The whole industry seems to have agreed on a standard for design tokens. The shift it sets up is still on its way. Design tokens are not new. The term was coined in 2014, at Salesforce, by Jina Anne and Jon Levine. 1 By 2017, Amazon had open-sourced Style Dictionary and the idea had spread well past Salesforce. We have been shipping design tokens for over a decade. What we never did, in all that time, was agree on a format. Every tool and every team rolled its own shape. There was never one neutral way to write a token down, its value and its meaning, so that any other tool could read it. Have you heard of DTCG? I hadn't, until recently. It is the Design Tokens Community Group, a W3C effort to finally settle that format. 2 The repo is quiet, but that is because the spec reached its first stable version in late 2025, not because anyone walked away. The quiet is a thing being finished, not abandoned. The list of who is backing it is not quiet at all. Adobe. Google. Microsoft. Meta. Amazon. Shopify. Salesforce. Sony. Pinterest. The New York Times. Disney. Framer. Penpot. Figma. Plus a dozen more. 2 That is not a side project. That is most of the industry quietly agreeing on something. One of those names, Figma , is the reason for the title of this piece. We will get to it, because the irony is the whole point. Here is my bet, and I will say up front that it is a bet. I think a storm is coming for design tooling. You do not have to believe me about the storm, because the bet does not depend on it. If you are wiring your tokens straight into one vendor's format, you are exposed. Anchor them to the open standard instead and you are not. The downside is lopsided. If I am wrong, you have lost almost nothing. If I am even half right, everyone hard-coded to a single tool is facing a rewrite. The format is young and already fragmenting. That is the point. The obvious objection is that the standard is too new to bet on, and already splintering. It is splintering. Google's DESIG

"Model unit prices keep falling, yet our monthly AI bill keeps climbing." If you use AI personally, you can feel the creep of your subscription and metered charges. If you own AI usage inside a company, the gap is even more pronounced. Overseas, this feeling has started getting a name: Tokenomics . On June 3, 2026, the Linux Foundation announced its intent to launch the Tokenomics Foundation , dedicated to open standards for AI cost management. Google, Microsoft, Oracle, JPMorganChase, and others — both providers and large buyers — are on board. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-announces-the-intent-to-launch-the-tokenomics-foundation-to-establish-open-standards-for-ai-cost-management This post isn't an explainer of the word itself. It's an account of what changes for the people who own internal generative AI usage — the platform owners, the FinOps practitioners, the engineering leaders watching the bills — once you have this word in your vocabulary. What Tokenomics gives you isn't another saving technique. It changes the unit of measurement and the lens through which you read AI cost. Why Tokenomics, why now Tokenomics sits in the lineage of cloud FinOps. The FinOps Foundation now classifies Tokenomics as the "AI Value" dimension within FinOps for AI . Where cloud FinOps tracked the variable infrastructure costs (compute, storage, networking) against value, Tokenomics tracks the variable cost of intelligence itself. It's not a replacement; it adds a probabilistic, non-deterministic layer of variable cost on top. Tokens here means what you see on every API price sheet and usage dashboard — the smallest unit a language model reads and writes, the unit of compute. The word "tokenomics" also exists in the crypto world, but that one is about issuance, distribution, and incentives on a blockchain — tokens as units of ownership. Same word, different economies. https://www.finops.org/insights/token-economics-the-atomic-unit-of-ai-value/ The term gained

Thanks to the component crisis, it's a bad time to want a new computer. But if you are waiting on a preorder for the Framework Laptop 13 Pro - which Framework's CEO has called the "MacBook Pro for Linux users" - the company shared good news on Thursday that might mean yours will cost less […]

Autonomous AI agents are transitioning from experimental developer playgrounds into the core of enterprise application architecture. For organizations looking to automate complex workflows that require decision-making, reasoning, and tool use, agentic AI represents a paradigm shift. However, moving from a simple demo script to a reliable, production-ready enterprise agent system requires addressing significant architectural challenges. In this article, we will examine the core components of enterprise agent systems, design patterns for robust execution, and security considerations. The Core Architecture of an AI Agent An enterprise AI agent is more than just a large language model (LLM) loop. It is a system composed of four critical pillars: Reasoning & Planning (The Core LLM): The orchestrator that decides how to approach a problem, breaks down tasks, and analyzes output. Memory: Storing short-term execution traces (context) and long-term knowledge (vector databases, semantic memory). Tools (Action Space): APIS, databases, calculators, and code execution sandboxes that the agent can invoke to retrieve information or perform tasks. Guardrails & Evaluators: Decoupled verification layers that inspect the agent's plans and tool execution to enforce policy and security. +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | USER REQUEST | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | v +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | AGENT ORCHESTRATOR / LLM LOOP | | * Planning (ReAct, Plan-and-Solve) | | * Memory retrieval | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | ^ v (Call Tool) | (Tool Results) +------------------------+ +----------------------+ | TOOL ROUTER | | GUARDRAILS LAYER | | * APIs * Code Exec | | * Safety filter | | * DBs * RAG Lookup | | * Data sanitization | +------------------------+ +----------------------+ Planning Patterns: ReAct vs. Plan-and-Solve When designing how an agent re

