Operations | Monitoring | ITSM | DevOps | Cloud

Three Exchange Online mailbox types admins constantly confuse - what each one is for, the licence rules, and which to use when an employee leaves.

Microsoft Copilot cannot see archived SharePoint content in either Microsoft 365 Archive or standard third-party archives. Here's why - and how to close the gap.

‍ Learn how to master Azure deployment with CI/CD pipelines, progressive delivery, and feature flags. See how Harness helps engineering teams ship faster and safer on Azure. Azure deployment sounds straightforward. Push code, it runs in the cloud. But if you've managed a 2 a.m. production incident because a deployment went sideways on AKS, you know the gap between "it deploys" and "it deploys safely at scale" is significant.

There's a version of this conversation that plays out in engineering organizations everywhere. Leadership pushes for standardization. Developers push back. The argument from developers is reasonable on its face: every codebase has different needs, every team has tools they're good at, and adding process feels like slowing down to go faster. It's a genuine tension, and it's also a false one. The teams that ship the most aren't the ones with the most infrastructure freedom.

A few months ago, Steve Yegge published his 8 levels of AI-assisted development, and it clicked the moment I read it, because I had lived that exact progression myself, moving from autocomplete to running agents one step at a time. Framed as an AI trust gradient, it finally gave the industry a vocabulary for something most of us were already going through without a name for it. If you haven’t read it, save it for later.

This edition of the Pulse is shifting lanes. We’re calling it the AI Economics Pulse now, because the question on every finance leader’s mind is whether AI spend and the returns on it can be made to pair at all. That question came to a head over the last few weeks. The bills came due, and they came due in public. Uber burned through its entire 2026 AI budget in four months and capped employee spending on Claude Code and Cursor at $1,500 a month.

Your engineers run Claude Code. Your designers are in Cowork. Half the company has Claude open in a browser tab, and a few are on Cursor. It’s on their laptops, each person authenticated a different way, and none of it touches your gateway. The only record you get is one lump-sum bill at the end of the month. Now you can capture it where it happens – on the laptop.

Something unusual happened in the first half of 2026: the most productive AI coding tool on the market became the most financially dangerous. And the companies that discovered this the hard way read like a Fortune 50 roll call.

One dimension gives you a list. Two gives you a story. Now you can slice by two dimensions simultaneously, right in CloudZero Explorer.

You’re funding AI across four billing relationships – Anthropic direct, OpenAI, Claude through Bedrock, Claude through Vertex – and the spend climbs every month. When your CEO asks what it’s producing, you have a number and no answer. Not which product it built, which customer it served, or which bet it’s paying off. And you’re being asked to approve more of it.