AI-native software engineering teams operate very differently than traditional teams. The obvious difference is that AI-native teams use coding agents to build products much faster, but this leads to many other changes in how we operate. For example, some great engineers now play broader roles than just writing code. They are partly product managers, designers, sometimes marketers. Further, small teams who work in the same office, where they can communicate face-to-face, can move incredibly quickly. Because we can now build fast, a greater fraction of time must be spent deciding what to build. To deal with this project-management bottleneck, some teams are pushing engineer:product manager (PM) some teams are pushing engineer:product manager (PM) ratios downward from, say, 8:1 to as low as 1:1. But we can do even better: If we have one PM who decides what to build and one engineer who builds it, the communication between them becomes a bottleneck. This is why the fastest-moving teams I see tend to have engineers who know how to do some product work (and, optionally, some PMs who know how to do some engineering work). When an engineer understands users and can make decisions on what to build and build it directly, they can execute incredibly quickly. I’ve seen engineers successfully expand their roles to including making product decisions, and PMs expand their roles to building software. The tech industry has more engineers than PMs, but both are promising paths. If you are an engineer, you’ll find it useful to learn some product management skills, and if you’re a PM, please learn to build! Looking beyond the product-management bottleneck, I also see bottlenecks in design, marketing, legal compliance, and much more. When we speed up coding 10x or 100x, everything else becomes slow in comparison. For example, some of my teams have built great features so quickly that the marketing organization was left scrambling to figure out how to communicate them to users — a marketing bottleneck. Or when a team can build software in a day that the legal department needs a week to review, that’s a legal compliance bottleneck. In this way, agentic coding isn’t just changing the workflow of software engineering, it’s also changing all the teams around it. When smaller, AI-enabled teams can get more done, generalists excel. Traditional companies need to pull together people from many specialties — engineering, product management, design, marketing, legal, etc. — to execute projects and create value. This has resulted in large teams of specialists who work together. But if a team of 2 persons is to get work done that require 5 different specialities, then some of those individuals must play roles outside a single speciality. In some small teams, individuals do have deep specializations. For example, one might be a great engineer and another a great PM. But they also understand the other key functions needed to move a project forward, and can jump into thinking through other kinds of problems as needed. Of course, proficiency with AI tools is a big help, since it helps us to think through problems that involve different roles. Even in a two-person team, to move fast, communication bottlenecks also must be minimized. This is why I value teams that work in the same location. Remote teams can perform well too, but the highest speed is achieved by having everyone in the room, able to communicate instantaneously to solve problems. This post focuses on AI-native teams with around 2-10 persons, but not everything can be done by a small team. I'll address the coordination of larger teams in the future. I realize these shifts to job roles are tough to navigate for many people. At the same time, I am encouraged that individuals and small teams who are willing to learn the relevant skills are now able to get far more done than was possible before. This is the golden age of learning and building! [Original text: ]

For decades, the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the People – or “ICAP” – has been a vehicle for radical left-wing extremism and subversive foreign influence in the United States and across our hemisphere. ICAP is the Cuban regime’s premier influence and intelligence front group, exploiting its vast global network to spy on Americans, promote anti-Western propaganda, coordinate foreign influence operations, and organize revolutionary leftist movements around the world. Earlier this month, I designated ICAP and several other Cuban organizations responsible for engaging in subversive anti-American activities, pursuant to sanctions authorities created by President Trump’s Cuba Executive Order. This week, I terminated the legal status of Carlos Antonio Lloga Dominguez, a former ICAP official who maintains ties with the organization. Lloga Dominguez and his wife and son are now in federal custody pending removal from the United States. America will never become home for foreign communists who peddle propaganda, run subversive influence operations, or support radical anti-American movements within the United States. Transact with ICAP and you will be sanctioned, prosecuted or deported from our country.

A man deposited a fake junk mail check for $95,000 as a joke. The bank cleared it. Six lawyers told him it was legally his money. He gave it all back anyway. – Patrick Combs was 29, living in San Francisco in 1995 with $200 in his bank account when a junk mail letter arrived offering him a get-rich-quick scheme. – Inside was a promotional fake check made out in his name for $95,093.35. Printed across the front in clear letters: NOT NEGOTIABLE. – In a moment of dark humor he signed the back with a smiley face and deposited it at an ATM. – He expected the bank to call him laughing. They never called. – Ten days later he checked his balance. $101,217.34. The check had cleared. – The promotional check was so close in design to a real check that it legally qualified as one under banking law. – By the time the bank realized what had happened it was legally too late to recall the funds. – Combs called his brother who told him to move the money immediately. – He tried to withdraw $95,000 in cash. He learned three things. All the large safe deposit boxes were taken, $500 bills no longer existed, and $95,000 in $100 bills did not fit in a small box. – He got a cashier's check instead and locked it in a safe-deposit box. – When the bank finally came for the money a month later they accused him of fraud and threatened police. – He refused to return anything until they admitted in writing that they had made the mistake, not him. – Six different lawyers reviewed his case and told him the money was legally his to keep. – The bank and Combs went to war for five months. He gave interviews on television and in newspapers. The public loved him. – He eventually gave every dollar back. All he wanted in return was a signed letter clearing him of any wrongdoing and lunch with the bank president. He got the letter but not the lunch. – He turned the entire story into a one-man show called Man 1 Bank 0 and performed it 2,000 times across the world. A man deposited a fake check as a joke with a smiley face signature. The tenth-largest bank in America cleared it.