system architecture from day one. Can you explain the technical and philosophical reasoning behind this approach? What trade-offs did you have to navigate to maintain both privacy and usability?
\ Sonny Liu: We believe privacy is not just about financial data. Communication privacy matters just as much. In recent years, many users have accidentally leaked information that exposed their assets or personal context and suffered significant losses as a result. We live in an era of information overload, where small data leaks can quickly become public and exploited.
\ Privacy shouldn't be a premium feature. It should be a default setting—something that protects users automatically, not something they need to opt into or configure.
\ Mixin uses end-to-end encryption based on the Signal Protocol, so no third party—not even us—can access messages. And users can transfer assets with zero fees between each other, making communication and asset usage feel seamless.
\ Here's the important part: we didn't have to compromise between usability and privacy because the entire system was designed around both from day one. That's fundamentally different from bolting privacy onto an existing architecture. When privacy is foundational, you don't sacrifice user experience—you enhance it by eliminating the friction and fear that comes with exposure.
\ Ishan Pandey: You've processed over $1 trillion in total transaction volume and manage over $1 billion in assets under management. Yet unlike most platforms at this scale, Mixin doesn't monetize through custody or speculation. How does your diversified revenue model, spanning trading, wealth services, and membership, reflect your long-term philosophy?
\ Sonny Liu: Mixin was built to become a superapp—one that gives users access to the safest and most intuitive experience at the lowest possible cost. We generate revenue through trading, wealth services, and membership programs. But our philosophy is to pass as much economic benefit as possible back to users.
\ For example, in version 3.5.0 we introduced a 60 percent trading rebate program—meaning users get most of the trading fees back. And in version 3.6.0, we launched free internal transfers across imported Web3 wallets. Users can import any Web3 wallet into Mixin and transfer assets between them without fees.
\ This creates deep product lock-in, but not through extraction—through value. Users stay because we make their lives easier and cheaper, not because we're trapping them or profiting from their assets under custody. That's the foundation of long-term sustainability.
\ Ishan Pandey: Mixin integrates Signal Protocol-based end-to-end encryption for all communications. In most crypto products, messaging is either absent or an afterthought. Why did you make encrypted social communication a core component rather than treating it as a separate feature?
\ Sonny Liu: We reached this conclusion by studying actual user behavior. After transferring funds, people almost always switch to a messenger to coordinate or confirm details. It's a very natural flow—send money, then message to say "sent" or "received."
\ But in crypto, communication leaks can reveal sensitive details about wallet addresses, transaction amounts, or even personal security practices. Switching across apps increases exposure and risk every single time.
\ Combining encrypted communication with a wallet creates a much safer and more natural workflow. Users don't have to think about security—they just communicate and transact in one protected environment. That's the kind of simplicity that drives real adoption.
Ishan Pandey: Finally, what advice would you give to founders building infrastructure-focused crypto products in an industry that often rewards short-term narratives over long-term technical reliability?
\ Sonny Liu: Infrastructure isn't built for headlines or market cycles. It's built for longevity.
Trends change quickly in crypto, but fundamentals don't. Over the past eight years, Mixin has adhered to three principles: privacy, security, and simplicity. In 2017, these principles weren't popular and often conflicted with hype-driven growth strategies. But they are the reason infrastructure survives across market cycles.
\ Let me be direct about what this means:
\
Privacy should be the default, not an add-on. If you're asking users to opt in to privacy, you've already failed them.
\
Security should be proven through design and time, not slogans. Anyone can claim to be secure. Proving it requires years of operation without compromise.
\
Simplicity matters because real adoption only happens when complex systems feel effortless to normal people. If your product requires a tutorial, you haven't finished building it.
\
Short-term narratives attract attention, but long-term trust is earned through consistency. If you're building infrastructure, your real audience isn't today's sentiment or this quarter's metrics. It's the users who will still rely on your system five or ten years from now.
At Mixin, that's how we've been building for eight straight years. We believe it's the only sustainable path for this industry.
\ Don’t forget to like and share the story!
:::tip This author is an independent contributor publishing via our business blogging program. HackerNoon has reviewed the report for quality, but the claims herein belong to the author. #DYO
:::
\
2026-01-26 18:36:25
Theoretical optimizations can backfire in practice. We learned this the hard way at DoorDash when a "smart" HashMap change made latency worse. After years optimizing 50M+ monthly requests, here's what actually works: measure tail latencies not averages, layer your caching with jittered TTLs, profile real workloads instead of trusting Big O, and treat performance as a practice not a project. Your intuition about what's slow might probably be wrong.
2026-01-26 16:24:23
Enterprise leaders are investing heavily in generative AI. Yet once these systems go live, many teams encounter a familiar problem. Tasks move faster, dashboards look more polished, and AI-generated responses sound confident, but decision quality often remains unchanged.
In some cases, confidence declines. Leaders approve outcomes they struggle to fully explain or defend. This gap reflects a persistent misconception that automation improves judgment. In practice, it does not.
