We have a long history with MongoDB. Many years ago, when I was still writing code myself, NoSQL was a novel concept. I was sold on its simplicity and natural compatibility with the Node stack. I used Mongo for all my side projects. For work, we still preferred SQL DBs, though. Fast forward to the early days of Qdrant, MongoDB Ventures reached out, and we had several conversations; they considered investing in our seed round. Their product managers and engineers were reaching out and praising our solution. At some point, they revealed that they are going to add vectors to their Atlas search product just by using Lucene. So what, who cares? At Qdrant, we’re not retrofitting anything. We’re building a dedicated vector search engine - from the ground up. If someone wants to replicate what we do? Go ahead, we are #opensource. But here’s where it gets frustrating. We have put in the hard work building our community and attracting prominent people in the AI landscape to use our product and create content about it. We have built our Qdrant Stars program to engage with the community even closely. qdrant.tech/stars So, what does it have to do with Mongo? Well, they just made a clever shortcut and reached out to our Qdrant Stars program members and influencers from our community, making them an offer they could not decline. I do not blame the content creators, it is their daily work and it is an excellent opportunity for them, guys, I can totally understand you, no worries. But let's call it what it is: A multi-billion-dollar company is now trying to buy its way into a community built by an early-stage startup, not them. We don’t fear competition. But when the incumbents start copying your strategy and poaching your community, it says one thing loud and clear: We’re making the right people nervous. We’ll never outspend Mongo, and we don’t need to. We have something they can’t copy or buy: a fast-growing, mission-driven, technically superior open platform - and a community that sees through the noise. So to the engineers, researchers, and creators who believe in open innovation, performance that doesn’t compromise, and communities that are earned, not acquired: you know where to find us. And to the MongoDB marketing geniuses: take on Elastic, take on Redis, take on Oracle, and others of your calibre, but leave Qdrant and other startups like us alone. | 61 comments on LinkedIn
How Notion Cut Millions from Their Vector DB Bill Without Sacrificing Search Quality
Keynote: The Death of the Browser - Rachel-Lee Nabors, AgentQL
Wikidata Launches Free Vector Database as Open Alternative to Closed AI Systems
Wikidata has launched something big.
Is Misinformation More Open? A Study of robots.txt Gatekeeping on the Web
Web scraping, the automated process of extracting information from websites, has long played a foundational role in the Internet ecosystem (Gray, 1995). It supports services such as search engine indexing, price comparison tools, and competitive intelligence. More recently, it has become a core component in the development of large-scale generative AI models. These Large Language Models (LLMs) require enormous volumes of training data, often in the terabyte range (Kaplan et al., 2020; Lehane, 2025), and the public web remains a low-cost, attractive source. Major model developers, including those behind OpenAI’s Chat-GPT (OpenAI, 2025), Google’s Bard (now known as Gemini) & Vertex AI (Romain, Danielle, 2023), and Anthropic’s Claude (Romain, Danielle, 2025), openly acknowledge the use of web scraping to construct their training corpora (Abdin et al., 2024; Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2023; Grattafiori et al., 2024; Team et al., 2024; Touvron et al., 2023).
