Blog

Lego had record sales last year, with net profit increasing 21%. The company saw strong growth across Europe and the Americas, its largest markets, as well as in smaller but emerging markets in the Middle East and Africa. They continued investing heavily in infrastructure, with new facilities in Vietnam, Virginia, Hungary, Mexico, and China. It's clear that Lego is in a strong position.

But how did a company that has long had a large presence in Europe and America achieve this kind of growth? An important piece of the puzzle is the Icons and Botanical collections. Both have been remarkably successful in reaching adult consumers. Targeting adults allows Lego to sell premium sets, like many in the Icons collection, as well as gift-ready sets, like the Botanical line, which positions Lego products as an alternative to traditional gifts like flowers or plants.

This isn't without precedent. Other entertainment industries have pulled off a similar feat. Call of Duty found massive commercial success despite being a Mature-rated title. More recently, Catan has become a staple among adult buyers and helped spark a broader board game renaissance. Lego joins a growing list of brands that expanded their ceiling by rethinking who their audience actually is.

At its core, Lego tapped into something deeply human: the desire to reconnect with an experience many people had as children, or to recreate the joy they once watched their own kids have. That emotional pull is hard to manufacture, but Lego found a way to make it tangible and premium.

And perhaps the most important lesson here is about experimentation. Lego didn't need the Icons or Botanical lines to survive. They were already a dominant, beloved brand. But by taking the risk to try something new, they unlocked a level of growth that playing it safe never would have allowed. That's the real power of experimentation in business: not just pivoting when you're struggling, but being bold enough to push further when you're already succeeding.

Read the WSJ article →

At the University of Virginia, there are still plenty of professors who disagree with using AI in any way while learning. But across higher education, it looks like universities are starting to embrace the changes AI is bringing.

One example is Anthropic, the creator of “Claude Code,” partnering with CodePath, a nonprofit that supports over 1,000 educational institutions nationwide. CodePath plans to integrate Claude products into its AI courses. With partnerships like this, people keep asking what effect AI will have on education. That’s a fair question, but I think these AI deals with institutions can be a good thing, and here’s why.

Students already had access to paid AI tools before these partnerships existed, and many were already using them. My peers use AI to build study guides from PowerPoint presentations, upload pictures of questions they got wrong to understand why, and do similar tasks across classes, from the humanities to STEM.

When a paid tool becomes widely used and the school doesn’t provide it, an equity issue naturally shows up. Some students can’t afford a premium AI subscription each month, which means they’re stuck with the limitations of free plans. That gap matters.

This is similar to tutoring. Not every student can pay for private tutors, which is one reason schools like the UVA School of Engineering and Applied Science provide free tutoring to all students. If AI tools are becoming part of how students learn, then access to those tools should be considered in the same way. AI companies offer tools to universities because they want future users, but institutions can treat these partnerships as an opportunity to build a more equitable environment on campus.

That’s why these deals can be a win-win.

Read the WSJ article →

Recently, OpenAI decided to shut down its 4o model, much to the dismay of many users. 4o had carved out a niche due to its persistent agreeableness—something many users became overly attached to. I'm not sure exactly how human-AI relationships will play out over the coming years, but this decision raises some important questions and concerns.

A few things I'm thinking about:

1. Will chatbot companies be held liable for harm caused by poorly aligned models?
2. What responsibility—and what policies—will AI companies adopt regarding the relationships their technology fosters?
3. Is there a future where this becomes commonplace as AI improves toward AGI and human-like emotional responses?

This is the first major case of human-AI relationships becoming a mainstream point of discussion, but it won't be the last. These questions will only grow more important—and more nuanced—as the technology continues to evolve.

Read the WSJ article →