Across regulated, high-volume enterprise environments, a consistent pattern emerges. When AI accelerates execution without redesigning how decisions are made and owned, organizations move faster toward misaligned outcomes. Systems optimize throughput, while judgment remains constrained by unclear ownership and limited visibility into reasoning.
The real opportunity lies elsewhere. Generative AI delivers value when it strengthens decision intelligence rather than replacing human judgment. This article examines how enterprise decision systems can apply generative AI responsibly, transparently, and at scale. The focus is on how decisions function inside complex enterprise systems.
Automation improves efficiency, not decision quality. Many enterprise AI initiatives stall because they optimize surface tasks while leaving the underlying decision system unchanged. Polished dashboards and automated alerts improve visibility but rarely clarify accountability or reduce ambiguity.
AI-assisted decision-making shows that outcomes improve when AI supports evaluation rather than replaces it. When people treat AI outputs as authoritative, performance often declines. When they treat outputs as inputs for reasoning, results improve.
This distinction matters at enterprise scale, where decisions carry financial, legal, and reputational consequences. AI adds value by enhancing human reasoning, not overriding it.
The most persistent constraint is not data or models, but fragmented context. Policies live in one system. Historical decisions live in another. Explanations remain implicit. Decision intelligence addresses this gap by making context explicit.
In enterprise environments, decisions require data, context, constraints, explanation, and accountability. Treating AI as a standalone engine overlooks the fact that decisions emerge from systems, not just models.
A decision system assembles inputs, applies rules, surfaces trade-offs, and routes authority to the appropriate person at the right moment. Generative AI fits within this system as a synthesis layer that connects information across components. It does not replace the system itself.
The figure below shows how data flows into context, context into insights, and insights into human-authorized decisions, with governance applied throughout. 
This framing reflects how high-impact decisions function in practice. In enterprise product and analytics environments, measurable gains appear only when teams clarify where insights end and decisions begin. Clear boundaries preserve accountability.
In enterprise decision systems, confusion often arises because teams treat insights, recommendations, and decisions as interchangeable. Separating these layers is essential to preserve accountability, explainability, and human judgment, especially when generative AI is used.
Insights explain what is happening and why. They surface patterns, anomalies, and relationships across data sources. Insights reduce uncertainty, but they do not prescribe action or assume ownership.
Recommendations translate insights into ranked options under explicit constraints. They present rationale, assumptions, and trade-offs. Recommendations guide action, but they stop short of commitment.
Decisions represent authoritative commitments with financial, legal, or operational consequences. They carry clear ownership and require human authorization, particularly when financial exposure, compliance obligations, or customer impact is involved.
This separation aligns with research on explainable, human-grounded decision support, which shows that decision systems perform best when humans can evaluate not just outputs but the reasoning and constraints behind them.
Generative AI excels at synthesis. It summarizes complex histories. It translates structured and unstructured data into explanations. It supports scenario exploration through natural language. These strengths reduce cognitive load.
In enterprise deployments, generative systems add the most value when they operate behind clear guardrails. They ingest historical decisions, policies, and escalation records. They surface explanations and comparable cases. They never finalize outcomes.
Research on retrieval-augmented generation provides a practical foundation for this trust boundary. By constraining generative outputs to retrieved, verifiable sources, RAG architectures reduce hallucination and make reasoning traceable. These properties are essential for building reliable and trustworthy enterprise decision systems.
Trust determines whether enterprise systems are adopted. Unconstrained generation erodes trust and does not belong in enterprise systems that require explainability and auditability. Traceability matters more than fluency alone. RAG introduces a boundary. It forces generative outputs to reference approved knowledge, past decisions, and policy artifacts.
In large-scale decision platforms, RAG enables explainability without slowing workflows. It allows teams to audit why a recommendation surfaced and which sources informed it. That capability becomes essential once AI systems operate across billing, pricing, and risk-sensitive domains.
Human oversight must be intentional, not an afterthought. High-performing systems trigger review based on uncertainty and impact, not volume. Human-in-the-loop works best when:
This diagram illustrates a downward flow of decision-making and an upward feedback loop for learning and system refinement.
This structure mirrors how enterprise leaders already operate. AI succeeds when it adapts to that reality rather than attempting to replace it.
Governance enables scale by making risk explicit. In enterprise environments, explainability and auditability are operational requirements.
Established AI risk management frameworks emphasize transparency, accountability, and continuous monitoring across the AI lifecycle, principles that align directly with decision intelligence systems that log outcomes and refine thresholds over time. Unchecked generative systems introduce hidden risk. Governed systems surface visible trade-offs.
Success depends more on decision quality than on model accuracy alone. Practical metrics include:
The Stanford AI Index highlights a growing gap between AI capability and organizational readiness. Adoption depends on trust and measurable value, not experimentation alone. Organizations that instrument decisions, not just models, learn faster and compound gains.
