The Egg

One of my favorite stories.

By: Andy Weir

You were on your way home when you died.

It was a car accident. Nothing particularly remarkable, but fatal nonetheless. You left behind a wife and two children. It was a painless death. The EMTs tried their best to save you, but to no avail. Your body was so utterly shattered you were better off, trust me.

And that’s when you met me.

“What… what happened?” You asked. “Where am I?”

“You died,” I said, matter-of-factly. No point in mincing words.

“There was a… a truck and it was skidding…”

“Yup,” I said.

“I… I died?”

“Yup. But don’t feel bad about it. Everyone dies,” I said.

You looked around. There was nothingness. Just you and me. “What is this place?” You asked. “Is this the afterlife?”

“More or less,” I said.

“Are you god?” You asked.

“Yup,” I replied. “I’m God.”

“My kids… my wife,” you said.

“What about them?”

“Will they be all right?”

“That’s what I like to see,” I said. “You just died and your main concern is for your family. That’s good stuff right there.”

You looked at me with fascination. To you, I didn’t look like God. I just looked like some man. Or possibly a woman. Some vague authority figure, maybe. More of a grammar school teacher than the almighty.

“Don’t worry,” I said. “They’ll be fine. Your kids will remember you as perfect in every way. They didn’t have time to grow contempt for you. Your wife will cry on the outside, but will be secretly relieved. To be fair, your marriage was falling apart. If it’s any consolation, she’ll feel very guilty for feeling relieved.”

“Oh,” you said. “So what happens now? Do I go to heaven or hell or something?”

“Neither,” I said. “You’ll be reincarnated.”

“Ah,” you said. “So the Hindus were right,”

“All religions are right in their own way,” I said. “Walk with me.”

You followed along as we strode through the void. “Where are we going?”

“Nowhere in particular,” I said. “It’s just nice to walk while we talk.”

“So what’s the point, then?” You asked. “When I get reborn, I’ll just be a blank slate, right? A baby. So all my experiences and everything I did in this life won’t matter.”

“Not so!” I said. “You have within you all the knowledge and experiences of all your past lives. You just don’t remember them right now.”

I stopped walking and took you by the shoulders. “Your soul is more magnificent, beautiful, and gigantic than you can possibly imagine. A human mind can only contain a tiny fraction of what you are. It’s like sticking your finger in a glass of water to see if it’s hot or cold. You put a tiny part of yourself into the vessel, and when you bring it back out, you’ve gained all the experiences it had.

“You’ve been in a human for the last 48 years, so you haven’t stretched out yet and felt the rest of your immense consciousness. If we hung out here for long enough, you’d start remembering everything. But there’s no point to doing that between each life.”

“How many times have I been reincarnated, then?”

“Oh lots. Lots and lots. An in to lots of different lives.” I said. “This time around, you’ll be a Chinese peasant girl in 540 AD.”

“Wait, what?” You stammered. “You’re sending me back in time?”

“Well, I guess technically. Time, as you know it, only exists in your universe. Things are different where I come from.”

“Where you come from?” You said.

“Oh sure,” I explained “I come from somewhere. Somewhere else. And there are others like me. I know you’ll want to know what it’s like there, but honestly you wouldn’t understand.”

“Oh,” you said, a little let down. “But wait. If I get reincarnated to other places in time, I could have interacted with myself at some point.”

“Sure. Happens all the time. And with both lives only aware of their own lifespan you don’t even know it’s happening.”

“So what’s the point of it all?”

“Seriously?” I asked. “Seriously? You’re asking me for the meaning of life? Isn’t that a little stereotypical?”

“Well it’s a reasonable question,” you persisted.

I looked you in the eye. “The meaning of life, the reason I made this whole universe, is for you to mature.”

“You mean mankind? You want us to mature?”

“No, just you. I made this whole universe for you. With each new life you grow and mature and become a larger and greater intellect.”

“Just me? What about everyone else?”

“There is no one else,” I said. “In this universe, there’s just you and me.”

You stared blankly at me. “But all the people on earth…”

“All you. Different incarnations of you.”

“Wait. I’m everyone!?”

“Now you’re getting it,” I said, with a congratulatory slap on the back.

