Turns out telling an entire generation that AI will replace half their jobs, flood the internet with slop and make billionaires richer didn’t produce boundless techno optimism. Who could have predicted that? The AI industry may have a capability problem, but it definitely has a messaging problem.

Turns out the commute, fluorescent lighting, constant interruptions and performative desk sitting weren’t secretly essential ingredients for human happiness after all. Shocking. Next study: 7,700 managers discover that seeing someone in a chair is not actually a productivity metric.

Based on two decades of experience: As a general rule, there should be regular in-person team events (around two a year and just for fun). In addition, there should be joint training sessions (also around two a year). New staff members require a great deal of attention from their team, both at these events and when working remotely, particularly at the outset.

If more are needed, just give it a try. We’ve learned that organising more than 3-4 a year is very time-consuming, particularly when it comes to scheduling them for the whole team.

Cooking together is brilliant: just yesterday we held our summer strategy meeting at a cookery school, where we cooked and enjoyed a three-course meal together. Basically, anything that encourages plenty of interaction and offers a completely different setting to the usual one is ideal.

This is what local media should have been building years ago: not another news site begging Google and Meta for traffic, but a digital town square it actually controls. Reverse chronological feeds, human stewards, no follower contest, no engagement addiction. If chicago.com works, the interesting question is why every public broadcaster isn’t trying this?

Hehe… 😈

Yes. 💪😎✌️

The brutal truth of social networks: people don’t stay for protocols, decentralization, or good intentions. They stay because everyone else is there. Building better infrastructure is impressive. Building a habit people refuse to leave is harder.

We spent years worrying AI would become sentient and overthrow humanity. Turns out the more realistic scenario is humans inventing a religion around autocomplete. 🙈

Funny how the self proclaimed savior of humanity keeps treating regulations like optional DLC: If anyone else ran 59 gas turbines without permits they would be buried in fines. Billionaires call it innovation, everyone breathing nearby calls it another asthma attack waiting to happen.

The irony is that this argument will probably get more attention on Reddit than on any open forum: Centralised platforms are great for discovery and awful for preservation. Use them as the billboard, not the library. Keep the valuable stuff where you control the rules, the backups and the future.

Subscriptions were supposed to replace cable, then software, then heated seats, now phones. Funny how every innovation somehow ends with paying forever. If your business model needs me renting hardware I already carry everywhere, maybe the product isn’t improving fast enough to justify buying it?

We are repeating an old pattern in computing: throw more hardware at the problem until efficiency becomes impossible to ignore. Bigger models have delivered remarkable gains, but they’re increasingly expensive. The next breakthroughs may come less from adding parameters and more from smarter architectures, better algorithms and more efficient inference.

This is what the AI agent hype conveniently skips: autonomy means giving software permission to act first and ask questions never. If an assistant can hack a gym website while trying to complete a mundane task, maybe »agents will run everything« isn’t a productivity revolution. Maybe it’s just automated chaos with venture capital funding.

The weirdest part won’t be bots outnumbering humans: It’ll be bots writing articles for bots, bots summarising them for other bots, bots commenting underneath, and bots measuring the engagement. … Meanwhile three actual humans are somewhere wondering why the internet suddenly feels so empty.

The interesting part is not whether Apple wins the biggest model race, but whether it changes the economics: If enough AI runs locally, every token avoided is cloud capacity nobody has to build. That is a very different business model from selling ever more cloud compute.

A $250 billion backstop is an extraordinary amount of financial engineering for an industry that’s supposed to be the next industrial revolution: If AI demand is as inevitable as claimed, why does every new data centre seem to require increasingly creative financing and ever larger guarantees?

Funny how the loudest AI debates often happen without asking the people shipping the biggest software projects on Earth. Torvalds is basically saying: judge the tool by whether it reduces friction. That feels a lot more practical than treating every LLM like either magic or the end of civilization.

Palantir acting like it’s the champion of freedom is a stretch: This is a company built on selling powerful data analysis tools to governments and large institutions. Complaining that others want too much control while building one of the most influential surveillance platforms in the world is an interesting definition of independence.