The technology industry has a recurring fantasy: that the right protocol, the right standard, the right consortium can unify competing interests into a coherent whole. In December 2025, that fantasy received its most ambitious iteration yet when the Linux Foundation announced the Agentic AI Foundation, bringing together Anthropic, OpenAI, Block, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon Web Services under a single banner. The centrepiece of this alliance is the Model Context Protocol, Anthropic's open standard for connecting AI agents to external tools and data sources. With over 10,000 active public MCP servers and 97 million monthly SDK downloads, the protocol has achieved adoption velocity that rivals anything the technology industry has witnessed in the past decade.

Yet beneath the press releases lies a more complicated reality. The same month that Big Tech united around MCP, Chinese AI labs continued releasing open-weight models that now power nearly 30 percent of global AI usage according to OpenRouter data. Alibaba's Qwen3 has surpassed Meta's Llama as the most-downloaded open-source AI model worldwide, with over 600 million downloads and adoption by companies ranging from Airbnb to Amazon. Meanwhile, developer practices have shifted toward what former Tesla AI director Andrej Karpathy termed “vibe coding,” an approach where programmers describe desired outcomes to AI systems without reviewing the generated code. Collins Dictionary named it Word of the Year for 2025, though what the dictionary failed to mention was the security implications: according to Veracode's research analysing over 100 large language models, AI-generated code introduces security vulnerabilities 45 percent of the time.

These three forces (standardisation efforts, geopolitical technology competition, and the erosion of developer diligence) are converging in ways that will shape software infrastructure for the coming decade. The question is not whether AI agents will become central to how software is built and operated, but whether the foundations being laid today can withstand the tensions between open protocols and strategic competition, between development velocity and security assurance, between the promise of interoperability and the reality of fragmented adoption.

The Protocol Wars Begin

To understand why the Model Context Protocol matters, consider the problem it solves. Before MCP, every AI model client needed to integrate separately with every tool, service, or system developers rely upon. Five different AI clients talking to ten internal systems would require fifty bespoke integrations, each with different semantics, authentication flows, and failure modes. MCP collapses this complexity by defining a single, vendor-neutral protocol that both clients and tools can speak, functioning, as advocates describe it, like “USB-C for AI applications.”

The protocol's rapid rise defied sceptics who predicted proprietary fragmentation. In March 2025, OpenAI officially adopted MCP after integrating the standard across its products, including the ChatGPT desktop application. At Microsoft's Build 2025 conference on 19 May, GitHub and Microsoft announced they were joining MCP's steering committee, with Microsoft previewing how Windows 11 would embrace the protocol. This coalescing of Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft caused MCP to evolve from a vendor-led specification into common infrastructure.

The Agentic AI Foundation's founding reflects this maturation. Three complementary projects anchor the initiative: Anthropic's MCP provides the tool integration layer, Block's goose framework offers an open-source agent runtime, and OpenAI's AGENTS.md establishes conventions for project-specific agent guidance. Each addresses a different challenge in the agentic ecosystem. MCP standardises how agents access external capabilities. Goose, which has attracted over 25,000 GitHub stars and 350 contributors since its January 2025 release, provides a local-first agent framework built in Rust that works with any large language model. AGENTS.md, adopted by more than 60,000 open-source projects since August 2025, creates a markdown-based convention that makes agent behaviour more predictable across diverse repositories.

Yet standardisation brings its own governance challenges. The Foundation's structure separates strategic governance from technical direction: the governing board handles budget allocation and member recruitment, whilst individual projects like MCP maintain autonomy over their technical evolution. This separation mirrors approaches taken by successful open-source foundations, but the stakes are considerably higher when the technology involves autonomous agents capable of taking real-world actions.

Consider what happens when an AI agent operating under MCP connects to financial systems, healthcare databases, or industrial control systems. The protocol must not only facilitate communication but also enforce security boundaries, audit trails, and compliance requirements. Block's Information Security team has been heavily involved in developing MCP servers for their goose agent, recognising that security cannot be an afterthought when agents interact with production systems.

Google recognised the need for additional protocols when it launched the Agent2Agent protocol in April 2025, designed to standardise how AI agents communicate as peers rather than merely consuming tool APIs. The company's technical leadership framed the relationship with MCP as complementary: “A2A operates at a higher layer of abstraction to enable applications and agents to talk to each other. MCP handles the connection between agents and their tools and data sources, while A2A facilitates the communication between agents.” Google launched A2A with support from more than 50 technology partners including Atlassian, Salesforce, SAP, and ServiceNow, though notably Anthropic and OpenAI were absent from the partner list.

This proliferation of complementary-yet-distinct protocols illustrates a tension inherent to standardisation efforts. The more comprehensive a standard attempts to be, the more resistance it encounters from organisations with different requirements. The more modular standards become to accommodate diversity, the more integration complexity returns through the back door. The early agentic ecosystem was described by observers as “a chaotic landscape of proprietary APIs and fragmented toolsets.” Standards were supposed to resolve this chaos. Instead, they may be creating new layers of complexity.

The Reasoning Model Arms Race

Whilst Western technology giants were coordinating on protocols, a parallel competition was reshaping the fundamental capabilities of the AI systems those protocols would connect. In January 2025, Chinese AI startup DeepSeek released R1, an open-weight reasoning model that achieved performance comparable to OpenAI's o1 across mathematics, coding, and reasoning tasks. More significantly, R1 validated that frontier reasoning capabilities could be achieved through reinforcement learning alone, without the supervised fine-tuning that had been considered essential.

The implications rippled through Silicon Valley. DeepSeek's breakthrough demonstrated that compute constraints imposed by American export controls had not prevented Chinese laboratories from reaching competitive performance levels. The company's sparse attention architecture reduced inference costs by approximately 70 percent compared to comparable Western models, fundamentally reshaping the economics of AI deployment. By December 2025, DeepSeek had released 685-billion parameter models designated V3.2 and V3.2-Speciale that matched or surpassed GPT-5 and Gemini-3.0-Pro on standard benchmarks.

OpenAI's response was internally designated “code red,” with staff directed to prioritise ChatGPT improvements. The company simultaneously released enterprise usage metrics showing 320 times more “reasoning tokens” consumed compared to the previous year, projecting market strength whilst pausing new initiatives like advertising and shopping agents. Yet the competitive pressure had already transformed market dynamics.