“I’m every human being who ever lived?”

“Or who will ever live, yes.”

“I’m Abraham Lincoln?”

“And you’re John Wilkes Booth, too,” I added.

“I’m Hitler?” You said, appalled.

“And you’re the millions he killed.”

“I’m Jesus?”

“And you’re everyone who followed him.”

You fell silent.

“Every time you victimized someone,” I said, “you were victimizing yourself. Every act of kindness you’ve done, you’ve done to yourself. Every happy and sad moment ever experienced by any human was, or will be, experienced by you.”

You thought for a long time.

“Why?” You asked me. “Why do all this?”

“Because someday, you will become like me. Because that’s what you are. You’re one of my kind. You’re my child.”

“Whoa,” you said, incredulous. “You mean I’m a god?”

“No. Not yet. You’re a fetus. You’re still growing. Once you’ve lived every human life throughout all time, you will have grown enough to be born.”

“So the whole universe,” you said, “it’s just…”

“An egg.” I answered. “Now it’s time for you to move on to your next life.”

And I sent you on your way.

Your Data Was Never Yours: Microsoft Hands Over Your BitLocker Keys Without a Fight

We’ve been sold a lie.

For years, we’ve been told that encryption is the last line of defense for our digital lives. That a tool like BitLocker—Microsoft’s full-disk encryption built into Windows Pro and Enterprise—would keep our files, our photos, our private documents safe from anyone who doesn’t have our password or recovery key.

But here’s the ugly, infuriating truth: That key isn’t truly yours. And Microsoft will happily give it away.

Let’s cut through the corporate privacy-speak. When you encrypt your drive with BitLocker, Microsoft strongly encourages—and often default-configures—you to back up your recovery key to your Microsoft Account online. “For your convenience,” they say. “So you don’t get locked out.”

What they don’t shout from the rooftops is this: Anything you store with them is subject to their compliance with law enforcement requests.

When the FBI, or any other agency with the proper legal paperwork (a subpoena, a court order, a warrant) comes knocking for your data, Microsoft’s terms are clear: they will comply. That doesn’t just mean the files you explicitly uploaded to OneDrive. If your BitLocker recovery key is sitting in their cloud, attached to your Microsoft account, it is part of your “account data.”

Think about the technical reality for a second:

  1. The FBI seizes your laptop. It’s powered off, encrypted. A brick, right?
  2. They contact Microsoft with a warrant for information related to your account.
  3. Microsoft provides them with the BitLocker recovery key they are holding for you.
  4. The “brick” is now an open book. Every file, every fragment of data, is laid bare.

The encryption wasn’t broken. It was betrayed.

We scream about backdoors and the sanctity of end-to-end encryption in messaging apps, while quietly accepting a gaping side-door in one of the most fundamental security tools on the world’s most common operating system. Microsoft built a vault with an unpickable lock, and then kept a master key in a filing cabinet they’ve already promised to open for the authorities.

“But I didn’t back up my key to Microsoft!” Good. You’re smarter than most. But the vast, overwhelming majority of users will take the default, guided path. The path that makes recovery easy. The path that also makes government access easy. This isn’t about the savvy few; it’s about the systemic design that prioritizes convenience—and compliance—over true user sovereignty.

This is why you never, ever give away your private key. It’s Security 101. The golden rule. The key is the one piece of information that nullifies the entire encryption scheme. It must remain solely under your control. The moment you relinquish it to a third party—any third party—you have ceded control. You are trusting their policies, their security, and their willingness to say “no” on your behalf.

Microsoft didn’t invent this compliance dynamic, but they have normalized it for hundreds of millions of users. They’ve made the act of surrendering your most critical security token seem as routine as updating your profile picture.

So the next time you see a privacy policy or a “transparency report” boasting about how many requests they get, remember: your BitLocker key could be in those numbers. Your illusion of security, neatly packaged and handed over.

The lesson is screamingly clear, and has been for decades in the infosec world: If you don’t hold the keys, you don’t own the castle. Microsoft just proved, yet again, that they are more than willing to be the gatekeeper who lets the king’s men inside.

Stop trusting corporations with your crown jewels. Take control of your recovery keys. Store them offline, physically, and securely. Or better yet, use encryption software where you, and only you, hold the only key.

