Engineering Consistency at Scale: Softies Miss Things
May 28, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I want to write a Microsoft characteristic. To put the DNA in context, I will focus on a small, medium, and big thing.
First, the small thing. The Windows Central article “Microsoft Admits Windows 11’s Dedicated Copilot Key Breaks Certain Workflows: Confirms Plans to Let Users Restore Right Ctrl or Context Menu Key Later This Year.” Why is this a small thing? I am not convinced that Copilot is a customer or revenue success. But that’s just my normal skepticism.
Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.
The write up reports:
Microsoft has made a number of good updates to Windows 11 in recent weeks, with plans to introduce even more highly requested features such as the ability to move the Taskbar and pause Windows updates indefinitely in the pipeline. The company is clearly committed to addressing Windows 11’s top issues as part of its ongoing Windows K2 effort.
The obvious question is, “What is the management process that seems designed to create problems for its own hardware, software, and users. This is engineering in-consistency and a clear signal that details escape whatever “quality control” processes the pioneering AI firm touches. Yep, management.
The medium thing is that outstanding system known as Exchange Server. The medium goof is reported in “CISA Adds One Known Exploited Vulnerability to Catalog.” What is this? you may ask. The write up says:
[The] Microsoft Exchange Server Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerability … is a frequent attack vector for malicious cyber actors and poses significant risks to the federal enterprise.
Yep, the federal government. Medium thing, right?
Now the big thing.
Digital Trends’s “Kenya Tells Microsoft That $1 billion AI Data Center Would Gulp Half the Country’s Electricity” reports:
Microsoft’s proposed $1 billion AI data center project is reportedly facing resistance after government officials warned that the facility could consume so much power it might require “switching off half the country” to keep it operational.
Kenya is not exactly a high technology theme park. The idea that Microsoft would consider building a facility in a location where a country would be rendered non-functional for citizens, companies, and government entities. Yeah, it’s just a country. The fact that this concept seemed logical to Microsoft reveals another facet of the firm’s DNA. Once again the focus is on management. The governance mechanisms don’t operate when a country will be directly affected.
Several observations, and I admit that I am selecting two recent examples of errors on a small scale and a country scale:
- Microsoft’s management methods do not deliver benefits to anyone other than those who get money directly from Microsoft
- The firm’s inability to consider the details of arbitrary changes is baked in to the firm’s deliverables. I personally assume that any Microsoft induced change will cause problems. Microsoft has ineffective QA/QC methods that operate at the small scale of a software function.
- The firm’s management set up allows ideas that would cripple a country if implement apparently make perfect sense to Microsoft’s leadership. The flawed analyses and ethics-free thinking becomes the fingerprint of the firm’s approach to problem solving.
Net net: Microsoft is not alone in its ability to create problems for people on almost any size stage. I could have plucked from my news stream examples from other US BAIT companies (BAIT is my lingo for big AI tech outfits). I don’t think remediation is possible because the firms do not perceive, accept, or understand the consequences of their genetically transferred management methods. Fixing up genes is neither easy, cheap, or guaranteed. Factor that into your risk assessment model.
Stephen E Arnold, May 28, 2026
Comments
Got something to say?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