Renaissance Philanthropy Fellow: Dario Taraborelli
Episode 1 - Mongo DB Is Web Scale
Chroma - open-source search infrastructure for AI
Open-source search infrastructure for AI
From Social Network to Sense Making
Sebastian Raschka on Twitter / X
Pretty cool. I think 2025-2026 will be a stronger focus on these in open source tooling.I.e. having LLMs delegate knowledge-based queries to search, which in turn frees up model capacity to improve reasoning capabilities and tool use. https://t.co/wNTg283mb2— Sebastian Raschka (@rasbt) August 12, 2025
Reclaiming scientific publishing: Our duty to make science freely accessible to all
When we (Camille Thomas and Romain Vaucher speaking) entered academia as graduate students in France and Switzerland, we were enthusiastic about the vast amount of research available with a simple click on our university computers. However, we also quickly felt disheartened by the significant amount of research work we couldn’t access when wrapping up our theses from home. Luckily, pirates existed. Empowered by Aaron Swartz’s Guerilla Open Access Manifesto, Alexandra Elbakyan created Sci-Hub in 2011, the greatest leak of scientific knowledge of the century. We felt right in the middle of an Open Access (OA) revolution that would finally make all scientific articles, old and new, accessible to everyone. Fifteen years later, our hopes as idealistic early-career researchers have been crushed by the oligopolistic model of scientific publishing and the subtle pressures of the “publish or perish” culture that reigns over our career development. In the meantime, publishers like Frontiers, MDPI and Springer Nature, to name a few, have exponentially expanded their number of titles. They have become increasingly exploitative of scholarly manpower, moving far away from the genuine accessibility they allegedly promised under the guise of this OA transformation. Open Access is to be praised, but the way it has been implemented through the mainstream Gold and Green OA models now primarily serves the status quo of large for-profit publishers. These entities hijack public money and voluntary editorial labour for their own profit and that of their shareholders (Butler et al., 2023; Shu and Larivière, 2024). In a nutshell, to offer reader accessibility, the Gold OA model requires authors to pay an Article Processing Charge (APC; around 2,000 $/€, rarely less, and often much more) covered by individual research funds, funding agencies or university library deals. The Green OA model allows authors to upload their accepted, non-formatted manuscripts to repositories after an embargo period. While both models allow compliance with funding agency mandates, true equity and accessibility are ultimately left behind. In an article we recently published (Vaucher and Thomas, 2026), we describe the mechanisms through which we, as researchers, inadvertently contribute to keeping research exclusive while driving the publishing model down an unsustainable path. Just like our broader economy, our publishing model and the ways science is evaluated fuelled a predatory system that demands more papers, funding and prestige at an ever-faster rate (Walter and Mullins, 2019), likely at the expense of quality, diversity and ethics (Frank et al., 2023; Heen and Vogt, 2024). These concerns aren’t entirely new. What is new, however, is the growing realisation among societies, universities and funding bodies that we must move away from this system. Initiatives like the European Diamond Capacity Hub, ALMASI and craft-OA are actively paving a way forward that we, as scientists, have yet to fully embrace. In the geosciences, a collective and concerted effort is currently being made by researchers to provide fairer, more sustainable alternatives through community-driven Diamond OA journals (which feature no APCs and completely free access to published articles). Volcanica (Farquharson and Wadsworth, 2018), Sedimentologika (Thomas et al., 2023), Tektonika (Fernández-Blanco et al., 2023), Seismica (Rowe et al., 2022), Geomorphica (Lefebvre et al., 2025), Open Paleontology (Drage et al., 2024), Advances in Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry (Pourret et al., 2025), Geodynamica, jSEDI and Planetary Research are all recently created, scholarly-run journals funded by university library investments to promote better ways of publishing. Their articles are peer-reviewed, free for readers to access, and free for authors to publish. They rely entirely on the voluntary involvement of scientists running open-source editorial platforms (such as Open Journal Systems), transparent workflows, copyediting, production and final dissemination. Diamond OA journals offer an alternative path for all of us to transform our broken publishing system and reclaim ownership of our own science. These efforts go hand in hand with greater involvement in our academic societies and non-profit publishing initiatives. Ultimately, real transformation can only happen if all of us as researchers realise how inherently unfair and exclusive the current system is to labs and institutions that cannot afford steep Gold OA APCs or paywalled journal subscriptions. It also means we must collectively stop evaluating science based on journal prestige and the flawed metrics they own (Posada and Chen, 2018; Sabel and Larhammar, 2025; Simons, 2008). Only by breaking these habits can we truly make knowledge accessible to all. References Butler, L.