Because if a key exists anywhere a company can reach it, it’s not your key anymore. It’s just evidence waiting to be collected.

My Split Heart: Why I’m Defensive of the Linux That Saved Me

There’s a war going on inside me, and it’s fought in terminal commands and neural networks.

On one hand, I am euphoric. The gates have been blown wide open. For decades, the biggest barrier to entry for Linux wasn’t the technology itself—it was the gatekeeping, the assumed knowledge, the sheer terror of being a “moron” in a world of geniuses. You’d fumble with a driver, break your X server, and be met not with a helpful error message, but with a cryptic string of text that felt like the system mocking you.

But now? AI has changed the game. That same cryptic error message can be pasted into a chatbot and, in plain English, you get a step-by-step guide to fix it. You can ask, “How do I set up a development environment for Python on Ubuntu?” and get a coherent, working answer. The barrier of “having to already be an expert to become an expert” is crumbling. It’s a beautiful thing. I want to throw the doors open and welcome everyone in. The garden is no longer a walled fortress; it’s a public park, and I want to be the guy handing out maps.

But the other part of my heart, the older, more grizzled part, is defensive. It’s protective. It feels a pang of something I can’t fully explain when I see this new, frictionless entry.

Because Linux, for me, wasn’t frictionless. It was friction that saved my life.

I was a kid when I first booted into a distribution I’d burned onto a CD-R. It was clunky. It was slow. Nothing worked out of the box. But for a kid who felt out of place, who was searching for a sense of agency and control in a confusing world, it was a revelation. Here was a system that didn’t treat me like a consumer. It treated me like a participant. It demanded that I learn, that I struggle, that I understand.

Fixing that broken X server wasn’t just a task; it was a trial by fire. Getting a sound card to work felt like summiting a mountain. Every problem solved was a dopamine hit earned through sheer grit and persistence. I wasn’t just using a computer; I was communicating with it. I was learning its language. In a world that often felt chaotic and hostile, the terminal was a place of logic. If you learned the rules, you could make it obey. You could build things. You could break things, and more importantly, you could fix them.

That process—the struggle—forged me. It taught me problem-solving, critical thinking, and a deep, fundamental patience. It gave me a confidence that came not from being told I was smart, but from proving it to myself by conquering a system that asked no quarter and gave none. In many ways, the command line was my first therapist. It was a space where my problems had solutions, even if I had to dig for them.

So when I see AI effortlessly dismantling those very same struggles, I feel a strange, irrational bias. It’s the bias of a veteran who remembers the trenches, looking at new recruits with high-tech gear. A part of me whispers, “They didn’t earn their stripes. They don’t know what it truly means.”

I know this is a fallacy. It’s the “I walked uphill both ways in the snow” of our community. The goal was never the suffering; the goal was the empowerment. If AI can deliver that empowerment without the unnecessary pain, that is a monumental victory.

But my love for Linux is tangled up in that pain. It’s personal. It’s the technology that literally saved me by giving me a world I could control and a community I could belong to. I am defensive of it because it’s a part of my identity. I feel a need to protect its history, its spirit, and the raw, hands-on knowledge that feels sacred to me.

So here I am, split.

One hand is extended, waving newcomers in, thrilled to see the community grow and evolve in ways I never dreamed possible. “Come on in! The water’s fine! Don’t worry, the AI lifeguard is on duty.”

The other hand is clenched, resting protectively on the old, heavy textbooks and the logs of a thousand failed compile attempts, guarding the memory of the struggle that shaped me.

Perhaps the reconciliation is in understanding that the soul of Linux was never the difficulty. It was the freedom, the curiosity, and the empowerment. The tools are just changing. The spirit of a kid in a bedroom, staring at a blinking cursor, ready to tell the machine what to do—that remains. And if AI helps more people find that feeling, then maybe my defensive, split heart can finally find peace.

The gates are down. The garden is open. And I’ll be here, telling stories about the old walls, even as I help plant new flowers for everyone to enjoy.

Great domain planning Microsoft

Why?

Microsoft, what on fucking earth are you doing?