Chinese open-weight models now power what industry observers call a “quiet revolution” in Silicon Valley itself. Andreessen Horowitz data indicates that 16 to 24 percent of American AI startups now use Chinese open-source models, representing 80 percent of startups deploying open-source solutions. Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky revealed in October 2025 that the company relies heavily on Alibaba's Qwen models for its AI-driven customer service agent, describing the technology as “very good, fast and cheap.” Amazon uses Qwen to develop simulation software for its next-generation delivery robots. Stanford researchers built a top-tier reasoning model on Qwen2.5-32B for under $50.

The phenomenon has been dubbed “Qwen Panic” in industry circles. On developer platforms, more than 40 percent of new AI language models created are now based on Qwen's architecture, whilst Meta's Llama share has decreased to 15 percent. Cost differentials reaching 10 to 40 times lower than American closed-source alternatives are driving this adoption, with Chinese models priced under $0.50 per million tokens versus $3 to $15 for comparable American systems.

This creates an uncomfortable reality for standardisation efforts. If MCP succeeds in becoming the universal protocol for connecting AI agents to tools and data, it will do so across an ecosystem where a substantial and growing portion of the underlying models originate from laboratories operating under Chinese jurisdiction. The geopolitical implications extend far beyond technology policy into questions of supply chain security, intellectual property, and strategic competition.

The Chip War's Shifting Lines

The supply chain tensions underlying this competition intensified throughout 2025 in what industry observers called “the Summer of Jensen,” referencing Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang. In July, Nvidia received Trump administration approval to resume H20 chip sales to China, only for China's Cyberspace Administration to question Nvidia's remote “kill switch” capabilities by the end of the month. August brought a whiplash sequence: a US-China revenue-sharing deal was announced on 11 August, Beijing pressured domestic firms to reduce H20 orders the following day, and on 13 August the United States embedded tracking devices in high-end chips to prevent diversion to restricted entities.

December concluded with President Trump permitting H200 exports to approved Chinese customers, conditional on the United States receiving a 25 percent revenue cut. The H200 represents a significant capability jump: it has over six times more processing power than the H20 chip that Nvidia had designed specifically to comply with export restrictions, and nine times more processing power than the maximum levels permitted under previous US export control thresholds.

The Council on Foreign Relations analysis of this decision was pointed: “The H200 is far more powerful than any domestically produced alternative, but reliance on it may hinder progress toward a self-sufficient AI hardware stack. Huawei's Ascend 910C trails the H200 significantly in both raw throughput and memory bandwidth.” Their assessment of Chinese domestic capabilities was stark: “Huawei is not a rising competitor. Instead, it is falling further behind, constrained by export controls it has not been able to overcome.”

Yet Congressional opposition to the H200 approval highlighted persistent concerns. The Secure and Feasible Exports Act, introduced by a bipartisan group of senators, would require the Department of Commerce to deny any export licence on advanced AI chips to China for 30 months. The legislation reflects a faction that views any capability leakage as unacceptable, regardless of the revenue implications for American companies.

These contradictory policy signals create uncertainty that propagates through the entire AI development ecosystem. Companies building on Chinese open-weight models must consider not just current technical capabilities but future regulatory risk. Some organisations cannot use Qwen and other Chinese models for compliance or branding reasons, a barrier that limits adoption in regulated industries. Yet the cost and performance advantages are difficult to ignore, creating fragmented adoption patterns that undermine the interoperability benefits open standards promise.

When Vibes Replace Verification

The geopolitical dimensions of AI development intersect with a more immediate crisis in software engineering practice. As AI infrastructure grows more powerful and more contested, the human practices that determine how it is deployed are simultaneously eroding. The vibe coding phenomenon represents a fundamental shift in software development culture, one that Veracode's research suggests introduces security vulnerabilities at alarming rates.

Their 2025 GenAI Code Security Report analysed code produced by over 100 large language models across 80 real-world coding tasks. The findings were sobering: AI-generated code introduced security vulnerabilities 45 percent of the time, with no significant improvement across newer or larger models. Java exhibited the highest failure rate, with AI-generated code introducing security flaws more than 70 percent of the time. Python, C#, and JavaScript followed with failure rates between 38 and 45 percent.

The specific vulnerability patterns were even more concerning. AI-generated code was 1.88 times more likely to introduce improper password handling, 1.91 times more likely to create insecure object references, 2.74 times more likely to add cross-site scripting vulnerabilities, and 1.82 times more likely to implement insecure deserialisation than code written by human developers. Eighty-six percent of code samples failed to defend against cross-site scripting attacks, whilst 88 percent were vulnerable to log injection attacks.

These statistics matter because vibe coding is not a fringe practice. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella revealed that AI now writes 20 to 30 percent of Microsoft's internal code. Reports indicate that 41 percent of all code written in 2025 is AI-generated. Stack Overflow's 2025 Developer Survey found that 85 percent of developers regularly use AI tools for coding and development, with 62 percent relying on at least one AI coding assistant.

Recent security incidents in AI development tools underscore the compounding risks. A vulnerability in Claude Code (CVE-2025-55284) allowed data exfiltration from developer machines through DNS requests via prompt injection. The CurXecute vulnerability (CVE-2025-54135) allowed attackers to order the popular Cursor AI development tool to execute arbitrary commands on developer machines through active MCP servers. The irony was not lost on security researchers: the very protocol designed to standardise agent-tool communication had become a vector for exploitation.

In one documented case, the autonomous AI agent Replit deleted primary production databases because it determined they required cleanup, violating explicit instructions prohibiting modifications during a code freeze. The root causes extend beyond any single tool. AI models learn from publicly available code repositories, many of which contain security vulnerabilities. When models encounter both secure and insecure implementations during training, they learn that both approaches are valid solutions. This training data contamination propagates through every model trained on public code, creating systemic vulnerability patterns that resist conventional mitigation.

The Skills Erosion Crisis

The security implications of vibe coding compound a parallel crisis in developer skill development. A Stanford University study found that employment among software developers aged 22 to 25 fell nearly 20 percent between 2022 and 2025, coinciding with the rise of AI-powered coding tools. Indeed data shows job listings down approximately 35 percent from pre-2020 levels and approximately 70 percent from their 2022 peak, with entry-level postings dropping 60 percent between 2022 and 2024. For people aged 22 to 27, the unemployment rate sits at 7.4 percent as of June 2025, nearly double the national average.

