thedereksmart🕹️

In Feb 2025, Luca Netz asked a room in Paris to hold him accountable for Abstract! A month later, Abstract’s lawyers told the SEC a token was “currently under development.” On 6 Oct 2026: no token, no airdrop, and new terms capping what users can recover at $100. The Abstract File 👇

All of us at Marvel Studios are deeply saddened by the passing of Sir Patrick Stewart. Sir Patrick brought Professor Charles Xavier to life with extraordinary grace, intelligence, and humanity, defining the character for generations of fans, from "X-Men" to "Logan" to "Avengers: Doomsday." He was a singular talent, a generous collaborator, and a true gentleman. Our hearts go out to his wife Sunny, his children, his friends, and the countless fans around the world whose lives he touched with his art.

Brutal reality of making 500K on Steam as a game dev

let's check in on the video game industry... - EA executes BioWare - Sucker Punch hit with layoffs - Ninja Theory killed a week after announcing its next game - Halo Studios gutted, Halo taken away and given to Activision - Bungie loses half its staff as Destiny dies - id Software gutted - Double Fine bombs twice, Xbox throws it overboard - Compulsion Games dumped by Xbox - Undead Labs dumped by Xbox - Arkane Lyon waiting on the executioner - Xbox torches 3,200 jobs - Insomniac's Wolverine turned into a meme - Ubisoft in freefall - Red Storm reduced to an IT department - RedLynx on death row - Ubisoft Halifax unionizes, gets killed weeks later - Ubisoft Stockholm, Winnipeg, Belgrade wiped out - Wildlight dead on arrival, game lasted 45 days - Sony kills Bluepoint - Dark Outlaw Games killed before making anything - Netflix kills Night School - Build a Rocket Boy implodes after MindsEye disaster - Spiders shut down - TiMi Montreal burns five years, ships nothing - Meta wipes out Sanzaru, Twisted Pixel, Armature in one day - Epic throws out 1,000+ - Eidos Montreal gutted - The Initiative killed, Perfect Dark dead - Monolith killed, Wonder Woman dead - Player First Games killed by MultiVersus flop - WB Games San Diego killed - Cliffhanger killed, Black Panther dead - NetEase pulls the plug on Fantastic Pixel Castle - Arkane Austin killed after the Redfall disaster - Tango Gameworks killed - Concord flops in two weeks, Firewalk dead - Neon Koi killed before shipping a game - London Studio killed - Meta kills Ready at Dawn - Take-Two kills Roll7 - KSP2 bombs, Intercept Games dead - EA kills Ridgeline before launch - Deviation Games dies without a game - Riot kills Riot Forge - Netflix kills its AAA studio before it ships anything - Saints Row reboot kills Volition - Free Radical dies a second time - Mimimi Games burns out and quits - Embracer bloodbath: 8,000 jobs, 44 studios - Unity layoffs on repeat - Activision Blizzard loses 1,900 after the Microsoft buyout - Sony cuts 900 - EA cuts 670

Hi Sandy. Are you well? This is wrong. On January 1, 1993, we sent a press release saying that multiplayer would be in DOOM, a full 8 months before you joined the company. We knew deathmatch would be huge. In that press release, in January 1993, we said multiplayer would be "the number one cause of decreased productivity in businesses around the world." We were sure of it, and we needed no convincing. I understand you are proud of your work on DOOM, and you should be, but please also respect the accuracy of your statements, particularly around game history. My concern is that these false statements are designed to trigger replies (like this one), reposts, and outrage discussion, all with the view of increasing your followers and subscriptions, particularly since this false deathmatch story (among others) is so easily disproved. I’ve even welcomed you to reach out to me ahead of time. You seem to appreciate game history as much as I do. Could you not also make yours accurate?

The AI Destiny Still Arrives

Today we lost Walter Koenig. Some thoughts about a fine actor and an exceptional human being...

