Adam Keys is Thinking

🌶️ Hot-take: if you’re a manager and find you¹ miss building…then build²!

• On your time: mornings, weekends, national holidays.
• Whatever you want: tools for yourself, something frivolous, something practical.
• However you want: in an esoteric technology, in a boring technology, in a domain you’ve always wanted to explore, with LLM copilots, building every piece from scratch, without using conditionals, whatever!

Avoid:

• Swooping into your team’s current projects³.
• Imposing your discoveries/ideas on unrelated code reviews.
• Inventing projects and putting yourself on the critical path.
• Building and handing off a proof-of-concept to an unsuspecting teammate to finish.
• Thinking the grass is greener on the hands-on/IC side.

Don’t react to the bad parts of your previous role. It’s increasingly tricky to ride the pendulum between IC and leadership roles. You may only get to pull that lever once. Maybe building something for yourself will temper the temptation to go back to an IC role.

Instead, see if you can scratch whatever hands-on building/coding/designing itch you have in your time. You’ll necessarily have to scale it down. Honestly, that’s a great constraint! If you tried to build something big, you’d have to lead and manage it and, if you recall, that’s what we’re taking time away from in the first place here.

Follow your curiosity. The very best part about building on your time as a manager is you don’t have to make great decisions. Whatever is of interest, go with it.

Want to build a compiler, but you work in web apps? Go for it. Want to build a game, but you work in compilers? Go for it. Want to build an asset tracking web app in a really particular way, but you work in games? Go for it. Want to write in Haskell, but you work in Ruby? Go for it.⁴

Go for it.

A couple of lessons on leadership in ​Herbert’s Dune​:

“Give as few orders as possible,” his father had told him…once…long ago. “Once you’ve given orders on a subject, you must always give orders on that subject.”

Avoid, whenever possible, making decisions for people and teams. It may end up discouraging or preventing them from making any decisions for themselves in the future.

Frequent top-down decisions are the autonomy-killer, they might say. 🤓

Hawat arose, glancing around the room as though seeking support. He turned away, led the procession out of the room. The others moved hurriedly, scraping their chairs on the floor, balling up in little knots of confusion. It ended up in confusion, Paul thought, staring at the backs of the last men to leave. Always before, Staff had ended on an incisive air. This meeting had just seemed to trickle out, worn down by its own inadequacies, and with an argument to top it off.

This is what bad meetings feel like; they deflate like a balloon. Worse than indecision, they bring confusion about how to proceed, where efforts really stand, or if the current approach is the right approach. Not necessarily because of debate or disagreement. But, the lack of consensus or direction certainly doesn’t help.

Reader, I want to (once again) talk to you about the life-changing power of making a list and putting it in order.

Ambiguity of like, “what are we gonna build?” or “how are we supposed to build this?” Or was it supposed to be A or B or why did we make this decision? So having the checklist of “this is the thing,” it is a very, very cheap way to eliminate most of the ambiguity.

– Kristján Pétursson, Human Skills 018 — Creating Clarity From Ambiguity

Tasks lists are great for capturing and organizing what you want/need to do. They are sometimes good for thinking through how to execute on those tasks and projects.

Ordinarily, I’m too focused on all those incomplete items The empty check boxes, the lines that aren’t crossed through. So much potential. It’s exciting and overwhelming!

I rarely use my task list to reflect upon what I’ve done. To retrospect on how much I accomplished any given day or capture a post-hoc note or two on follow-ups, what worked, or to merely pat myself on the back for a day of honest work.

So I’m trying this right now! But, applications could stand to add more affordances for looking back in time too. This goes for applications like Things as much as it goes for Jira, etc. It’s probably our work and hustle culture. 🤷‍♂️ Always looking forward and rarely slowing down to say “hey, I did this, let’s get excited about that!”

One of the nice things about Kanban boards is you eventually end up with a giant pile of things that were done, and that’s a nice way to feel the momentum building that a bunch of stuff got done. Let’s get more of that.

“Dunbar’s number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person”.

Corollary: any group size approaching 150 people (Dunbar’s number) includes at least one person who knows about Dunbar’s number.

