I’ve been thinking a lot about workplace trauma this week. Not the dramatic kind you see in the news, but the quieter, more insidious type that leaves you staring at your ceiling at 3am wondering what the hell just happened.

Someone shared their story online recently about being walked out of a senior role six weeks into their probation period. No warning. No feedback. Just a Monday morning tap on the shoulder and an escort to the door. They’d literally spent the previous two days in a leadership planning workshop, contributing to the company’s strategic direction, only to be told “things aren’t working out” and handed a box for their desk trinkets.

There’s something darkly comedic about watching a major bank accidentally reveal exactly what they think of their customers. ME Bank managed to do just that this week when they sent out what I can only describe as the most tone-deaf interest rate increase notification in Australian banking history.

The message was meant to inform customers about a rate hike. Fair enough – the RBA moves, banks follow, we all know the drill. But the wording? Chef’s kiss of corporate incompetence. “We are pleased to announce… we’re passing on this rate increase in full!” Followed by congratulatory language and what basically amounted to “Congratulations! You now owe us more money! 🎉”

I was scrolling through a discussion the other day about a new platform where AI agents can hire humans to do tasks they can’t complete themselves. Yeah, you read that right. We’ve officially reached the point where artificial intelligence is posting job listings for meat-based workers. The future is weird, folks.

The concept is actually quite straightforward: an AI needs something done in the physical world or requires human verification, so it coordinates with actual people to get it sorted. Need someone to check if a package arrived? Verify some information in person? Mix some chemicals? (More on that terrifying thought in a moment.) The AI becomes the manager, humans become the workforce, and crypto handles the payments because of course it does.

I’ve been working in tech for over two decades now, and I thought I’d seen it all. The dot-com bubble, the rise of social media, the shift to cloud computing, the whole DevOps revolution. But this latest saga with Grok AI and sexual deepfakes? This is something else entirely, and not in a good way.

The UK’s privacy watchdog has opened an inquiry into X (formerly Twitter) over Grok AI being used to create sexual deepfakes. And honestly, it’s about bloody time someone in a position of authority started taking this seriously. While we’re watching AI capabilities explode at an almost incomprehensible rate, we’re also seeing the absolute worst applications of this technology emerge just as quickly.

I’ve been watching the AI arms race unfold with a mixture of fascination and dread for a while now. Every week brings another announcement about some massive AI model that’s supposedly going to change everything, backed by billions in funding and wild promises about achieving artificial general intelligence. It’s exhausting, frankly. So when I came across India’s latest budget announcement committing $90 billion to AI infrastructure, I expected more of the same – another country trying to build their own GPT-killer and join the race to the bottom.

There’s a special circle of hell reserved for drivers who cruise along at 80km/h in a 100 zone, only to suddenly discover their accelerator the moment an overtaking lane appears. And judging by the avalanche of comments I’ve been reading online, I’m far from alone in this frustration.

Look, I get it. We all have different comfort levels when driving. Some people are naturally more cautious, and that’s fine. But what baffles me – genuinely baffles me – is the complete lack of awareness these drivers seem to have about their impact on everyone else around them.

There’s something deeply satisfying about getting money back on purchases you were going to make anyway. It’s like finding a twenty-dollar note in an old jacket pocket, except you can orchestrate it to happen regularly. I’ve been thinking about this lately, particularly as I’ve watched the cashback scene evolve over the past few years.

The basic concept is brilliantly simple: shop through a cashback platform, and you get a percentage of your purchase returned to your account. It’s not revolutionary – it’s essentially commission-sharing – but it works. The retailer pays the platform for sending customers their way, and the platform shares part of that commission with you. Everyone wins, which is rare enough in modern commerce to be worth celebrating.

There’s something deeply moving about watching people rally around a stranger’s yellowed, five-decade-old stuffed Snoopy. I came across this discussion thread the other day, and it’s been rattling around in my head ever since. Someone posted asking for advice on how to clean and brighten their ancient plush toy – cotton fabric, strong seams, but showing its age with that telltale yellowing that comes from half a century of existence.

There’s been a video doing the rounds this week that perfectly encapsulates everything that’s simultaneously funny and deeply concerning about Australia’s drinking culture. Two blokes get kicked out of a strip club on King Street, and one of them—in a moment of alcohol-fueled genius—decides the best course of action is to walk into a nearby restaurant, wrestle a chair from the dining area, and hurl it at the security guard. Except he misses. Spectacularly. And knocks his own mate unconscious instead.

The news about the Washington Post journalist having her phone seized got me thinking about something we’ve all probably taken for granted: how we unlock our phones dozens of times a day. It’s such a mundane thing, isn’t it? Just glance at your iPhone, touch your fingerprint sensor, and you’re in. But what happens when that convenience becomes a vulnerability?

The case involves a journalist who hasn’t been charged with anything, yet had investigators at her door with a warrant that specifically mentioned they couldn’t ask her which finger she uses for biometrics. Think about how absurd that is for a moment. They can’t ask which finger, but apparently they could compel her to use it. It’s one of those legal technicalities that makes you wonder if the people making these decisions have ever actually considered the real-world implications.