The teams throughly reviewed and brought up 2 overlooked cases, but mostly we all reminisced about things forgotten that AI discovery had turned up which would have been totally overlooked otherwise. Forgotten discussions, designs, outages, odd decisions, weird edge cases prepared for but never encountered, etc. Then they were migrated, it went smoothly, all to save a low seven-figures per year dollar amount.

The fundamental approach of exhaustively researching to that degree would never have been possible without AI. It's just not feasible to analyze 5 years of even one of those discussions sources (e.g. slack) to figure that out, let alone ALL of them. Now a team of ~1.5 engineers has tackled all that by leveraging AI.

The hard data is piling up in companies, but it'll take a while to get out there.

(Numbers and details lightly greeked in the above account)

That literally cannot be true, unless you're saying that your users are ALSO going to have a 218ppi desktop. If you're developing for phones, sorry, a 218ppi display is woefully inadequate for replicating what the phone looks like because phones (modern iPhones) have 450+ ppi, more than TWICE the ppi of the display you're using.

An apple display is nice. But it's absolutely NOT absolutely required for anything no matter the creative work you're doing, because there's nothing it matches except developing stuff for display on that exact display.

    Today, we're introducing a new Voluntary Exit Offer (VEO) to
    eligible employees within participating organizations. This offer
    gives eligible employees who may be considering a future outside the
    company a new choice to make that transition now with support. It
    also gives participating orgs another way to adapt their workforce
    to changing needs.

    The Voluntary Exit Offer reflects an important part of how we're
    evolving our approach to change: creating greater flexibility and,
    where possible, more ways for employees to shape their next chapter.
    This builds on what we learned earlier this year through the
    Voluntary Retirement Program.

    What employees should know

    This offer will be available to eligible employees in participating
    teams in Canada, India, United Kingdom and United States at level 70
    and below. This is a time-limited, voluntary program that gives
    those who are eligible the opportunity to leave Microsoft with
    financial support and career planning resources. Some organizations
    are providing the Voluntary Exit Offer, and some are not.
    Participation varies based on each business's priorities, customer
    commitments, and workforce needs.

    Eligible employees will receive an email with a link to their
    Voluntary Exit Offer details within the next few hours.

    Looking ahead

    The Voluntary Exit Offer is new for us. We'll learn from it. At the
    same time, we'll keep helping people focus on the work that matters
    most, build new skills, and, where it makes sense, find new
    opportunities across Microsoft. There is no one-size-fits-all
    approach for every team or every employee. These are a few of the
    ways we're trying to meet different business needs while continuing
    to create opportunities for our own people to grow and contribute.

    My promise is to continue to provide clarity, listen and learn, and
    keep improving.

    Thank you for everything you continue to do for our customers,
    Microsoft, and for one another.

    Amy

> In a world [where] CT logs and CAA records [exist]

And we are in that world. CT logs and CAA records exist. They are around. What you are implying you said is:

> In a world with CT logs and CAA records [and everyone/everything reads and validates them]

We are not in that world, and we probably won't enter that world for the next 15 to 20 years because we are also in a world where folks expect networked devices to be able to communicate (mostly) securely without constantly communicating with a centralized set of clearinghouses arbitrating "what is secure".

As we are discovering, our flawed systems may need broader rethinking, especially if we want secure communication (with all the epistemological ball of yarn that comes with it) without constant total centralization, which seems to be the approach-of-least-resistance lately.

Powershell is, as I understand it, not available on Linux but is omnipresent on Windows, so hopefully the windows folks can use it like they would bash.

Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (20,000 m)

That's high enough to go 15k feet above the highest ballon mentioned in the second link you provided, which was 50,000 feet.

Also, the SR-71 carried no weapons, only cameras, and re-tooling to support them would be far more expensive than merely shooting a balloon with a missile from the ground (or building an air-to-air missile that can be fired from existing platforms at altitudes like 65k feet).

See this as a list of merely the most popular varieties you can find at stores: https://waapple.org/varieties/all/

The "module name is network path" is a convenient convention but not at all some "limitation" of the tooling.

1. Agents usually depend on output of the commands they're running in order to make decisions about what to do next, so how do they behave while they're "waiting around" for the output they need?

2. Agents can _already_ run software async, via multiple mechanisms: raw CLI tools like "nohup", literally running tools in parallel (I see Sol do this often in the Opencode TUI harness), and using parallel sub-agents to e.g. research in parallel.

Thus I wonder, how much does this really improve speed vs only improving the "appearance" of getting more done faster?

I am already seeing my "normie" friends getting locked out of accounts due to not understanding passkeys. If they don't have their phone, or it's dead, or it breaks, or is stolen, they just can't access their account anymore. They have no idea how they work or what they're trading off, nor do they understand that they should have prepared for this scenario ahead of time somehow. Upon telling them "yeah you have to use your phone now that you have a passkey" they all universally say "wtf, that's stupid, I never want to have that happen again, I will never use a passkey again."

Passkeys should never have been built for general audiences, they are a huge mistake, I hope they cease to be relevant and die due to everyday folks realizing they're inconvenient and the "more secure" gains ain't worth it for the usability nightmares.

It's in the parent article under a section named "Doom" in case that asset URL ever changes.

That's not quite true. The only thing they don't show per-provider is benchmark data, cause I don't think they are doing continuous benchmarking of each model from each provider, as I assume they feel that's too expensive. You can see hugely detailed breakdowns for near-time metrics per provider for any model by visiting the page for that model on Openrouter. For example see the page for Qwen 3.8 27B: https://openrouter.ai/qwen/qwen3.8-27b

Some of the killer stats they show per provider:

- Pricing: Effective price accounting for cache hit rate, by provider

- Performance: Throughput in tok/s, latency, E2E latency, tool call error rate, structured output error rate, and more; all per provider.

- Uptime: You have to click on the provider to see their specific uptime, but doing so does show the last-7-days uptime, and you can click to see more.