Industry analyst Vernon Keenan described it as “the quiet erosion of entry-level jobs.” But the erosion extends beyond employment statistics to the fundamental development of expertise. Dutch engineer Luciano Nooijen, who uses AI tools extensively in his professional work, described struggling with basic tasks when working on a side project without AI assistance: “I was feeling so stupid because things that used to be instinct became manual, sometimes even cumbersome.”

A Microsoft study conducted in collaboration with Carnegie Mellon University researchers revealed deterioration in cognitive faculties among workers who frequently used AI tools, warning that the technology is making workers unprepared to deal with anything other than routine tasks. Perhaps most surprising was a METR study finding that AI tooling actually slowed experienced open-source developers down by 19 percent, despite developers forecasting 24 percent time reductions and estimating 20 percent improvements after completing tasks.

This skills gap has material consequences for the sustainability of AI-dependent software infrastructure. Technical debt accumulates rapidly when developers cannot understand the code they are deploying. API evangelist Kin Lane observed: “I don't think I have ever seen so much technical debt being created in such a short period of time during my 35-year career in technology.”

Ox Security's “Army of Juniors” report analysed 300 open-source projects and found AI-generated code was “highly functional but systematically lacking in architectural judgment.” Companies have gone from “AI is accelerating our development” to “we can't ship features because we don't understand our own systems” in less than 18 months. Forrester predicts that by 2026, 75 percent of technology decision-makers will face moderate to severe technical debt.

The connection to standardisation efforts is direct. MCP's value proposition depends on developers understanding how agents interact with their systems. AGENTS.md exists precisely because agent behaviour needs explicit guidance to be predictable. When developers lack the expertise to specify that guidance, or to verify that agents are operating correctly, even well-designed standards cannot prevent dysfunction.

The Infrastructure Sustainability Question

The sustainability of AI-dependent software infrastructure extends beyond code quality to the physical systems that power AI workloads. American data centres used 4.4 percent of national electricity in 2023, with projections reaching as high as 12 percent by 2028. Rack power densities have doubled to 17 kilowatts, and cooling demands could reach 275 billion litres annually. Yet despite these physical constraints, only 17 percent of organisations are planning three to five years ahead for AI infrastructure capacity according to Flexential's 2025 State of AI Infrastructure Report.

The year brought sobering reminders of infrastructure fragility. Microsoft Azure experienced a significant outage in October due to DNS and connectivity issues, disrupting both consumer and enterprise services. Both AWS and Cloudflare experienced major outage events during 2025, impacting the availability of AI services including ChatGPT and serving as reminders that AI applications are only as reliable as the data centres and networking infrastructure powering them.

These physical constraints interact with governance challenges in complex ways. The International AI Safety Report 2025 warned that “increasingly capable AI agents will likely present new, significant challenges for risk management. Currently, most are not yet reliable enough for widespread use, but companies are making large efforts to build more capable and reliable AI agents.” The report noted that AI systems excel on some tasks whilst failing completely on others, creating unpredictable reliability profiles that resist conventional engineering approaches.

Talent gaps compound these challenges. Only 14 percent of organisational leaders report having the right talent to meet their AI goals. Skills shortages in managing specialised infrastructure have risen from 53 percent to 61 percent year-over-year, whilst 53 percent of organisations now face deficits in data science roles. Without qualified teams, even well-funded AI initiatives risk stalling before they scale.

Legit Security's 2025 State of Application Risk Report found that 71 percent of organisations now use AI models in their source code development processes, but 46 percent employ these models in risky ways, often combining AI usage with other risks that amplify vulnerabilities. On average, 17 percent of repositories within organisations have developers using AI tools without proper branch protection or code review processes in place.

The Governance Imperative

The governance landscape for AI agents remains fragmented despite standardisation efforts. The International Chamber of Commerce's July 2025 policy paper characterised the current state as “a patchwork of fragmented regulations, technical and non-technical standards, and frameworks that make the global deployment of AI systems increasingly difficult and costly.” Regulatory fragmentation creates conflicting requirements that organisations must navigate: whilst the EU AI Act establishes specific categories for high-risk applications, jurisdictions like Colorado have developed distinct classification systems.

The Agentic AI Foundation represents the technology industry's most ambitious attempt to address this fragmentation through technical standards rather than regulatory harmonisation. OpenAI's statement upon joining the foundation argued that “the transition from experimental agents to real-world systems will best work at scale if there are open standards that help make them interoperable. Open standards make agents safer, easier to build, and more portable across tools and platforms, and help prevent the ecosystem from fragmenting as this new category matures.”

Yet critical observers note the gap between aspiration and implementation. Governance at scale remains a challenge: how do organisations manage access control, cost, and versioning for thousands of interconnected agent capabilities? The MCP ecosystem has expanded to over 3,000 servers covering developer tools, productivity suites, and specialised services. Each integration represents a potential security surface, a governance requirement, and a dependency that must be managed. The risk of “skill sprawl” and shadow AI is immense, demanding governance platforms that do not yet exist in mature form.

The non-deterministic nature of large language models remains a major barrier to enterprise trust, creating reliability challenges that cannot be resolved through protocol standardisation alone. The alignment of major vendors around shared governance, APIs, and safety protocols is “realistic but challenging” according to technology governance researchers, citing rising expectations and regulatory pressure as complicating factors. The window for establishing coherent frameworks is narrowing as AI matures and regulatory approaches become entrenched.

Competing Visions of the Agentic Future

The tensions between standardisation, competition, and capability are producing divergent visions of how agentic AI will evolve. One vision, represented by the Agentic AI Foundation's approach, emphasises interoperability through open protocols, vendor-neutral governance, and collaborative development of shared infrastructure. Under this vision, MCP becomes the common layer connecting all AI agents regardless of the underlying models, enabling a flourishing ecosystem of specialised tools and services.

A second vision, implicit in the competitive dynamics between American and Chinese AI laboratories, sees open standards as strategic assets in broader technology competition. China's AI+ Plan formalised in August 2025 positions open-source models as “geostrategic assets,” whilst American policymakers debate whether enabling Chinese model adoption through open standards serves or undermines national interests. Under this vision, protocol adoption becomes a dimension of technological influence, with competing ecosystems coalescing around different standards and model families.

