I'm reminded of a simple observation about negotiations: the one who's willing to walk away is usually the one with the upper hand in the negotiation.

I think this is a choice we need to be considering on every level right now. What technology are you willing to walk away from? Fundamentally from my perspective the operating system and browser are *user agents,* they are pieces of software I permit to exist on the device I own because they do my bidding. The major manufacturers have perverted these user agents to a previously unfathomable degree under the presumption that you won't walk away and they can just keep on boiling the frog.

I'll walk away, in fact I feel like the more I walk away the better my life becomes. Switching to Linux a decade ago was more than worth the headaches considering what colleagues using Windows now have to put up with. Staying on Firefox + uBlock has been worth the headache vs. what people without a reliable ad blocker have had to put up with. Turning off my phone completely for a growing portion of the day has totally been worth it for peace of mind and freedom of distraction.

At this stage my relationship with technology seems to revolve heavily around the principle "how do I minimize exposure to technology produced by the largest American crime syndicates (Google, Microsoft, Meta etc)." This may be a radical or absolutist view but frankly my life is way better for it

We generate an AI branch immediately every time a spec is completed. It then gets a brief review in our team meetings when the spec is introduced. We just take a few minutes to walk through what the AI did and take notes on what was insane and what was a good approach.

#1, this informs us about the actual quality of the spec, if the model did something wrong it will often become evident that the reason was an omission, ambiguity or contradiction in the spec.

#2, it saves the developer a lot of time, because in ~3 minutes we've usually established that at least half the code the model wrote was acceptable for use. Dev tasks look more like "Here's the implementation in concept, but pieces X, Y and Z will require your expertise to formulate a cleaner approach." And since AI tends to do a cleaner job at smaller scoped problems, it tends to be a great help to the dev at this stage too.

If anything I feel this process increases quality, not reduces it. It certainly speeds things up. Most major challenges and problems are immediately exposed by the model's proposed implementation. We don't have to wait for the developer's first cut to discover them. They go into the task knowing exactly what to focus on, and having the uncontroversial parts of their eventual PR essentially "pre-approved." The result is where we would have had to do multiple iterations of a feature, they often come back at the very next meeting having totally nailed it.

If the only time you budget for mindfulness is a couple minutes on the toilet, you're doing it wrong.

For me, it's:

- One cup of coffee in the morning, optional tea while it's still light out

- Sunlight exposure within a half hour of waking

- 10-15 minutes reading some fiction

- 10 minutes of meditation

Virtually guaranteed to yield a productive day with a good sleep at the end.

In the evening, both phone and overhead lights get turned off as much as two hours before bed. Reading lamps/spot lighting only. Any screens are dimmed.

There's a lot of woo around meditation and mindfulness, but I genuinely believe that one of the most valuable habits I've acquired is just sitting still for a few minutes in the morning with zero distractions and observing where my mind goes.

9 times out of 10 it tells me exactly what it wants/needs to deal with that day, and if I want to stay emotionally balanced and pursue my deepest callings, I need to follow its suggestion.

If I don't do this I become out of touch with my inner state, less focused, less intentional, and over time, emotionally erratic.

The article's caution about doing this exercise if you have a condition like PTSD is very good advice, because eventually, the real shit you need to deal with will rear its head.

Everything you need for self-understanding and balance is there in your mind, speaking to you, all the time. Most of the time instead of listening we pull out our phones and distract ourselves. Or maybe we do what other people have told us to or follow some other drive.

But if you can and do set all that aside and just listen to the mind from time to time, it's almost a superpower. I suspect that many of humanity's greatest works have come about this way. Someone listening to what their mind just wouldn't shut up about, creating the conditions for hundreds or thousands of hours of flow state, and then just following its lead.

Outside of tech because it affects my work, I've stopped reading online news altogether. There's a bookstore down the road from me which sells the daily and weekend editions of a couple papers. On a slow weekend I'll walk over there, buy the weekend edition of some reputable paper, and peruse it over coffee. The stories are invariably better than anything I see online, as well as in the daily editions. None of this stuff is urgent. I don't need up to the minute. I just need to kill some time, preferably with higher quality information.

Honestly the old ways were better in this case. Just stop reading online news. Grab a weekend edition of a paper when you're bored instead. Couple bucks. No subscription. Better. They haven't changed much.