To paraphrase a classic joke, “How do you know if someone knows about Dunbar’s number? They’ll tell you!” I’m telling you, right now, I know about Dunbar’s number. 🙃

Practically, I think this implies:

• If you’re designing an organization close to but not exceeding Dunbar’s number, you can hand-wave the details of when it grows to exceed Dunbar’s number. Someone will enthusiastically let you know that the organization has exceeded Dunbar’s number and might need reconsideration. 🥸
• For organizations as small as 10% of Dunbar’s number (15), there’s a pretty dang good chance that someone knows about Dunbar’s number. For organizations any multiple of that size, you don’t need to go around telling everyone about Dunbar’s number. Chance are, someone is telling everyone about Dunbar’s number. 😆

My experience in (software) teams is there are breakpoints far smaller than Dunbar’s number that matter even more.

FWIW, these are all folk rules. I haven’t seen rigorous work that backs any of this up!

Permit me to throw shade at the Emmy Awards for a moment.

Reservation Dogs is a better kinda-comedy than The Bear. Dogs is consistently funny and finds ways to explore the lives, relationships, and histories of the characters in rewarding ways.

The Bear is equal parts endearing and yelling. Once or twice a season, it speaks to craft and intensity. Those are my favorite episodes. The Fak family is the only undeniably comedic element of The Bear. Give us a spin-off of that and let it legitimately win all comedy awards.

The Bear belongs in the drama category, but isn’t the length of a drama because no one could sustain watching an episode of that show for that long. 🙃

By kinda-comedy, I mean “22-minute shows that are eligible for comedy awards at the Emmy’s”. The real solution here is for the Emmy’s to fix their categories in two ways:

• Don’t call “dramatic” shows that are shorter than 44 minutes comedies. This is absurd and an easy fix.
• Unrelated to The Bear, currently: create separate categories for “returning shows” and “ending shows”. Emmy voters have a tendency to award shows in their last season disproportionate to their competition.

In short: Reservation Dogs was the comedy that Emmy voters think The Bear is. 🌶️

The function key, on iOS and possibly Mac keyboards, is bound¹ to show the emoji picker.

Apple has chosen to bind a whole key, no modifiers or anything, to “convey an emotion”. A (cartoonish) picture is worth a thousand words.

🧠 Smart!

(I could go on for at least five minutes about Apple’s recent design advantage is in introducing big features without making them shout-y in the UI. Granted, the marketing is very shout-y.)

As I write this, it’s late-2024 and the job market is tough for jobseekers. If one finds a job within three months, they’re considered lucky. Some folks go 2–3 times longer in-between jobs. If you’re on this boat, break a leg!🫠

If you’re not actively seeking a job, here’s a thing that helped me go from “well this market sucks” to “welp, job seeking is my full-time job now, the only way out is through”:

I started warming up my professional network when things got spooky at my current job.

Caveat, I could have done even more than I did¹. Despite not taking more steps, the simple act of thinking through “what would I do if the worst happened and my job disappeared?” put me one step ahead, and I was a little more calm after my job did disappear.

1. The network is the work²

A strong, active professional network is the most important tool in this scenario. This is true whether the job market favors job-seekers or employers.

Especially when seeking a job without one in-hand, people are happy to respond and help out³. Fifteen minutes of writing and responding to messages could kick-start the process for your next job.

Some helpful questions I asked myself in contemplating how to warm my network back up:

• Who would I work with (again)? If former colleagues were especially easy, awesome, or delightful to work with one, a second outing is worth pursuing.
• What kinds of places would I like to work at? I find myself particularly interested in finance-adjacent endeavors.⁴ Tooling is also of interest, anything that makes people’s work lives better resonates with me.
• Why not aim for the bleachers in my next role?⁵ If I could work anywhere or hold any kind of role, where would it be? Perhaps there’s a role out there with all the upsides I’m looking for and very few trade-offs on the downside. Who could connect me to those roles?

2. Take a stroll down accomplishments lane

Another easy thing to do⁶ is get (back) in the resumé writing mindset. That is, the self-promotion mindset where you’re talking about all the things you’ve done, how great they were, putting numbers to how much they improved customer outcomes, and generally putting maximum shine on your work.

This is the point where I wish I had kept a good brag doc.

In lieu of a record kept in the moment, I took out some stickies and wrote out what I’d done in each of the last 6+ years at work. The goal here was to shake the dust from my brain and remember all the cool projects we shipped, excellent people I’d worked with, and improvements I’d made across the board. Keep in mind, no feat is too small and the sequence of projects doesn’t matter much! I’m only getting in the groove here. The two-ish page limit on practical resumés is forces compressing this list later.

Don’t feel bad about taking time to do this. At any high-functioning organization with a performance management cycle, what you’re doing here looks exactly like what you’d do for your regular performance review ceremony.⁷ Two birds, one stone!