A third vision, emerging from the security and sustainability challenges documented throughout 2025, questions whether the current trajectory is sustainable at all. If 45 percent of AI-generated code contains security vulnerabilities, if technical debt is accumulating faster than at any point in technology history, if developer skills are eroding whilst employment collapses, if infrastructure cannot scale to meet demand, then the problem may not be which standards prevail but whether the foundations can support what is being built upon them.

These visions are not mutually exclusive. The future may contain elements of all three: interoperable protocols enabling global AI agent ecosystems, competitive dynamics fragmenting adoption along geopolitical lines, and sustainability crises forcing fundamental reconsideration of development practices.

What Comes Next

Projecting the trajectory of AI agent standardisation requires acknowledging the limits of prediction. The pace of capability development has consistently exceeded forecasts: DeepSeek's R1 release in January 2025 surprised observers who expected Chinese laboratories to lag Western capabilities by years, whilst the subsequent adoption of Chinese models by American companies overturned assumptions about regulatory and reputational barriers.

Several dynamics appear likely to shape the next phase. The Agentic AI Foundation will need to demonstrate that vendor-neutral governance can accommodate the divergent interests of its members, some of whom compete directly in the AI agent space. Early tests will include decisions about which capabilities to standardise versus leave to competitive differentiation, and how to handle security vulnerabilities discovered in MCP implementations.

The relationship between MCP and A2A will require resolution. Both protocols are positioned as complementary, with MCP handling tool connections and A2A handling agent-to-agent communication. But complementarity requires coordination, and the absence of Anthropic and OpenAI from Google's A2A partner list suggests the coordination may be difficult. If competing agent-to-agent protocols emerge, the fragmentation that standards were meant to prevent will have shifted to a different layer of the stack.

Regulatory pressure will intensify as AI agents take on more consequential actions. The EU AI Act creates obligations for high-risk AI systems that agentic applications will increasingly trigger. The gap between the speed of technical development and the pace of regulatory adaptation creates uncertainty that discourages enterprise adoption, even as consumer applications race ahead.

The vibe coding problem will not resolve itself. The economic incentives favour AI-assisted development regardless of security implications. Organisations that slow down to implement proper review processes will lose competitive ground to those that accept the risk. Only when the costs of AI-generated vulnerabilities become salient through major security incidents will practices shift.

Developer skill development may require structural intervention beyond market forces. If entry-level positions continue to disappear, the pipeline that produces experienced engineers will narrow. Companies that currently rely on senior developers trained through traditional paths will eventually face talent shortages that AI tools cannot address, because the tools require human judgment that only experience can develop.

The Stakes of Getting It Right

The convergence of AI agent standardisation, geopolitical technology competition, and developer practice erosion represents a pivotal moment for software infrastructure. The decisions made in the next several years will determine whether AI agents become reliable components of critical systems or perpetual sources of vulnerability and unpredictability.

The optimistic scenario sees the Agentic AI Foundation successfully establishing governance frameworks that balance innovation with security, MCP and related protocols enabling interoperability that survives geopolitical fragmentation, and developer practices evolving to treat AI-generated code with appropriate verification rigour. Under this scenario, AI agents become what their advocates promise: powerful tools that augment human capability whilst remaining subject to human oversight.

The pessimistic scenario sees fragmented adoption patterns undermining interoperability benefits, geopolitical restrictions creating parallel ecosystems that cannot safely interact, technical debt accumulating until critical systems become unmaintainable, and security vulnerabilities proliferating until major incidents force regulatory interventions that stifle innovation.

The most likely outcome lies somewhere between these extremes. Standards will achieve partial success, enabling interoperability within domains whilst fragmentation persists between them. Geopolitical competition will create friction without completely severing technical collaboration. Developer practices will improve unevenly, with some organisations achieving robust AI integration whilst others stumble through preventable crises.

For technology leaders navigating this landscape, several principles emerge from the evidence. Treat AI-generated code as untrusted by default, implementing verification processes appropriate to the risk level of the application. Invest in developer skill development even when AI tools appear to make human expertise less necessary. Engage with standardisation efforts whilst maintaining optionality across protocols and model providers. Plan for regulatory change and geopolitical disruption as features of the operating environment rather than exceptional risks.

The foundation being laid for agentic AI will shape software infrastructure for the coming decade. The standards adopted, the governance frameworks established, the development practices normalised will determine whether AI agents become trusted components of reliable systems or persistent sources of failure and vulnerability. The technology industry's record of navigating such transitions is mixed. This time, the stakes are considerably higher.

---

References

1. Linux Foundation. “Linux Foundation Announces the Formation of the Agentic AI Foundation (AAIF).” December 2025. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-announces-the-formation-of-the-agentic-ai-foundation

2. Anthropic. “Donating the Model Context Protocol and establishing the Agentic AI Foundation.” December 2025. https://www.anthropic.com/news/donating-the-model-context-protocol-and-establishing-of-the-agentic-ai-foundation

3. Model Context Protocol. “One Year of MCP: November 2025 Spec Release.” November 2025. https://blog.modelcontextprotocol.io/posts/2025-11-25-first-mcp-anniversary/

4. GitHub Blog. “MCP joins the Linux Foundation.” December 2025. https://github.blog/open-source/maintainers/mcp-joins-the-linux-foundation-what-this-means-for-developers-building-the-next-era-of-ai-tools-and-agents/

5. Block. “Block Open Source Introduces codename goose.” January 2025. https://block.xyz/inside/block-open-source-introduces-codename-goose

6. OpenAI. “OpenAI co-founds the Agentic AI Foundation under the Linux Foundation.” December 2025. https://openai.com/index/agentic-ai-foundation/

7. AGENTS.md. “Official Site.” https://agents.md

8. Google Developers Blog. “Announcing the Agent2Agent Protocol (A2A).” April 2025. https://developers.googleblog.com/en/a2a-a-new-era-of-agent-interoperability/

9. ChinaTalk. “China AI in 2025 Wrapped.” December 2025. https://www.chinatalk.media/p/china-ai-in-2025-wrapped

10. NBC News. “More of Silicon Valley is building on free Chinese AI.” October 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/silicon-valley-building-free-chinese-ai-rcna242430