Claude feels more like gambling, that's what it is. Built for the vibe coder.

The solution to this wasn't willpower, it was to get rid of all that fucking cocaine. There's a reason you don't have the stuff lying around your house today, if you did you'd probably get hooked. In 2026 we're basically speedrunning the coke boom with infotech.

So once again the solution is: get rid of it. Any time you're in a low stimulus environment, remove the tech so that you don't HAVE to exercise willpower. That means turning off the phone and the watch and maybe stuffing them in a drawer in another room or something. That's all it takes.

I can't say how society will look back at this moment in history 150 years from now. But I do know I'm way happier and more relaxed when I just shut off the devices and put them away. When I'm at home or in the office, my phone's on mute, in a drawer/bag/other room, and I don't think about it unless I take it out for a few minutes to order a delivery or do a 2fa or something. At night it's simply turned off. I'll never own a smart watch. I still keep the phone on me when I go out and haven't found that to be a huge concern because if I'm at a bar or something it's competing with a lot of other stimuli for attention. We were never 100% available to anyone for all of human history until the last 10-20 years. I am not opting into this current Cocaine Moment.

What it isn't: a service working on perfection and maximizing consumption, as for example a commenter (Andrea Zanchetta) seems to expect. "What they built isn't suitable for me" simply isn't a relevant statement. You can build the thing you want, or have a nice day.

The point of these movements is that people are doing things for themselves, not for you, and not for the mass market. They are generally quite friendly to other people who create their own things. They are not doing it however to engage a consultant, a collective, a central authority, or pursue market share. They're just being themselves and making. Opinions that aren't backed by creating your own are just not really part of the picture and that's OK. We don't need to respond to the collective zeitgeist. We don't need to listen to all the opinions of other people online. We can just make and appreciate it as its own reward.

Occasionally these people get sponsored, and then you end up with miracles like the Linux kernel. Most times they don't and they just tinker and they're happy. It's all good.

Part of the Indieweb philosophy, like Libre software, is to "scratch your own itch" - no one's paying you. You do the stuff that's interesting to you. It's not a business. The point is not to take over the market.

The planet needs fewer marketing pinheads, not more. I would like it if we passed various laws that killed off a lot of the marketing pinheads, basically eliminating their jobs one way or another, and encouraged more people to create the things they want, rather than submit to the things that are popular.

The pinheads rarely create much of substance and mostly just sit around strategizing all day on how to rent seek. They have a lot of free time and money they can use to lobby the government and make it worse. They dress this all up as capitalism though it isn't really. We should strike back.

I read a lot of books in my 20s. Many were forgettable, but a couple totally realigned my view of reality and what was possible and I went off to create a highly unconventional life because of them.

I then stopped reading books in my 30s - that time mostly got spent reading web articles and social media instead. This was a stagnant period of my life in many ways.

In my 40s I started to wonder if there might be a connection and I started making a conscious effort to start reading books again. Surprise surprise, a few years later I'm experiencing one of the most creative and productive periods of my life.

A great book will take a big idea and expound on it from multiple angles. It'll build both a logical and an emotional case for looking at the world differently. For me at least this type of shift in thinking takes reading multiple chapters worth of good arguments get it fully embedded in my brain.

Remember, the author of a great book may spend _years_ researching it before he even gets started on the writing part. The best books are next level stuff and I feel no other medium compares.

There will of course be many books that don't have this impact and end up being throwaways. I will buy them and if they aren't hooking me I simply don't finish them.

I think this all applies equally to fiction and non-fiction.

I think there might be some people out there who've experienced this degree of personal change from interacting with certain online communities. That's the only analogue I can think of. For me though it's books.

Hyperbole aside they created a new product category which has less milk fat, and adds more air and gum/gelatin.

It tastes similar to ice cream at half the calories, not so insignificant in a world where obesity is the #1 public health crisis.

Their labeling is technically compliant with regulations but converting classic ice cream brands into these "ice milk desserts" was unpleasantly sneaky of them.

Are we 100% sure all the consumers eating these desserts have been fooled? We're sure no one's choosing them because they're lower calorie, lower fat, lower price, tastes good enough etc.?

