More from Eliran Turgeman
A friend asked me for some study/productivity tips, and I figured the most productive thing I can do is write a post about it. That way, it might help more people too. So here we go. Before we start, there are two things you need before any productivity advice will work: Be introspective. Be honest with yourself. My productivity rules Plan your day the night before Don’t leave decisions for your foggy, maybe lazy, morning self. Here’s the loop: wake up → review study plan → study → write down the plan for tomorrow → sleep → repeat. Check your energy during the day If you just ate and feel sleepy, don’t force deep study. Take a 30–60 minute break - nap, walk, exercise, or scroll your phone a bit, then come back refreshed. You can also take micro-breaks: finish a chapter, grab water or a piece of chocolate, and get back to it within five minutes. Don’t lie to yourself about effort Setting goals is great, but be honest about how hard you actually worked. You can check all the boxes, feel proud, and still know deep down that you took it easy. That’s fine sometimes, we all need rest days - but don’t confuse that with an intense study session. Review your day When you plan tomorrow’s tasks, reflect on today. Did you actually do what you set out to do? If not, why? Maybe your goal was too ambitious, or maybe you just spent too much time gaming. Either way, learn from it. There’s always room to improve, if the goal really matters to you. Limit distractions Put your phone on silent and out of reach. If you study on your computer, close anything that might tempt you, and even hide shortcuts to distracting apps. When I was in uni, I played a ton of League of Legends. The desktop icon was staring at me every time I opened my laptop — so I buried it under three folders. Sounds dumb, but it worked. A few more things Get good at breaking big goals into small tasks. If your goal is to pass an exam, start by mapping out all the smaller steps that’ll get you there. Spread them out over time, with a bit of buffer. Plans will change — that’s fine — but you should always know where you stand and adjust as you go. And one more time, because it’s that important: don’t lie to yourself. If you spent four hours on TikTok, felt bad, then studied a little to compensate — that’s not a “productive” day. Call it what it is. It’s okay to have those days, you’re human — just plan for them instead of pretending they didn’t happen. I believe that much of the productivity advice online includes some stupid ceremonies and whatnot, just do what you feel works for you. I think the ability to introspect, being honest with yourself and improving over time is all that matters. Take whatever breaks you need, in whatever order you want. You don’t need a fancy journal to write your tasks, open a txt file. You don’t need a perfect system, just something simple that works for you.
If there’s one pattern I’ve seen across multiple companies, from scrappy startups to big corps, that causes endless headaches, it’s this: a single cache cluster shared across services. I recently shortly wrote about my lessons from building and maintaining distributed systems at scale, and the first point that came to mind is exactly this - it starts with an excuse of simplicity, “we already have a cache cluster up and running, let’s just make this other service use it, no need for more infra”, and ends with a confused on-call engineer trying to debug which services were affected by the last keys eviction. So I want to double down on this idea and explain in more detail why it becomes a nightmare once your system scales. One eviction policy You got different services each throwing keys at the same redis cluster. A sudden spike/bug just caused a dramatic increase in cache writes - your cluster wasn’t ready for this, it hits maxmemory and now different keys are being removed based on your eviction policy. What’s the problem? there’s no isolation - service A caused the max memory, and now service B, C, D also pay the price - their keys are being removed as well from the cluster, and could affect the latency, and correctness of other flows of your system. Monitoring is harder Our metric fires up — we see a drop in hit rate on the cluster. Which service is causing it? Who’s affected? Instead of thinking about one service, you’re now mentally juggling everything across the entire system. More noise, less clarity. Although monitoring is harder, you could set up application monitors that you send once you write/read from the cache, based on the prefix of the key. potentially if you are organized and each service that uses the cluster has a unique prefix and you can easily identify between the hit rates of different prefixes - that’s great, but you have to work to get there. Debugging is harder This ties back to my first point about the eviction policy. You had 10m keys. something happend. now you got 5m. The effect on the services is really hard to trace. One service might have lost 100k keys, and you barely see a difference in its monitors, but it doesn’t mean your users are not feeling something is off, maybe today the are waiting a bit more for the page to load, but it’s not too long to hit your monitors thresholds. In that case, if you didn’t have a monitor on the cache cluster for keys eviction, you might be totally blind..”oh I see a slight latency increase here, but no monitors popped - guess all is well” So, never use a shared cache cluster? No, that’s not the lesson here. In some cases it is totally fine to use a single cache cluster. For example: You don’t really have a lot of traffic read/written to the cache so most of it is free anyway You store shared static data (for example, feature flags) Also note that some of the points I was making here against using a single cache cluster, can be somewhat mitigated by having good monitoring set in place. For example, having a defined prefix for the cache key per use-case, per service, and publishing metrics in the application level so we have observability to which type of keys (by prefix) are experiecning a low hit ratio. But on the other hand, tracking keys eviction is harder to monitor, since it’s not initiated by your system. Anyway, I hope you get the point. If you are getting started, a single cache cluster is totally fine. Otherwise, spin up another cache cluster, and sleep better at night. 🚨 Become a better software engineer. practice building real systems, get code reviews, and mentorship from senior engineers. Get started with 404skill