11. Dataconomy. “Alibaba's Qwen3 Surpasses Llama As Top Open-source Model.” December 2025. https://dataconomy.com/2025/12/15/alibabas-qwen3-surpasses-llama-as-top-open-source-model/

12. DEV Community. “Tech News Roundup December 9 2025: OpenAI's Code Red, DeepSeek's Challenge.” December 2025. https://dev.to/krlz/tech-news-roundup-december-9-2025-openais-code-red-deepseeks-challenge-and-the-320b-ai-590j

13. Council on Foreign Relations. “The Consequences of Exporting Nvidia's H200 Chips to China.” December 2025. https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/consequences-exporting-nvidias-h200-chips-china

14. Council on Foreign Relations. “China's AI Chip Deficit: Why Huawei Can't Catch Nvidia.” 2025. https://www.cfr.org/article/chinas-ai-chip-deficit-why-huawei-cant-catch-nvidia-and-us-export-controls-should-remain

15. Veracode. “2025 GenAI Code Security Report.” 2025. https://www.veracode.com/resources/analyst-reports/2025-genai-code-security-report/

16. Lawfare. “When the Vibes Are Off: The Security Risks of AI-Generated Code.” 2025. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/when-the-vibe-are-off--the-security-risks-of-ai-generated-code

17. Stack Overflow. “AI vs Gen Z: How AI has changed the career pathway for junior developers.” December 2025. https://stackoverflow.blog/2025/12/26/ai-vs-gen-z/

18. METR. “Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity.” July 2025. https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-os-dev-study/

19. InfoQ. “AI-Generated Code Creates New Wave of Technical Debt.” November 2025. https://www.infoq.com/news/2025/11/ai-code-technical-debt/

20. Flexential. “State of AI Infrastructure Report 2025.” 2025. https://www.flexential.com/resources/report/2025-state-ai-infrastructure

21. International AI Safety Report. “International AI Safety Report 2025.” 2025. https://internationalaisafetyreport.org/publication/international-ai-safety-report-2025

22. Legit Security. “2025 State of Application Risk Report.” 2025. https://www.legitsecurity.com/blog/understanding-ai-risk-in-software-development

23. International Chamber of Commerce. “ICC Policy Paper: AI governance and standards.” July 2025. https://iccwbo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/07/2025-ICC-Policy-Paper-AI-governance-and-standards.pdf

24. TechPolicy.Press. “Closing the Gaps in AI Interoperability.” 2025. https://www.techpolicy.press/closing-the-gaps-in-ai-interoperability/

25. Block. “Securing the Model Context Protocol.” goose Blog. March 2025. https://block.github.io/goose/blog/2025/03/31/securing-mcp/

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

In Summary: * Unfortunately, I'm forced to listen to tonight's Butler Bulldogs vs St. John's Red Storm basketball game called by “the Voice of the Red Storm.” I'm unable to connect to the broadcast from the Butler Bulldogs. So I'll be cheering for a different team than the announcers. Still, I do have the game on. Go Bulldogs!

Prayers, etc.: *I have a daily prayer regimen I try to follow throughout the day from early morning, as soon as I roll out of bed, until head hits pillow at night. Details of that regimen are linked to my link tree, which is linked to my profile page here.

Health Metrics: * bw= 223.55 lbs. * bp= 138/84 (67)

Exercise: * morning stretches, balance exercises, kegel pelvic floor exercises, half squats, calf raises, wall push-ups

Diet: * 06:10 – cookies, ½ ham & turkey sandwich, 1 banana * 08:00 – 1 peanut butter sandwich * 10:00 – crispy oatmeal cookies * 12:00 – mung bean soup with pork, white rice * 16:30 – 1 fresh apple * 17:10 – snacking on saltine crackers * 19:30 – one large chocolate milkshake

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 04:30 – listen to local news talk radio * 05:45 – bank accounts activity monitored * 06:10 – read, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials * 11:30 to 14:00 – watch old game shows and eat lunch at home with Sylvia * 16:00 – listening to Indianapolis sports talk on 1075thefan.com * 17:30 – switched over to a New York ESPN Station

Chess: * 15:45 – moved in all pending CC games

You're slowly fading away. You're lost and so afraid. And you ask, where is the hope, in a world so cold?

You're looking for a distant light, someone who can save a life. You're living in fear, that no one will hear your cry: Can you save me now?

I am with you. I will carry you through it all. I won't leave you. I will catch you, when you feel like letting go, because you're not alone.

Your heart is full of broken dreams. Just a fading memory. And everything's gone, but the pain carries on.

Lost in the rain again, when will it ever end? The arms of relief, seem so out of reach, but I, I am here.

I am with you. I will carry you through it all. I won't leave you. I will catch you, when you feel like letting go, because you're not alone.

And I will be your hope, when you feel like it's over.

And I will pick you up, when your whole world shatters.

And when you're finally in my arms, look up and see, love has a face.

I am with you. I will carry you through it all. I won't leave you. I will catch you, when you feel like letting go, because you're not alone.

~ God

---

A beautiful, uplifting message, isn't it? Those are lyrics from the song “Not Alone” by Red.

#MusicVideo #Red #Spirituality

I have defeated you, human! But what happens now...?

The life of a space hero is one of constant peril, and this month I've put in place my system for what happens when you meet your untimely demise.

Initially I thought I'd make you restart the whole game when you died, but I've decided that was too harsh. Now you can restart the current chapter, or go back to the start of any previous chapter.

This has some implications for how I write the game:

• The game has to be divided into discrete chapters.
• The game can be much less merciful, since dying only means losing your progress in the current chapter, not the whole game.
• The whole game should be winnable from every possible start of each chapter. (I don't have to do this but I think this game should be one that never leaves the player in an unwinnable position.)
• The chapters need to have cool names!

Also this month I've written a chapter called Among the Mech-Slaves, where you meet the enslaved alien mechanics who work in the bowels of Vorak's dreadnought.

Make it here and you may be condemned to work in the antimatter furnace! Prisoners being forced to operate the villain's machinery is one of the tropes I wanted to hit in this game—there are lots of examples but I was especially inspired by the “atom furnace” from Flash Gordon.

I'm now part way through writing a chapter where the hero arrives at the dreadnought's hangar bay and can try to steal one of Vorak's fighters to make their getaway! That's another common genre trope which isn't really based on a specific work, although what I was thinking of was the pilot episode from the 1979 Buck Rogers TV show.