If it tasted good, a dessert that's 99% air and ice would be a public health win would it not? That's pretty much what bingsu is, I don't care for it, but many people love it.

Haagen-Dazs is still there on the shelves and still good ice cream.

I don't know, I think the outrage is a little overblown. "Tastes better but is twice the calories" is a very significant consumer choice. I bet many will say they want the "real" stuff, but when it comes to purchasing decisions, buy the "fake" stuff more often.

There may be better windmills to tilt at than lecturing people on which type of milk dessert is the right choice. The brand shenanigans aside maybe we are in a better position having both options on the shelves.

We then rebranded it as "Advanced Search," kept the sparkle icon and everything, literally just a find-and-replace of instances of "AI" with "Advanced," pretty much.

The negative feedback stopped. The very next day someone wrote in and said it was an incredible feature.

Branding is wild. The modern media environment is wild. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong to hate on AI. But when you use the term at least with some people it activates the "Those bastards are coming for my job" light in their brain, even if the discussion in question has zero bearing on their job. There's polling on this and job security is far and away the populace's biggest concern related to AI.

It's happening! We can see it! The future is somewhat legible and in it we don't all die! (Well we do, but mostly for the usual reasons)

We just gotta keep getting out of bed and making a smart choice or two between now and then!

In that sense Altman and Dario et. al. were extremely successful in their cringeworthy campaign to establish themselves as priests of a new machine god religion. Even the people who don't want it believed them.

The good news is at least this year companies are starting to get a little more thoughtful about why they're paying for AI and what specific business function it serves.

Realities:

1. AI is a tool. You don't replace a job with a tool, just like you don't replace an apple with a sock. It was always an error of classification to think this way.

2. AI is a useful tool. For every CEO who thinks it justifies mass layoffs, there are dozens of people who don't want to admit that it does have a lot of utility. Anyone who isn't figuring out where this tool can make them more productive will have a hard time down the line imho.

3. We can infer from the priors that jobs will continue to be a thing, just like they still were after the inventions of printing presses, cars, power looms, etc. but there will be some pretty massive churn, some roles maybe disappearing entirely, new ones getting created, same goes for skill sets.

4. Businesses will use this churn to the best of their ability to either reduce costs or increase output. That second part is the key the AI haters don't seem to recognize. Thanks to competition, not every business wants to just fire everyone. Yeah, America's financialized and monopolized and less competitive than it used to be, but still, plenty of businesses will repurpose their budgets to produce more and expand.

So in terms of real specific and concrete things I've seen so far.

If you're in customer support that's a pretty rough spot, a well designed RAG system can turn 20 minutes of research into 20 seconds. Customer support budgets flow downstream from actual usage/customer base so if they can do more with less people will get laid off, they don't expand scope, they automate and cut the budget.

If you're a developer, your position's a lot more secure than that, coding agents are pretty incredible but they are simply not at a point where they can think through architectural decisions, and they occasionally go off the rails and trash everything. These things need to be operated and steered. Yes that's 100% the future of the profession and I'm sorry if someone doesn't like that, being a blacksmith who forges metal things by hand is also very niche these days, kind of sad if you loved blacksmithing but it happens. Devs also have to be aware that a PM/product owner can likely do some of their job now and I think any dev whose preference was to avoid thinking about customer or business requirements is going to find his utility is shrinking. A mass shrinking of the profession is unlikely but things will change and the only rational paths forward honestly are to retire or to figure out now how you fit in, it's a career opportunity if you get ahead of the curve even.

Lastly there is a whole other domain now which for lack of a good term I'll refer to as "prompt engineering," it requires some level of systems design thinking, but basically no programming expertise. The best candidate for this work is a person who possesses business process knowledge as well as systems oriented thinking. Maybe these jobs will end up finding a home in the IT department or something. As an economy we're barely recognizing them yet but I see that in engineering we can increasingly implement places for a prompt input, and then hand some workflow/business domain decisions off to someone who understands them better and they just tweak their prompts over time to get a great system. Pretty sure new jobs will be created and formalized around this over time.

So this is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, and the conflict of interest is obvious; Google paid for this article because they want to preserve their own anti-competitive monopoly position.

It's unfortunate that this is where we are with American business in 2026, basically one mafia taking shots at another, but that's what you get when the government gives up on enforcing the law.