Hardcore Software by Steven Sinofsky

It can’t be bargained with.

Xeet from Director OSTP and a quote from Anthropic policy leader.

This week the University of Chicago Law School announced a new policy regarding the use of AI in teaching law.

I was (super) excited to pick up my Mac Neo today.

Too much of what is going on with AI is a race to get to a theoretical end state of a whole new world of business and technology.

CES is a trade show and not a broad consumer event.

This post was originally published for the Windows team (and extended audience) on my Microsoft SharePoint site and shared with key people at the Gates Foundation.

What a year it has been.

Something I worry about with generative AI in business and commercial use: almost no one fully reads anything in those environments.

The Paper and Its Premise At a technical level, the paper asks important questions and answers them in super interesting ways.

AI is a tool-driven revolution.

Much has been said about how the U.S. benefits from China’s manufacturing strengths, and tariffs often dominate the debate around international trade.

If you don’t know MCP—Model Context Protocol—is the hot, new, open source software layer promising to make connecting LLMs and domain specific software a snap.

On an article this week talking about tech "going hardcore" (always a big fan of that word given Microsoft's 1980s recruiting slogan—hardcore software) which is mostly about RTO, meritocracy, and some cutbacks on perks, with a little bit of layoffs mixed…

TL;DR for this article: DeepSeek was always going to happen.

This year’s enormous Consumer Electronics Show proved to be a transition year with many established product lines showing incremental improvements or focusing on B2B areas and new product lines showing a rush to demonstrate their relevancy to AI.

The computer industry lost a legendary executive this week with the passing of Mike Maples, Sr.

@Martin_Casado tweeted some wisdom (as he often does) in this:

Here's a Books I Read in 2024 list.

It is tempting to want to see the positives of technology disruption as distinct from the disruptive nature of the person or organization causing disruption.