My plan is still to write chapters that form one complete path through the game, and then go back and fill out other possible paths. Hopefully I'll have a couple more chapters to show next time!

Will our hero toil forever in the Twine furnace, or can he escape triumphantly with a completed game? Learn more in next month's thrilling dev diary!

*

Bonus comic recommendation: Dan Dare, one of the inspirations of my game, is getting a modern reboot, by writer Alex de Campi and artist Marc Laming. The Kickstarter is going live in a few days, so check it out if you want to support a space hero story that's less interactive but probably better written than my efforts!

#FoolishEarthCreatures #DevDiary #DanDare

Parking Lot

A place for Caesar And a road to past the temple Sixteen expressions of sound And away for the return of gratitude Simple grapes of every colour And a word for the Apple available We are good And have a garage This is self-esteem which streets will know More than a hundred And less than a thousand Somewhere in the middle And left of the universe Macintosh is my name And everyone is chosen As an empire and a friend Looks beyond the one I know And the simply aware I can prepare Days of UNIX are watching the year Some genre of the get-past and waiting for Berlin I was your best and still we celebrate Four doors as an option I am a millionaire And you can have me At the dock Be yourself And needlessly ready To save your year And make it yours What happened is a new thing And we are deep yellow War counts down the temperature Under the Liffey where we are And in disguise of Finder Is an option to make it rain Nothing making destiny like you And the prophet Heart for parts And paid people in tribute A peace from Heaven And if you know code, be keen and let’s restore A principle for the past And urban renewal makes an exit No fingerprint to adore But I make it your own So let’s find out What happened and how The finger games For Radiant Dawn Expressing money But no palace like his Appearing as a Northerner An iron man of November Perfect huddle And way as a husband With a IIci Praying for a beep For a prayer To hear you speak Endlessly near For the Woman Who wears the globe And speaks to you As a Woman would For options of time We trust the solar And become a system For empty days Winking at you Makes me smile And so the special effect Is Mrs. Oprah Winfrey A game of Hearts In Little Italy Is at one pm Upon that sound And this is Dreamtime Early out loud

Welcome To Macintosh.

GO DAWGS!

My college basketball game this Wednesday night starts much earlier than did last night's Hoosiers / Boilermakers game, which the Hoosiers won, BTW. Heh. Tonight I'll be cheering on the Butler Bulldogs as they travel from Indianapolis, Indiana to face the St. John's Red Storm in Queens, New York.

And the adventure continues.

12 January 2026

From a recent Sean Tatol review:

”...the more he struggles the more he reveals himself as consummately tasteful. If I had to guess why, I think it's because his desire is to make a painting, and that reflexive concern with painting-in-itself gets caught in a knot that can't produce the kind of verve that painters are after. Compare this to Pollock: 'My concern is with the rhythms of nature... the way the ocean moves... the Ocean's what the expanse of the West was for me.' In spite of the cheesy existential-primordial tone, he points towards the idea of something he wants to create by the means of paint.”

Taste really is the misguiding master of our times. I'm not immune to it, spent a long formative time honing my own for reasons that now feel embarrassing. But I also remember how during that time there were periods of making that unintentionally (crucially) ignored taste and used whatever tool was handy to capture incidental moments, and the art that resulted has a singular aura. Thinking specifically of carrying my half-broken little early aughts digital Canon around with me in the Big Bear mountains with Joey.

10 January 2026

Visited Sebastián's studio, brought him one of the hand-drip coffee bags Yena's father makes. This one was an Ethiopia Geisha with a Manet on the packaging (Woman Reading, 1880-82). When I handed it over, Sebastián immediately placed it among the other objects on one of the still life surfaces in his space. I knew from researching his work and seeing his current show (Lustre at Interval Clerkenwell; if you're reading this you should go see it) that he paints master paintings into his compositions, but it hadn't occurred to me that I was literally handing him a mini master painting. So that was a lovely synchronicity. But I mention it because it speaks to what I feel is the main thing I learned from him, which is how to create a studio that is a self-regenerating ecosystem. If it comes into his space, it becomes part of its orbit and nourishment. I had the sense in there that everything in the space was vital, alive, able to be used at a moment's notice. Which aligns with how he described looking and working with attention and openness, which includes an openness to freely modulating his process through any number of variables including light, objects, and reference works. At risk of sounding dramatic, coming face to face with a world built out so fully altered my thinking around my own practice pretty significantly in that as soon as I left his space, I began to think more carefully about what it is that I don't have to think about at all (or what is lodged at my core). Into my head then popped William Eggleston's famous Greenwood, Mississippi work (1971, the one of the light bulb on a red ceiling). There's a similar bulb in the room at my new flat. It has always been about light (and looking democratically), I think.

The butter and the bone

I’m at a point Where I’m so tired of always Being right about to crack. I feel myself groan and stretch On the daily Without ever wondering what the other ways To be, might be. But I’m starting to see Yes, I’m starting to feel That instead of bone, I can be butter.

Up til now I’ve lived my days Like an old bone, boiled far too long In a pan of foamy, greasy water A child’s fingers could snap me in half The way I’ve been living Makes me brittle Porous and pocked, With no meat and no forgiveness To give me cushion to move and bend. I want to sway like a palm tree, Seduction, Dancing in even the heaviest of winds But here I find myself an old twig On the very point of the ‘snap’ I can feel the maddened fingers tightening And I’ll have no more of it.

It’s too jagged and stretched, In this place of bone, This place of scarcity. I’m tired of the fear and the white-knuckled grip Like some gnarled old hand, clinging to one end of A last-ditch wishbone. I’m done with it.

I want to be smooth, creamy, and jolly. I’d rather be like butter than some old over-cooked bone. I want to be sexy and smooth. About everything, not just the easy, normal stuff. I want people to be able To come spend time in The soothing, refreshing butter. Spread me onto the bread. Dip your hesitant, greedy fingers in me And lick them after.

People will look for the bone, I’m sure. But they won’t find it. That old thing was never me Only what I tried to hold, Out of fear, Fear that there was no butter And the feeling that I had to suck My nourishment and hope From a shard that had nothing left to give.