How could you think this is a good idea —

https://tasks.microsoft.com → Outlook

https://tasks.office.com → Planner

Picture it:

“We’re really aligning the Tasks strategy under a unified vision of cross-platform productivity.”

“Great! So… two separate domains?”

“Exactly.”

Dozens of PMs, architects, designers, and engineers probably sat in Teams calls nodding at slides with flowcharts explaining why the Outlook Tasks experience needed to live under microsoft.com while Planner Tasks deserved its own shiny office.com home. Because, you know, user clarity.

Meanwhile every DevOps person on earth is just trying to figure out why half their integrations break depending on which URL someone fat-fingered into a webhook.

Somewhere there’s a PowerPoint deck titled “Unifying the Task Experience” that’s been in circulation since 2018.

Great a new Battlefield game that makes me revisit Windows…..

Let’s get one thing straight: I am not a Windows user.

My daily driver is a sane, rational operating system that treats me like a competent adult. I use it for work, for creativity, for everything. But once in a blue moon, the stars align in a way that requires me to boot into Windows. Maybe it’s a specific piece of hardware, a game with a draconian anti-cheat, or helping a less-technical family member.

It’s always a reluctant visit. A digital trip to a noisy, crowded mall after years of tranquility. And every single time, without fail, Microsoft finds a new, more aggressive way to make me regret my decision.

My latest foray into the world of the Blue Screen of Life™ was no different. I was greeted not by a welcome screen, but by a full-court press of psychological manipulation.

First, it’s the begging for a Microsoft account. The “Sign In” screen is giant and in-your-face, while the “Offline Account” or “Domain Join” option is now a ghost—a tiny, greyed-out link you have to scour the screen for. I’ve heard on Windows 11 Home, they’ve even removed the ethernet trick. You literally have to pretend you have no internet to access the basic human right of a local account.

Let that sink in. To exercise a fundamental choice over your own machine—the choice to keep your data local and your identity separate from a corporate cloud—you have to trick the operating system. Since when is my computer my adversary?

But it doesn’t stop there. Oh no. Once you’ve navigated the labyrinth and carved out your pathetic little local account, the onslaught begins.

“Get OneDrive!” “Back up to the cloud!” “Your files aren’t safe here!” “Don’t you want to be connected?”

It’s a constant, dripping faucet of anxiety-driven marketing. It’s in the setup. It’s in the file explorer. It’s a notification, a pop-up, a brightly colored button where the “Save” button should be. It’s the digital equivalent of a street vendor following you down the block, screaming in your ear about a timeshare.

Why is this so messed up?

Because it’s a blatant, cynical power grab. Microsoft isn’t just selling you an operating system anymore; they’re selling you a subscription to an ecosystem. Your data, your identity, your habits—that’s the product. A local account is a leak in their revenue stream. A user who isn’t tethered to their cloud is a user they can’t monetize as effectively.

They are systematically removing user agency and calling it a “feature.” They are framing the desire for privacy and local control as an archaic, difficult-to-access “legacy option,” like changing the BIOS or editing the registry.

This isn’t progress. This is enclosure. They are fencing off the digital commons of personal computing and telling us we have to pay a toll—in data, in dependency, in our very user identity—to simply use the machine we own.

I don’t want my operating system to be a service. I don’t want my files automatically synced to a server I don’t control. I just want to install a program, save a file to the hard drive I paid for, and be left the hell alone.

Every time I use Windows, this is what I’m reminded of. It’s not an operating system; it’s an advertisement with delusions of grandeur, desperate to handcuff you to its ecosystem before you can even get anything done.

So, congratulations, Microsoft. You’ve succeeded. You’ve made your platform so hostile to casual, privacy-minded users that my next blue-moon visit will be even more reluctant. And my main operating system? It looks better every single day.

Q-Day Isn’t Just Coming—It’s Underestimated

Why quantum computing’s inflection point is a far bigger deal than most assume, using Bitcoin as a case study.

For the past several months I’ve found myself thinking about “Q-Day”—the hypothetical moment when a large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computer can break today’s public-key cryptography in practical timeframes. The term gets thrown around casually, but the underlying assumptions are almost always shallow. Industry conversations typically hover at the level of “someday RSA and ECC will be broken, we’ll swap in post-quantum crypto.” But if you model the actual math and network effects, the impact is far more systemic than most realize.