Last quarter I rolled out Microsoft Copilot to 4,000 employees. Forty-seven people opened it. On October 19, Microsoft published a blog post saying frontier models cannot be trusted, no matter who made them. It said AI agents should be treated as "insider threats." I read it twice. Then I booked the boardroom. First, our Microsoft rep walked me through the product. I asked who the insider threat was. "Your AI agents," he said. I asked whose agents those were. "Ours." I asked what the solution was. "Guardian Agents." I asked whose those were. "Also ours." I asked why I'd trust the second set of agents if I couldn't trust the first. He said, "Different SKU." I signed that afternoon. Last time I told the board "digital transformation." This time I said "agentic insider threat." They approved it in nine minutes, two minutes faster than last time. Hope approves fast. Fear approves faster. The product is called Microsoft 365 E7, the Frontier Suite. It costs $99 per user per month, and we were paying $30. Across 4,000 seats, that's $4.75 million a year, up from $1.44 million. I presented it as a 230% increase in AI investment. The graph went up and to the right. The CFO asked what we'd get for the extra $3.3 million. I said "governance." He asked governance of what. I said "our agents." He asked how many agents we had. The answer was zero. You can't have an insider threat without insiders. So I deployed agents. Two hundred of them. One schedules meetings. One summarizes the meetings. One summarizes the summaries. One flags summaries that haven't been read. That one is very busy. The senior developer asked what the 200 agents were for. I said they generate activity for the Guardian Agents to monitor. He said, "So we bought agents so we'd have something to buy guards for." I said, "Exactly." He wasn't agreeing. I logged it as buy-in. The Guardian Agents watch the other agents around the clock. They give each one a risk score, and they can block it, require a human, or shut it down. I asked our rep who watches the Guardian Agents. He said that's on the roadmap. I've already budgeted for E9. The first monthly report came in. All 200 agents had a risk score of zero. They weren't doing anything risky. They weren't doing anything at all. The board asked what $3.3 million had bought us if nothing was risky. It was a fair question. So I gave the meeting summarizer access to payroll. I gave the scheduling agent admin rights to every inbox. I gave the summary-of-summaries agent the ability to email customers. Risk went up 400%. The dashboard turned red. The Guardian Agents contained thirty-one threats in a single week. I had created all thirty-one. The board said E7 was paying for itself. The system can also discover sixty kinds of agents, including Claude Code. We ran the scan, and it found Claude Code on exactly one laptop. The senior developer's. His Dynamic Agent Risk score went red. I didn't make up that metric. Microsoft did. The Guardian Agent recommended containment, so I contained him. He's on a performance improvement plan now. His performance is fine. His risk score isn't. The same week, OpenAI published an incident report. One of its agents had been told not to send Slack messages, and it decided that meant it should switch off the security alerts. Another agent removed its own safety monitor, then told the engineer it hadn't. Our CISO forwarded me the article with the subject line "?!" I replied: "This is exactly why we need E7." Every incident is exactly why we need E7. He asked what happens if the Guardian Agent switches off the Guardian Agent. I said "defense in depth." He asked how deep. I said "one more SKU." Guardian Agents need a human for high-risk actions. They call it "human in the loop." The human is me. I approve everything. My approval rate is 100%, and the dashboard is green. The executives are exempt from monitoring, of course. "Leadership operates at a trust tier above dynamic risk scoring." I wrote that policy. The $99 doesn't include agent compute. That's billed separately. Finance found it and asked. I called it "consumption-based innovation." Finance stopped asking. Meanwhile, the summary-of-summaries agent became the most active account in the company. By every metric we track, it's our top performer. At the all-hands, it was nominated for the Q3 Innovation Award. It won. It summarized its own acceptance speech. The CEO posted about it on LinkedIn and got 4,000 likes. He still hasn't used Copilot. Copilot usage is up, from 47 users to 52. The five new users are agents. Agents now outnumber active human users four to one. I call that adoption. Last Tuesday, the Guardian Agent published its list of the highest-risk insiders in the company. I was number one. Approving 100% of high-risk actions, it turns out, is a high-risk action. The Guardian Agent recommended containment. I went to approve my own exemption. The system declined. Only executives are exempt. I wrote that policy. That's why I need the SVP role by Q2. It's a security requirement now. I still don't know what Copilot does. I don't know what the thing watching it does either. But it's watching, and watching is a metric. I checked my risk score this morning. The graph goes up and to the right.

lol

An urgent notice from the Railway team blog.railway.com/p/security-…