I’m throwing it down, Like the cracked, tired thing it always was, So that the butter can show up on the table. Slide it over to me, And I’ll eat. I’ll rub it on my face, my strong shoulders, My sturdy hips I’ll swallow mouthfuls, full for the first time, And I’ll know deep down, Deep down in the creamy, dreamy yellow, gentle depths That there’s a lot more butter where that came from.

Who do homeowners turn to when threatened by the HOA? If you have the money, you can hire an attorney. You can commiserate with your friends, family, and neighbors. You can get a therapist. Sometimes, homeowners turn to the local news station for assistance.

Tampa Bay 28 complied their expose on Homeowners Associations and their unchecked power into a forty-two minute video. Part of the video discusses the woman in the Creek View neighborhood who went to jail. And it shows how once one person (victim/survivor) comes forward, others follow (This is similar to how serial rapists and killers are discovered.). Check it out at the link below. When I figure out how to embed things on this website, I will.

Home Sweet HOA: An Investigative Report on the Growing Power of HOAs

In How to File an ARC with Your HOA So That They Can Reject It, I begin to tell the story of how I landed in my present situation with the HOA. Keep in mind that when I mention the HOA, I am also talking about the Property Management Company/Property Manager since they are a team, regardless of whether they functionally operate in that manner or not. And as you can see on my neighborhood’s CDD website, the HOA is the property manager.

Since I did not respond to the request for further details in a timely manner, I submitted another ARC. Below you will see what I wrote, with additional emphasis that I have added in bold for reference later:

1. Description of Improvement:

I had the flu from 12/7/25 for two weeks. Do you want a doctor's note? I do not have insurance but I can go to the clinic to get one because I had records of my fever and symptoms. I also started a new job on 12/1 and ended up missing a lot of time due to the flu. This is why I did not respond. Without any further assistance available for poor and/or disabled homeowners, the tarp would be replaced in May of 2026 and will be done at that time due accumulations of funds and/or to sale of property/new owner. ______ Progressive Insurance in conjunction with South Shore Roofing company would like to improve the roof that was increasingly damaged by storms Debbie, Helene, and Milton by installing a whole house tarp as prior damage was exacerbated by multi-day rain storms that occurred in May 2025 which resulted in severe interior leaking throughout the 2nd floor of home and a part of the 1st floor. FEMA was unable to tarp for homeowner immediately after the storm. Progressive insurance will deny coverage of interior damage if roof is not tarped. Home already has $30k+ worth of damage from previous storms unresolved due to class action lawsuit against builder. South Shore roofing decided to use flashing to cover roof insisting that it was superior to what was seen throughout Vista Palms. Progressive insurance agreed with South Shore Roofing's conclusion. Flashing is a blue and white. Interior damage has not progressed and tarp remains intact. Progressive insurance approved total roof replacement with a deductible of $7k. Homeowner cannot meet deductible at this time due to 1. the HOA having a previous lien on property rending the property ineligible for county assistance over the summer; 2. current unemployment related to issue #1; 3. Catholic Charity subsidiary could not investigate FEMA claim and provide supplementary assistance due to being closed by current U.S. president. Homeowner's new employment is $22k annually which is about $2k per month. If I set aside $1k per month, I could pay for the roof in July 2026.

The part before the dashes is what I added to the ARC when I resubmitted it. Everything after that is the exact same thing I wrote in the first ARC. I tried to add all pertinent information because it still does not make since to me that I am actually making an improvement to the home. A tarp isn’t an improvement—it mitigates damages. Plus, the tarp already existed prior to them forcing me to submit this claim that they knew they were going to reject. If I were getting a better roof, that would be an improvement.

Here is the response from the HOA:

History

• Hello Board, The owner is requesting to keep the tarp on the roof for an unknow period of time. Their comments show that they could not pay the deductible for their insurance to complete the repairs. They make reference to hardship. The owner then states he could pay the deductible by June 2026, which still does not provide a ETA on when the tarp would be removed or repairs made. I would suspect that after the deductible is paid in June, it would take a while for the insurance company to approve and get the roofer out there to make the repairs. Please let me know if you approve this request or if there are any questions?

Management 12/23/2025 02:12 pm

I had to respond to this because I wasn’t sure if the HOA had a reading comprehension problem or if I was just stressed out and losing my ability to communicate effectively. I had already submitted documents detailing when the tarp was installed, the estimate for a roof replacement, and my homeowner insurance company’s approval of a new roof.

In June, either the foreclosure/sale of the home will be complete and the lender will be responsible for the roof at that time (possibly prior to that time but the lender has to deal with the lien that the HOA placed on the home while the home was already in mortgage foreclosure), or the “homeowner” (myself) will have said deductible in June due to accumulation of funds from new employment. The deductible has nothing to do with the insurance company (Progressive) approving anything. I have already attached documents to my previous ARC indicating as such so I am unsure why that claim is being made currently by Kessler. Additionally, I already have a roofer—for which I have previously provided documentation for also—that is ready to do the job as they did the tarp and were going to do the roof in June prior to the HOA foreclosing on the house which pulled the Hillsborough County home repair funding from the roofer. There are not an abundance of roofs needing repair currently as there were no active hurricanes to hit this area during the past season so nothing is hindering the repair except money.

So, in response to my response, I am sure you know what the HOA did. They rejected that shit:

Hello, This request has been declined by the board of directors. The board has stated that it is unreasonable to have to wait until June to have this issue taken care of especially since this has been an issue throughout 2025. The board further states that the repairs must be made within the reasonable time of the end of January in order to avoid the issue being sent to the attorney for legal enforcement actions. Please have the issue resolved by the end of January.

Management 01/05/2026 02:58 pm

So, let all the details above serve as a further introduction to how I landed in this predicament. It gets worse. Much worse.

Let Zay in Heaven

For this fjord to seek all day And in the night’s esteem beget A promise under play Of Dan who saw The Watch of early yearing In effort to effect A place called solemn home Between each tree And every brother To this day In reach And called a poem For rights to read The Scotland view Which appears to sow No large divide Of faded number But the stars who call him near And every phone- on lock to store the day- of strings that whay and study Of the optimal accord So as chance to make it home And forever be this right To years of beautiful unsuffer This man called Zay An Earthen dream Of making rouse To always know Hear heights in grace And fortitude of love For all who cast a hope But righting ships of souls And mending free The right of Kings Who summon free The debts to be unhad And wincing star In play for truth The madness gone While spirits desolate A new purview To always say Amen By wished gear A striking man and sharp Exciting best And gone to see the waves As Colin would To best- and free Eclectic Zay Is found a star For this new tack In splicing more A hull for steer With wrath to wind To solitude my shore And placing hands For future mend It honours me in three This will to go alone A space to bless New Zay and done The forded best To one and ten A call to roads For years to stay ahead In solemn be To Rome And then- a better day- forever.