-A., Matthias, L., Simard, M.-A., Mongeon, P., and Haustein, S.: The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges, Quantitative Science Studies, 4, 778–799, https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272, 2023. Drage, H. B., Keating, J. N., Nielsen, M. L., Saleh, F., and Hearing, T. W. W.: Open Palaeontology: a new model of diamond open access journal for palaeontology, Open Palaeontology, 1, 1–6, https://doi.org/10.26034/la.opal.2024.6223, 2024. Farquharson, J. I. and Wadsworth, F. B.: Introducing Volcanica: The first diamond open-access journal for volcanology, Volcanica, 1, I–IX, https://doi.org/10.30909/vol.01.01.i-ix, 2018. Fernández-Blanco, D., Lacassin, R., Gouiza, M., Perez-Diaz, L., Magee, C., McCarthy, D., Doré, T., Péron-Pinvidic, G., Kavanagh, J., Bond, C., and Schmitt, R.: Tektonika: The Community-Led Diamond Open-Access Journal for Tectonics and Structural Geology, τeκτoniκa, 1, I–XIII, https://doi.org/10.55575/tektonika2023.1.1.56, 2023. Frank, J., Foster, R., and Pagliari, C.: Open access publishing – noble intention, flawed reality, Social Science & Medicine, 317, 115592, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115592, 2023. Heen, E. and Vogt, H.: Scientific rot: Unsustainable publishing practices threatens trust in medicine, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 30, 941–944, https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13989, 2024. Lefebvre, A., Bosch, R., Burrows, K., Giaime, M., Goodwin, G., Lai, L. S.-H., Stammler, M., and Fernández, R.: Geomorphica: The most accessible journal for the geomorphology community, Geomorphica, 1, https://doi.org/10.59236/geomorphica.v1i1.54, 2025. Posada, A. and Chen, G.: Inequality in Knowledge Production: The Integration of Academic Infrastructure by Big Publishers, in: ELPUB 2018, https://doi.org/10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.30, 2018. Pourret, O., Millet, M.-A., Marin-Carbonne, J., Mallik, A., Tierney, J. E., Darling, J. R., Kiseeva, E. S., Torres, M. A., Fonseca, R. O. C., Tartèse, R., Namur, O., Klöcking, M., Matthews, S. W., Dahrén, B., Ickert, R. B., and Board, the inaugural A. in G. and C. editorial: Equitable Access, Open Science, and the Future of Publishing in Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry, Advances in Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry, 1, https://doi.org/10.33063/agc.v1i1.770, 2025. Rowe, C., Agius, M., Convers, J., Funning, G., Galasso, C., Hicks, S., Huynh, T., Lange, J., Lecocq, T., Mark, H., Okuwaki, R., Ragon, T., Rychert, C., Teplitzky, S., and Van den Ende, M.: The launch of Seismica: a seismic shift in publishing, Seismica, 1, https://doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v1i1.255, 2022. Sabel, B. and Larhammar, D.: Reformation of science publishing: the Stockholm Declaration, R Soc Open Sci., 12, 251805, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.251805, 2025. Shu, F. and Larivière, V.: The oligopoly of open access publishing, Scientometrics, 129, 519–536, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04876-2, 2024. Simons, K.: The Misused Impact Factor, Science, 322, 165–165, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165316, 2008. Thomas, C., Privat, A., Vaucher, R., Spychala, Y., Zuchuat, V., Marchegiano, M., Poyatos-Moré, M., Kane, I., and Chiarella, D.: Sedimentologika: a community-driven diamond open access journal in sedimentology, Sedimentologika, 2023. Vaucher, R. and Thomas, C.: Diamond is the new Green—Why Green Open Access is not a sustainable long-term model for scientific publishing, Sedimentologika, 4, https://doi.org/10.57035/journals/sdk.2026.e41.2397, 2026. Walter, P. and Mullins, D.: From symbiont to parasite: the evolution of for-profit science publishing, Molecular Biology of the Cell, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E19-03-0147, 2019.
surrealdb/surrealdb
A scalable, distributed, collaborative, document-graph database, for the realtime web
Building open, private AI with the Mozilla Builders Accelerator | The Mozilla Blog
AI tools are more accessible than ever. Big tech companies have made this possible, but their focus on growth and monetization prioritizes large-scale prod
New demo version of atsearch.network is here 💃 quick recap: any AT Proto app can invent its own record type: scrobbles, books, photos, RPGs, etc... nothing searches across them so i built a search engine that reads your lexicon and figures out how to index you
New demo version of atsearch.network is here 💃 quick recap: any AT Proto app can invent its own record type: scrobbles, books, photos, RPGs, etc... nothing searches across them so i built a search engine that reads your lexicon and figures out how to index you