2a. There must be 50 ways to write your resumé

An updated resumé is a pre-requisite. I’m not (yet!) so internet-famous that I can get by without one. I didn’t start rewriting my resumé right off the bat. Instead, I dusted it off and considered how I’d change it when the time came that I needed it.

Writing about oneself is challenging. It feels awkward, like something one is supposed to avoid. A few insights helped me here:

• My resumé is the marketing/advertising that will yield the job I hold for several years of my life. Multiplied out by annual pay, this document is a tool I’m using to generate the next several hundred thousand dollars that fund my life. Basically, any time I spend on it is worthwhile.
• Ergo, it’s worth spending days, all day, iterating, improving, and trying new things. It was this iteration that helped me get over the cringe of writing about myself.
• Cover letters seem to have fallen entirely out of fashion.⁸ Your resumé now has to do even more work. All the more reason to keep at iterating and customizing it.
• If it helps, write your resumé like you’ve already landed the hiring manager interview.⁹ Convince the reader that they were right to pull your resumé out of the stack. Tell them about all the great stuff you’ve done. This is where you want to refer to all your accomplishments, emphasizing the most recent and those most relevant to the kind of role you’re seeking.

3. One job is plenty

Looking for a new job is an exhausting endeavor. Iterating on resumés, tweaking LinkedIn profiles, and updating online presence consumes a lot of time and emotional energy. That’s not to mention actually finding promising jobs, customizing your resumé to suit the job descriptions, filling in application tracking system forms, responding to leads, and scheduling of interviews. Phew!

If you can avoid it, don’t seek a new job whilst trying to hold down another one. Especially one that has “gone spooky”. Granted, there’s a lot of luck and privilege wrapped up in that advice!

If your luck affords it, make the search for one’s next full-time job a full-time job. That is, give yourself a few month sabbatical to recharge and focus on the job search. Granted, don’t take this route in a market that heavily favors employers and make sure your savings are topped off in case of surprises.

All this said, preparing for seeking a job is not the same as seeking a job. It took me longer than I’d have liked to realize this. Actively seeking a job, for me, looks more like marketing and sales than building or leading. It’s playing a “numbers game”: the more people you network with and the more jobs you apply for, the better. Thinking through how I would execute that helped!

But there was a hump I had to get over, entirely in my head, about actively/explicitly putting myself out there. Some social barriers I had to let go of, like not “reaching out” to folks via email or LinkedIn. Doing sales-y things, it’s a big growth area for me. 🙃

Finally, a thing I’m learning about this most-difficult job search of my career: every step on the job search is one step closer to finding that job.¹⁰

If you find yourself actively seeking a job, or merely feeling the spider-sense tingle about your current role, good luck! I hope this helped.

Jeff Triplett, Please publish and share more:

You don’t have to change the world with every post. You might publish a quick thought or two that helps encourage someone else to try something new, listen to a new song, or binge-watch a new series.

…

Our posts are done when you say they are. You do not have to fret about sticking to landing and having a perfect conclusion. Your posts, like this post, are done after we stop writing.

I have found it’s not enough to journal, capture notes, save bookmarks, write in a notebook, post to a blog, participate in a cozy group chat, or engage in public discussion on social media.

Revisit what I wrote. Resurface old ideas. Try to put old ideas together with new ideas. Remixing ideas with new thoughts. Repackage into a new medium. That’s how the compounding of writing and thinking hits the road, per se. At least, for me.

Set activation energy low and steer into repetitiveness. I never know which combination of words is going to hit someone’s mental jackpot.

Kent beck, Coupling and Cohesion:

The only way to be able to describe something well is to describe it badly 100 times.

I’m forever feeling this one. Many times, I’ve felt the idea or plan is so clear in the document or the whiteboard. And yet, when other folks try to read the idea or execute the plan in their heads, the connection isn’t made. Back to the drawing board. 🙃

FWIW, “describe something well” is directly related to building software. A good domain model or intuitive UX interaction is as tricky to describe as a great movie or poem.

All problems are shallow under iteration; the real limitation is producing iterations and collecting feedback.

Hurry up and lose your first 50 games.

— Go proverb

Case in point: I’ve probably written some variation on this blog post nearly a dozen times. Perhaps some day, I’ll get it just right.

In short: I want to build low-road applications for myself. They will have a very narrow function. I may use them for as little as a week or so, finish the task at hand, and move on to the next thing. Think about it like Simon Willison’s work using Claude to generate tools.