The Cryptographic Assumption Underneath Bitcoin

Bitcoin’s security rests on two primitives:

  • SHA-256 for proof-of-work hashing,
  • secp256k1 ECDSA for digital signatures and address control.

Most casual observers treat SHA-256 and ECDSA as equally “quantum resistant,” but they’re not. Grover’s algorithm only gives a quadratic speed-up for symmetric hashes (meaning SHA-256’s effective strength drops from 256 bits to ~128 bits—still enormous). Shor’s algorithm, on the other hand, annihilates ECDSA once a quantum machine has enough logical qubits and error-correction throughput. The moment Shor’s algorithm crosses that threshold, every unspent output on the blockchain tied to a public key rather than a hashed address becomes trivially spendable. That’s not a niche corner case—it’s a significant slice of historical Bitcoin, and the attack model is radically different from anything in classical cryptanalysis.

“Q-Harvesting” and Retrospective Attacks

Even more underappreciated is harvest-now, decrypt-later economics. On a permissionless network like Bitcoin, every signature and public key is permanently recorded. A future attacker with quantum capabilities can retroactively sweep old UTXOs or forge transactions if private keys are exposed. Unlike TLS or ephemeral session keys, Bitcoin signatures don’t vanish after a handshake—they’re immutable history. This is precisely the kind of environment where Q-Day isn’t just a forward risk; it’s a retroactive event horizon.

Migration Isn’t a Patch Tuesday

Post-quantum migration in a blockchain isn’t like rotating TLS certificates. To transition Bitcoin to a quantum-safe signature scheme (Dilithium, Falcon, SPHINCS+, etc.), you need to:

  • Introduce and standardize new script opcodes,
  • Achieve miner consensus on soft/hard forks,
  • Incentivize holders to proactively move coins to new address types,
  • Handle the “long tail” of lost keys or inactive wallets.

Any laggards become low-hanging fruit the moment a capable quantum adversary exists. The coordination problem dwarfs the mere cryptographic problem.

Why “Q-Day” Is a Deal No One’s Pricing In

The typical narrative assumes Q-Day is some distant, binary switch—“crypto breaks overnight.” In reality, we’ll likely see a gray zone where early quantum machines can break small-bit ECC but not 2048-bit RSA, then gradually scale. The first usable machine doesn’t need to break all of ECDSA at once; it just needs to cherry-pick vulnerable addresses or chain states to create cascading trust failures. That asymmetric phase could destabilize systems long before a headline “RSA broken” moment.

The upshot is that the cost-benefit math of preparing early versus reacting late is inverted for public, immutable systems. For Bitcoin (and any long-lived ledger), the ROI on proactive migration is enormous, because the tail risk isn’t “some downtime,” it’s mass asset exfiltration at quantum speed.

What Can Actually Be Done Now

Technically, we’re not helpless:

  • Quantum-safe address formats can be introduced today and incentivized with lower fees or higher priority.
  • Hybrid signatures (ECDSA + PQC) could offer defense-in-depth during migration.
  • Wallet UX could default to never revealing public keys until absolutely required (minimizing harvestable data).
  • Research funding into quantum-safe primitives optimized for constrained environments (hardware wallets, embedded nodes) is critical, not academic.

The bigger challenge is social, not mathematical: coordinating a global network with trillions of dollars at stake before the adversary is visible.

I keep circling back to the same conclusion: “Q-Day” isn’t a far-off curiosity—it’s a pricing error in the security model of every immutable public ledger. Bitcoin is the clearest illustration because of its permanence and economic weight, but the same logic applies to PKI, code-signing, IoT firmware updates, and even archived TLS traffic. The longer we treat quantum risk as tomorrow’s problem, the more we guarantee it becomes a retroactive catastrophe instead of a forward-looking migration.

If you’re in a position to influence protocol roadmaps or asset custody, the optimal time to act was yesterday. The second-best time is now.

An Open Question to Microsoft: Let Me Get This Straight…

Let’s rewind the tape for a second.