I started my career in the late 2010s, and I have had a front-row seat to the growth of the industry that has given me everything: software engineering. Looking back over the last decade, I have mixed feelings about some of the calls I made. And I am seeing the same patterns play out again now. So for engineers who are confused about where this is headed and how to navigate it, here is how I think about it. Generalist SWEs were a product of cheap money The late 2010s, I saw an huge amount of startup funding, globally. Flipkart, Snapdeal, Jugnoo, and hundreds of others were scaling hard and one hiring pattern I saw was that: everyone wanted generalist software engineers. People who could easily get upto speed across the stack.- backend, frontend, infra, deployment and simply ship. Building software was expensive. Automation was still low. Kubernetes had just gone mainstream. Shipping still meant a surprising amount of manual work: SSH-ing into servers, copying artifacts around, running mvn builds by hand, debugging deployments straight in production, duct-taping infrastructure that today you would never touch. Companies fought over engineers who maximized feature throughput. Breadth was a premium, because every extra engineer increased the rate at which software got built. It helped because the money was also free and VCs rewarded growth over efficiency, and hiring software engineers in bulk was the easiest way to spend it. Pull up a resume from an engineer who started around that time and you will usually see the same shape: a long list of technologies and frameworks, broad and adaptable, but rarely deep in any one thing. There was no incentive to go deep. LLMs Changed The Dynamics LLMs did not kill software engineering. It compressed the cost of implementation. The work that got hit first was the work that was already standardized: CRUD apps; API integration and glue code; Framework-heavy backend work; Frontend scaffolding; Standard architectural patterns. What use

I started my career in the late 2010s, and I have had a front-row seat to the growth of the industry that has given me everything: software engineering. Looking back over the last decade, I have mixed feelings about some of the calls I made. And I am seeing the same patterns play out again now. So for engineers who are confused about where this is headed and how to navigate it, here is how I think about it. Generalist SWEs were a product of cheap money The late 2010s, I saw an huge amount of startup funding, globally. Flipkart, Snapdeal, Jugnoo, and hundreds of others were scaling hard and one hiring pattern I saw was that: everyone wanted generalist software engineers. People who could easily get upto speed across the stack.- backend, frontend, infra, deployment and simply ship. Building software was expensive. Automation was still low. Kubernetes had just gone mainstream. Shipping still meant a surprising amount of manual work: SSH-ing into servers, copying artifacts around, running mvn builds by hand, debugging deployments straight in production, duct-taping infrastructure that today you would never touch. Companies fought over engineers who maximized feature throughput. Breadth was a premium, because every extra engineer increased the rate at which software got built. It helped because the money was also free and VCs rewarded growth over efficiency, and hiring software engineers in bulk was the easiest way to spend it. Pull up a resume from an engineer who started around that time and you will usually see the same shape: a long list of technologies and frameworks, broad and adaptable, but rarely deep in any one thing. There was no incentive to go deep. LLMs Changed The Dynamics LLMs did not kill software engineering. It compressed the cost of implementation. The work that got hit first was the work that was already standardized: CRUD apps; API integration and glue code; Framework-heavy backend work; Frontend scaffolding; Standard architectural patterns. What use

All-in-one AI assistant — chat, images, voice & market data Discussion | Link

About a quarter of PCs are still running Microsoft's previous operating system.

Agent-testing startup Patronus AI, founded by former Meta AI researchers, is experiencing nearly insatiable demand, its investor says.

Microsoft announced today that the price of all Xbox models will rise in August, the second time in less than a year as memory prices continue to wreak havoc on every industry from cars to computing. Thankfully, we’re already out looking for Prime Day deals, and we were able to find some discounts on both […]

I've been experimenting with a compiler/runtime project that I'm not entirely sure is a good idea, so I'd love some feedback from people who've worked on deployment systems. The idea is to compile an exported PyTorch model into a self-contained package that contains: graph binary weights backend kernels (currently WGSL) runtime metadata A lightweight runtime loads that package and executes it directly in the browser with WebGPU. No Python, no server inference, and no dependency on a heavyweight runtime. Right now the attached demos are just neural video representations because they were easy to test, but the motivation is actually operator networks and scientific ML, where I like the idea of distributing a single portable artifact. The repo is here: https://github.com/Slater-Victoroff/Kuma I'm mostly looking for architectural feedback. Some questions I'm wrestling with: Is embedding backend kernels in the artifact a terrible idea? Is this solving a real deployment problem or just reinventing ONNX Runtime? Are there existing systems I should study that take a similar approach? If you were designing a deployment format today, what would you change? I'd especially appreciate thoughts from people who've worked on ONNX, IREE, TVM, ExecuTorch, MLIR, or similar compiler/runtime projects. submitted by /u/svictoroff [link] [留言]

This week, Instagram launched a series of new features for its smart TV app that are all designed to get people to spend more time on the platform through the biggest screens in their homes. In addition to vertical Reels, Instagram for TV - which is currently available for Amazon Fire TV, Google TV, and […]