This feels like it demands something besides my usual full-stack web app (i.e., Rails) approach¹:

• I would like to launch these apps instantly and operate on local data.
• In particular, files and folders; not database rows.
• I would rather not dig up a folder or terminal to run these applications; they should launch like I’d run anything else (i.e., via Raycast).

Tauri seems like it fits the bill here. It wraps a native web view in a small platform-specific host application. The “host” application is a Rust program that wraps a platform-specific web view, e.g., Safari on macOS. You can write native code in Rust, web/front-end code in HTML/CSS/JS, and easily call functions between them. In other words, a better Electron.

Strengths become weaknesses. In theory, “JavaScript everywhere” is a lovely concept. One language across the web, backend services, command-line scripts, embedded systems, even desktop applications. In practice: it’s a thousand cuts, especially if you’re trying to avoid accepting the whole JS build system/framework ecosystem into your life. Which I was, in this case.

It’d be extremely great to have Deno save the day here. Write backend/host-native or front-end code in JS and very little need to drop to Rust. In practice, it doesn’t seem like anyone is doing that. 🤷🏻‍♂️

What I want to build for myself is a gizmo for re-categorizing my old blog posts. These are all hosted on Micro.blog as of this year. Because of idiosyncrasies in the Micro.blog API, interacting with all posts seems to require using XML-RPC. The REST+JSON APIs don’t provide access to more than one page of posts, so they’re unsuited to working with one’s entire blog archive².

Doing this from JavaScript, running in the web view, is where I ran into troubles. All the libraries I found assumed the code is hosted in Node, which maybe would have been fine. Node isn’t drastically different from browsers in this regard, if I understand correctly. Except that loading the actual library used the Node require mechanism instead of the browser-based import mechanism. And, it’s been a minute since I cared about the details of code loading in JS (did I ever really care?). It wasn’t really the problem I wanted to solve, so I “just tried things”, despite this being one of my pet peeves about how intermediate-level developers work.

Reader: I was not feeling like a badass user at this point.

I wanted to write some tests with Jest. But, Jest deeply assumes you’re using some kind of code transformation (webpack, Babel, etc.) scheme. Which I was trying pretty hard to avoid. I did get a very basic test working, but I didn’t feel good about it.

I might consider using QUnit and live with in-browser tests if I choose “no build step” as a tent pole principle on a real project.

Long story short, I did manage to get an XML-RPC call working from a test in Jest. I never tried integrating it into the web-view code. I fought the module system enough for the week. Maybe if I revisit this approach, I’ll get my story straight here. 🤷🏻‍♂️

My next foray was attempting to write the networking calls to Micro.blog in Rust. I’ve previously struggled with Rust in the form of extended arguments with the compiler. I like the idea of the language, type system, and lifetime/borrowing scheme. But taken together, I haven’t yet reached a place of confidence working with it. My last serious attempt at using Rust, several years ago, was stymied by a combination of generics, number towers, and getting lifetimes right.

I did not run into those particular challenges this time around. Armed with an LLM, it feels better than several years ago! I didn’t spend the whole time arguing with the compiler. With Claude 3.5 Sonnet (IIRC), I was able to get a rudimentary XML-RPC call working.

I’m in favor of writing the backend/host-executed stuff in Rust. The jury’s still out on whether this is a plausible approach. I’ve never argued with the Haskell compiler about, e.g., JSON and walked away with a successful compilation.

pico.css is perfect for my needs. I included it with a link tag and mostly used classless HTML tags. That’s about it. No scheme of semantic, functional, or utility class names to learn. No build step. It’s good enough that looks aren’t the weakest link or distracting. That’s a good tool.

Similarly, I tried using Alpine to layer some interaction logic into the UI. I got hung up on declaring a data structure and then using it from any old element. I think this was a load order issue or misunderstanding on my part. Instead, I should have tried starting with basic interactions and then gone for the fancy stuff.

The verdict, after a few hours of hacking:

• Tauri has a lot of promise for problems shaped like “I want to build a quasi-native desktop app, but I would rather not get caught up in native ecosystems”.
• Rust, in combination with LLM copilots, is easier to navigate than it was without them and I spent less time arguing with the compiler than I’d feared I would.
• Small, low-customization CSS libraries: they’re good for me!

From that point on, well, there’s only one, maybe two great nail salons in Amsterdam.

I was rewatching Ocean’s Twelve, because empty calories and fantastic faces. Having watched it a dozen times, I was struck by how it doesn’t fit together like a Major Motion Picture.