It’s March 2020. The world screeches to a halt. Offices empty out. A grand, unplanned, global experiment in remote work begins. We were told to make it work, and we did. We cobbled together home offices on kitchen tables, mastered the mute button, and learned that “I’m not a cat” is a valid legal defense.

And you know who thrived in this chaos? You, Microsoft.

While the world adapted, you didn’t just survive; you absolutely exploded. Your products became the very bedrock of this new, distributed world.

Teams became the digital office, the school, the family meeting space.
Azure became the beating heart of the cloud infrastructure that kept everything running.
Windows and Office 365 were the essential tools on every single one of those kitchen-table workstations.

And the market noticed. Let’s talk about the report card, because it’s staggering:

  • 2021: You hit $2 trillion in market cap for the first time.
  • 2023: You became only the second company in history to reach a $3 trillion valuation.
  • You’ve posted record-breaking profits, quarter after quarter after quarter, for four consecutive years.

Your stock price tripled. Your revenue soared. You, Microsoft, became the poster child for how a tech giant could not only weather the pandemic but emerge stronger, more valuable, and more essential than ever before.

All of this was achieved by a workforce that was, by and large, not in the office.

Which brings us to today. And the recent mandate. And the question I, and surely thousands of your employees, are asking:

Let me get this straight.

After four years of the most spectacular financial performance in corporate history…
After proving, unequivocally, that your workforce is not just productive but hyper-productive from anywhere…
After leveraging your own technology to enable this very reality and reaping trillions of dollars in value from it…
After telling us that the future of work was flexible, hybrid, and digital…

You are now asking people to return to the office for a mandatory three days a week?

What, and I cannot stress this enough, the actual fuck?

Where is the logic? Is this a desperate grasp for a sense of “normalcy” that died in 2020? Is it a silent, cynical ploy to encourage “quiet quitting” and trim the workforce without having to do layoffs? Is it because you’ve sunk billions into beautiful Redmond campuses and feel the existential dread of seeing them sit half-empty?

Because it can’t be about productivity. The data is in, and the data is your own stock price. The proof is in your earnings reports. You have a four-year, multi-trillion-dollar case study that says the work got done, and then some.

It feels like a profound betrayal of the very flexibility you sold the world. It feels like you’re saying, “Our tools empower you to work from anywhere! (Except, you know, from anywhere).”

You built the infrastructure for the future of work and are now mandating the past.

So, seriously, Microsoft. What gives? Is the lesson here that even with all the evidence, all the success, all the innovation, corporate America’s default setting will always, always revert to the illusion of control that a packed office provides?

It’s not just wild. It’s a spectacular disconnect from the reality you yourself helped create. And for a company that prides itself on data-driven decisions, this one seems driven by something else entirely.

They didn’t embrace Linux; they surrendered to its inevitability.

Microsoft’s Linux Love Letter: A Necessary Dose of Historical Context

A headline caught my eye recently, one in a long series of similar pieces from Microsoft: a celebratory look back at their 2009 contribution of 20,000 lines of code to the Linux kernel. The narrative is one of a new leaf, a turning point, a company evolving from a closed-source fortress into a collaborative open-source neighbor.

And on its face, that’s a good thing. I am genuinely glad that Microsoft contributes to Linux. Their work on Hyper-V drivers and other subsystems is technically sound and materially benefits users running Linux on Azure. It’s a practical, smart business move for a company whose revenue now heavily depends on cloud services that are, in large part, powered by Linux.

But as I read these self-congratulatory retrospectives, I can’t help but feel a deep sense of whiplash. To present this chapter without the full context of the book that preceded it is not just revisionist; it’s borderline insulting to those of us who remember the decades of hostility.

Let’s not forget what “building and collaborating” looked like for Microsoft before it became convenient.

This is the company whose CEO, Steve Ballmer, famously called Linux “a cancer” in 2001. This wasn’t an off-the-cuff remark; it was the public-facing declaration of a deeply entrenched corporate ideology. For years, Microsoft’s primary strategy wasn’t to out-build Linux, but to use its immense market power to strangle it.

They engaged in a brutal campaign of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt):

  • They threatened patents, suggesting that Linux and other open-source software infringed on hundreds of Microsoft patents, aiming to scare corporations away from adoption.
  • They entered into costly licensing agreements with other tech companies, essentially making them pay “protection money” against hypothetical lawsuits.
  • They argued that open-source software was an intellectual property-destroying “communist” model that was antithetical to American business.