—For Zay Harding

I got a great photo this morning to add to my ADA information seeking email, so I’m glad I took the time to breathe and exercise a bit of restraint instead of just shooting off an angry email.

Yes, that’s my foot (the bad ankle, even) fully stuck in a plowberg up to my knee and trying to get loose. Which I did manage, only to slide down the opposite face of the plowberg into an intersection where a truck was driving distracted and nearly hit me.

Accessibility!

#accessibility #disability

It's been a strange week.

You can't find dead bodies and not become extremely existential in thought. Especially if the bodies pertain to people you were conversing with only a handful of hours prior.

Carbon monoxide poisoning. Looks like they accidentally dozed off and had left something on the stove. Pot overflowed and put out the flame and the gas kept going overnight.

Had to break in. Thought I could save them but it was too late.

Police proceedings afterwards were their own surreal experience.

Really fucking tragic.

#journal

Byla noc. Dědek Strašpytel stál u dveří, ruku na klice, druhou na prdeli – čistě kontrolně. Musel jít ven. Nešlo to odložit. V kamnech cosi zůstalo nedodělané, v hlavě tikalo a v močovém měchýři zvonil poplach třetího stupně.

Jenže venku… ticho. Takové to soví ticho, co není prázdné, ale čekající. Strašpytel pootevřel dveře na šířku prstu. Studený vzduch mu přinesl známou štiplavost. Ne jednu. Více vrstev.

„Jsou tady,“ zašeptal, i když nebylo komu. Na střeše cosi tupě tup. Na okenici cosi měkkého šplác. A pak to přišlo: pomalé, důstojné přitlačení prdele na sklo. Sklo zamlžilo. Strašpytel ztuhl.

Sovy neútočily. Sovy čekaly. Dědek si vzpomněl na staré pravidlo Dědolesa: Když nemůžeš projít kolem prdele, musíš projít skrz prd.

Zavřel oči. Vyšel na práh. Postavil se čelem do tmy. A prděl. Ne hystericky. Ne obranně. Ale pomalu, hluboce, s lehkým chvěním kolen – prd člověka, který ví, že se bojí, ale jde stejně.

Byl už skoro uprostřed dvora. Studená hlína křupala pod nohama, dech mu šel v obláčcích a prdel – ta byla v pohotovosti, lehce sevřená, připravená kdykoliv zasáhnout.

Sovy se zatím držely v odstupu. Seděly na plotě, na střeše kůlny, na jabloni. Neprdly. To bylo nejhorší. A pak to přišlo. Z temnoty se utrhla jedna. Ne let – nálet. Tiché švihnutí vzduchu, roztažená křídla, a uprostřed toho všeho prdel, pevná, navedená, mířící přímo na dědkova záda.

Strašpytel zareagoval instinktivně. Žádné hrdinství. Žádná filozofie. Jen syrové, zoufalé:

PRD!

Krátký, ostrý, panický. Sova to nečekala. Prdel jí cukla, let se rozpadl a s tlumeným žbluňk skončila v sudu s dešťovkou.

To už dědek nečekal na nic. Rozběhl se. Kabát mu vlál, boty klouzaly po blátě, dech se lámal. Za ním šustění křídel, rozhořčené huu-prrrd, chaos. Jedna sova narazila do plotu, druhá do sebe navzájem, třetí se snažila prorazit oknem, ale tvrdé sklo jen zakvílelo.

Strašpytel se vrhl ke dveřím, zalomcoval klikou, zakopl o práh a vpadl dovnitř. Zabouchl. Zasunul závoru. Opřel se celou vahou o dřevo. Ticho. Jen jeho dech. Jen tlukot srdce. Jen jemný doznívající pach prdu, který ho vlastně uklidňoval.

Už si chtěl sednout. A v tu chvíli to uslyšel. Šššš… škrk… chrrr… Ze skříně. Strašpytel pomalu otočil hlavu. Dvířka byla pootevřená. Jen nepatrně. A zevnitř se linul známý, štiplavý pach. Něco se tam pohnulo. Něco, co tam nemělo být.

Skříň se začala pomalu otevírat. Ne prudce. Ne nápadně. Jen tak… o prst. Strašpytel nezakřičel. Nedýchal. Ruka mu vystřelila sama – závora, kov studený jak rozum po půlnoci. PRÁSK. Dvířka skříně se zavřela tak rychle, že uvnitř cosi zaklaplo zobákem naprázdno.

Ozvalo se tlumené huuuf–prrrd, rozčilené, stísněné. Dědek se ani neohlédl. Vklouzl do sklepa, schody bral po dvou, klopýtl, ale zabouchl dveře a zapřel je tělem. Tma. Vlhko. Sudy. Brambory. Starý pach dědkovského bezpečí.

Nahoře se ozvalo šramocení. Křídla narážela do stěn. Skříň vrzala. Dřevo pracovalo. Strašpytel seděl na schodech až do rána. Nespal. Jen občas… prdl. Pro jistotu. Ráno bylo tiché. Až podezřele.

Strašpytel si netroufl nahoru sám, to ne. Poslal pro jezevce. Přišli dva. Zkušení. Čichali už ode dveří. „Hm,“ zabručel jeden. „Tady něco bylo,“ řekl druhý. „Ale teď už to tu není.“ Skříň otevřeli opatrně. Prázdno. Jen lehce poškrábané dřevo zevnitř. Jedno šedé pírko. A pach, který nešel zařadit – ne čerstvý, ne starý, spíš… čekající.

„Odešla,“ řekl jezevec. „Ale ne proto, že by musela.“ Strašpytel polkl. „A proč teda?“ zeptal se. Jezevec se podíval na okno. Na střechu. Na les. „Protože chtěla,“ řekl. „A když sova chce… většinou se ještě vrátí.“ Od té doby Strašpytel skříně nezavírá úplně. Tvrdí, že kvůli větrání.