Many of the scenes are vignettes. They’re structured around one as little as one laugh or minor plot beat, like I’d expect from an unscripted show. Especially in the back half of the movie, many of the scenes watch like they’re built around a single punchline, often with background action advancing or distracting from the heist-puzzle.

I know this isn’t High Art or Cinema™️, but I love it.

Simon Sarris, Reading Well:

You should start many books and complete few. You should never feel beholden to completing them, there are simply too many worthwhile works to read.

I’m a completionist. I don’t like leaving books, let alone series of books, unfinished. But, endorsements from Sarris (and Austin Kleon) on leaving books unfinished, possibly by throwing them across the room, is a strong-enough signal. 🙃

🔥I wish I’d heard this advice when I was reading The Black Swan.

1. Safari is (on macOS) the only good application and web browser. Chrome is a remarkable feat of engineering but a mediocre application.
2. Arc is extremely promising. Reimagining the shape, function, and purpose of a web browser for our current computational surplus is a worthwhile endeavor. On the flip-side, I hope that grassroots efforts like the Ladybird browser and browser jams will produce more diversity in how browser engines operate and what it means to construct a browser engine in the first place.
3. Web browsers, as application platforms and as document viewers, are an incredible technological accomplishment. Trillions of renders per day, things mostly work, and the security/sandboxing model works without embarrassing flaws. Viewed over years and decades, progress in web browsers has been remarkable.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, web browsers are the worst cross-platform application framework except for all the other ones that have been tried.

1. Make a better meeting when you can, and the best of a meeting when you can’t.
2. The choice to avoid holding a meeting may snowball into problems that require even more meetings.
3. Ensure every meeting worth the person-time, assuming organizational dynamics allow for it.
4. Recurring meetings have to earn their continued existence.
5. Steer meetings away from sidebars, confusions, digressions, and distractions.
6. Meeting are an opportunity to go deeper than documents and chats allow.

Bonus: meetings are the work.

Ben Brooks, Thinking Analog:

The way this works is simple: use a notebook and a pen when you need to work through a problem of any kind.

Not a tablet with a stylus. Not a notetaking app. Not a pencil. Paper and pen.

…

I typically juice the cycle by writing a heading, a date, or any one liner associated with what I want to think about to get things moving. From there the mess happens, scribbles and words. They are disjointed but reconfigured with arrows. In all of that, my thinking solidifies, and the idea takes hold.

(via Patrick Rhone)

Endorsed! Apps, “tools for thought”, etc. are great – don’t get me wrong. But, we all contain multitudes.

Some issues are well-defined and suited to computer-thinking. Other problems are wily and demand a hands-on approach. These thrive on “offline” thinking, gesturing to ourselves, thinking aloud, feeling the texture of paper, and engaged limited interaction modes (🤓).

Previously, taking notes on paper vs. glass:

The sensation & constraint of paper still beats glass. There is something about the resistance, the scratch, of a good pen across a finite sheet of paper. It’s easier for me to write “well” (opinions on my penmanship vary) on paper than on glass; something about the permanence of the ink or that my eyes are considerably higher resolution than glass displays. Filling notebook after notebook over the years and decades is vastly fulfilling in a way digital notes and writing aren’t.

George Saunders, A Swim in a Pond in the Rain:

“What does an artist do, mostly? She tweaks that which she’s already done. There are those moments when we sit before a blank page, but mostly we’re adjusting what’s already there. The writer revises, the painter touches up, the director edits, the musician overdubs.”

I’m filing this one away for future reference when I’m feeling less-productive. Even if the day’s toil was tweaks, edits, rewrites, or failed rewrites, it checks the box.

Austin Kleon, A Few Notes on Daily Blogging:

“With blogging, I’m not so sure it’s about quantity as much as it’s about ​frequency​: for me, there’s something kind of magical about posting once a day. Good things happen. Something small every day leads to something big.”

But also this! Frequency generates as much quality as does quantity. Show up, every day!

At its best, social media is like jazz — there’s an improvisational, multi-player quality to it. Following threads, riffing, and quipping creates a collaborative rhythm all its own. I love that!

Then, add in the “threaded style” of social media writing and thinking. There’s a give-and-take, a call-and-response. Ideas build on each other, it’s even more like jazz.

Sometimes, riffs are refined via “collaborating with the network” to the point they become coherent, standalone ideas. And, like an improvisation becoming a composition unto itself, they become standalone essays. Fantastic.

Related: I miss Layer Tennis.

Related: jazz as cinematic universe.