AI maturity does not come from adding more models. It comes from redesigning how decisions are owned, governed, and executed. Organizations that succeed with generative AI do so deliberately by clarifying decision ownership, preserving context through strong data foundations, and ensuring leaders can critically interpret AI outputs.
This redesign is not optional. McKinsey’s analysis shows that AI improves outcomes only when organizations rethink how decisions are made and who is held accountable, rather than treating AI as a standalone productivity layer.
Many enterprises feel stalled because AI capability exists, but decision architecture does not. Generative AI becomes transformative when it strengthens judgment, preserves accountability, and earns trust.
The next step is not increased automation. It’s an intentional decision system design.
For leaders responsible for AI adoption, the work begins by mapping end-to-end decision systems. Identify where context fragments across tools and teams. Define clear zones of human authority. Use generative AI to assemble context, surface trade-offs, and explain reasoning without making decisions.
Organizations that take this approach move beyond experimentation. They build decision intelligence as a durable capability. The results follow.
\ References:
:::info This article is published under HackerNoon's Business Blogging program.
:::
\
2026-01-26 15:11:04
How are you, hacker?
🪐Want to know what's trending right now?:
The Techbeat by HackerNoon has got you covered with fresh content from our trending stories of the day! Set email preference here.
## The Long Now of the Web: Inside the Internet Archive’s Fight Against Forgetting 
By @zbruceli [ 18 Min read ]
A deep dive into the Internet Archive's custom tech stack. Read More.
By @ivankuznetsov [ 9 Min read ] It’s far more efficient to run multiple Claude instances simultaneously, spin up git worktrees, and tackle several tasks at once. Read More.
By @drechimyn [ 7 Min read ] Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA) is eating the API economy from the inside out. Read More.
By @davidiyanu [ 7 Min read ] Kubernetes failures are rarely technical. Human error, undocumented complexity, and hero engineering turn powerful platforms into fragile systems. Read More.
By @socialdiscoverygroup [ 19 Min read ] We taught Playwright to find the correct HAR entry even when query/body values change and prevented reusing entities with dynamic identifiers. Read More.
By @dataops [ 4 Min read ] DataOps provides the blueprint, but automation makes it scalable. Learn how enforced CI/CD, observability, and governance turn theory into reality. Read More.
By @linked_do [ 12 Min read ] As the AI bubble deflates, attention shifts from scale to structure. A long view on knowledge, graphs, ontologies, and futures worth living. Read More.
By @newsbyte [ 7 Min read ] Meet Yuri Misnik, Chief Technology Officer at inDrive. Read More.
By @dharmateja [ 13 Min read ] Historically, technological revolutions have triggered similar waves of anxiety, only for the long-term outcomes to demonstrate a more optimistic narrative. Read More.
By @nikitakothari [ 5 Min read ] In an agentic world, your documentation—specifically your structured API contracts—has replaced your implementation as the actual source code. Read More.
By @mcsee [ 3 Min read ] Set your AI code assistant to read-only state before it touches your files. Read More.
By @scottdclary [ 27 Min read ] Real transformation requires your brain to physically rewire itself. Read More.
By @sanya_kapoor [ 16 Min read ] A 60-day test of 10 Bitcoin mining companies reveals which hosting providers deliver the best uptime, electricity rates, and ROI in 2026. Read More.
By @TheMarkup [ 10 Min read ] Are those toys secure? And precisely what data is being handed over when a kid is using these toys? Read More.
By @TheLoneroFoundation [ 2 Min read ] OpenAI is starting to raise some ethical concerns, and now the tech community wants to fight back. Here is a quick summary. Read More.
By @nathanbsmith729 [ 4 Min read ] Final Week Upcoming… Read More.
By @kilocode [ 9 Min read ] Kilo for Slack brings AI coding agents into your team's conversations. Tag @Kilo in a Slack thread to ask questions about your codebase or ship PRs directly. Read More.
By @vigneshwaran [ 6 Min read ] Learn how to use DxDiag on Windows 11 to diagnose DirectX, graphics, sound, and driver issues, and fix common hardware problems. Read More.
By @vinitabansal [ 12 Min read ] Here are the 5 risks every leader must take daily because it’s impossible to get better at anything without consistent practice. Read More.
By @proflead [ 4 Min read ]
Ollama is an open-source platform for running and managing large-language-model (LLM) packages entirely on your local machine. Read More.
🧑💻 What happened in your world this week? It's been said that writing can help consolidate technical knowledge, establish credibility, and contribute to emerging community standards. Feeling stuck? We got you covered ⬇️⬇️⬇️
ANSWER THESE GREATEST INTERVIEW QUESTIONS OF ALL TIME
We hope you enjoy this worth of free reading material. Feel free to forward this email to a nerdy friend who'll love you for it.
See you on Planet Internet! With love,
The HackerNoon Team ✌️
.gif)