This was not healthy competition. This was a multi-pronged legal and rhetorical assault designed to kill the project they now proudly contribute to. They didn’t just disagree with open source; they actively tried to destroy it.

So, when Microsoft writes a post that frames their 2009 code drop as a moment that “signaled a change in how we build and collaborate,” I have to ask: what changed?

Did the company have a moral awakening about the virtues of software freedom? Did they suddenly realize the error of their ways?

The evidence suggests otherwise. What changed was the market. The rise of the cloud, which Microsoft desperately needed to dominate with Azure, runs on Linux. Their old strategy of hostility became a direct threat to their own bottom line. They didn’t embrace Linux; they surrendered to its inevitability. The contribution wasn’t a peace offering; it was a strategic necessity. You can’t be the host for the world’s computing if you refuse to support the world’s favorite operating system.

This isn’t to say we shouldn’t accept the contribution. We should. The open-source community has always been pragmatically welcoming. But we should accept it with clear eyes.

Praising Microsoft for its current contributions is fine. Forgetting its history of attempted destruction is dangerous. It whitewashes a chapter of anti-competitive behavior that should serve as a permanent cautionary tale. It allows a corporation to rebrand itself as a “cool, open-source friend” without ever fully accounting for its past actions.

So, by all means, let’s acknowledge the 20,000 lines of code. But let’s also remember the millions of words and dollars spent trying to make sure those lines—and the entire ecosystem around them—would never see the light of day. The true story isn’t one of a change of heart, but a change of market forces. And that’s a history we must never let them forget.

I guess I had to grow up

Eric Geller on X: "Former NSA Director Paul Nakasone just did a jello shot  with @defcon founder Jeff Moss as day 1 of the conference kicks off.  https://t.co/dcl5CmgcyX" / X

I’ve been going to DEF CON long enough to remember when it felt like a secret. Not exclusive in the snobby sense, but niche in the way only a gathering of curious misfits, tinkerers, and unapologetic troublemakers could be. It was a place where you could walk into a random hallway and end up in a three-hour conversation about buffer overflows, lockpicking, or some bizarre telephony exploit from the ‘80s.

This year, though, something felt… different. Maybe it’s me. Maybe I’ve grown out of it. Maybe it’s just the sheer mass of people — the lines, the photo ops, the Instagrammable “hacker aesthetic” that makes it feel more like a pop culture event than a gathering of weirdos solving problems no one else cares about.

And then it happened: I saw a picture of Jeff Moss, the founder of DEF CON, doing jello shots with the NSA. Not a metaphor. Not a rumor. Literally jello shots. With the NSA.

The moment was like watching the punk band you loved in high school play a corporate-sponsored halftime show. I stood there, caught between thinking this is hilarious and what the hell happened here?

It’s not that I expect DEF CON to stay frozen in time. Things evolve. Communities grow. People change. But this was a visual that perfectly summed up my uneasy feeling — the line between “us” and “them” has blurred, and maybe it’s gone altogether.

I don’t hate it. I’m not even saying it’s wrong. But I can’t shake the feeling that the DEF CON I fell in love with — messy, raw, niche, and slightly dangerous — isn’t here anymore.

Maybe that’s progress. Or maybe it’s just a sign that the underground doesn’t stay underground forever.

Extraction over experience.

You do not need to take classes on making good experiences anymore.

It’s not about making great software anymore. It’s not about building games people love. It’s about how many damn paywalls you can cram into every corner of your tech stack. Every menu, every feature, every damn pixel has a price tag now. It’s monetization hell and we’re all being dragged through it.

You don’t buy a video game anymore—you subscribe to a “live service” that milks you monthly for skins, DLC, “premium tiers,” or some other garbage they didn’t finish before launch. Enshittification isn’t a side effect—it’s the whole business model now.

The goal isn’t quality. It’s recurring revenue. It’s locking users into a maze of subscriptions, tokens, microtransactions, and artificial limitations that only disappear if you cough up more cash.

It’s not innovation. It’s extraction.

And it’s fucking sickening.