when i was a student, everything was simpler. grind leetcode. build projects. get an offer. i knew the salaries. i knew what “winning” looked like. it was a somewhat straight line from broke student to backend engineer at a top company. and i did it, i 10x my life in the span of 4 years. five years in. and honestly? it’s… fine. it’s more than fine. but it also feels like i’m stuck on a plateau. the growth feels logarithmic. the peak that isn’t the peak things are good, but i can’t stop feeling like i want more, even though i am comfortable. i look back at the student version of me, and i see hunger. direction. i look at me now and i see someone who’s tried a bunch of things: built products that barely anyone used started a newsletter, got some nice traffic, but it didn’t stick thinking about podcasts, courses, maybe a dev agency? dreaming of 10x-ing my life again, but not sure where to invest my time. when i was younger, the path was obvious. now it’s all vague, i could do anything. do i go all-in on indie hacking? live off my rsu’s for a few years and just build? try again with another product? double down on the blog? start a podcast? well, the next level doesn’t seem to come with an instructions book. escaping means risking the fall as a cs student you learn that escaping a local maxima usually means exploring a few downs to find a higher maxima. well, applying it to life is scary. what if i lose everything i worked hard to build? i am no longer a student living off of scholarships, i have more obligations. and also, the scariest part of all is what if this is the best it gets? i prefer to be positive and believe there’s another jump out there. something worth building. something that might actually shift my trajectory again. i just haven’t found it yet. but i’m looking. 🚨 Become a better software engineer. practice building real systems, get code reviews, and mentorship from senior engineers. Get started with 404skill
I recently wrote about over-engineering and striking a good balance between making your code “too” future-proof and not making it future-proof at all. Some time later, I realized it was missing a critical perspective. I hadn’t addressed over-engineering from an architectural point of view, so this post is dedicated precisely to that. Let’s talk about a decision I made for Collecto, my side project. Collecto is still in its early stages, and like most early-stage projects, its future is uncertain. It could grow into something big—or not. That’s where architectural decisions get tricky. You don’t want to overengineer and waste time, but you also don’t want to under-engineer and regret not laying a solid foundation. So what’s the problem? Collecto is a forms-backend service, meaning it handles the creation, management, and processing of forms data for applications. I wanted to add the ability to send emails on certain events. For example, when a new user signs up for your form, you might want to send them a welcome email. The simplest solution? I could write a new service responsible for sending emails and call it directly wherever needed— for example, right after a user signup is saved to the database. This approach works, is easy to set up, and introduces no additional overhead. However, it results in tight coupling, making future changes more challenging. If tomorrow I want to also send a notification to the form owner when they receive a new subscription, I would have to keep adding more responsibilities to the form service code. This bloats the core service, which should ideally focus solely on CRUD operations for forms. On the other end of the spectrum, I could go all-in and build a distributed pub/sub system with a service bus like RabbitMQ or Azure Service Bus. This would give me scalability, decoupling, and all the good stuff. But it’s also a massive investment in time and complexity for a project that doesn’t need it, yet. I didn’t like both options, so I looked for a 3rd alternative and found MediatR which is a mediator pattern implementation in .NET. Why MediatR is a good middle-ground? MediatR facilitates communication between different parts of the application without them needing to reference each other directly. Instead of invoking methods directly, you can send requests or publish notifications, allowing registered handlers to respond accordingly. This approach maintains loose coupling, making the system easier to maintain and evolve. At the same time, it doesn’t introduce the overhead of managing infrastructure like a service bus or message queue. Everything stays in-process, simple, and fast. One of the primary reasons I chose MediatR is its simplicity. Implementing communication patterns with MediatR is straightforward and requires minimal configuration. Compared to a full-fledged service bus, MediatR demands a much smaller time investment and eliminates operational overhead such as monitoring queues or scaling message brokers. It can’t be all sunshines and rainbows MediatR has a few cons compared to other out-of-process messaging brokers, for example Events are in-process only. If your application crashes, you lose the events. There’s no out of the box retry mechanism for failed event handlers. If you deploy multiple instances of Collecto, MediatR won’t distribute events across them. Bottom line Architecture isn’t about perfection—it’s about trade-offs. MediatR worked for Collecto because it gave me a decoupled, flexible way to handle events without the overhead of a service bus. It wasn’t the simplest solution, but it was the right one for where the project is today. The next time you’re making an architectural decision, remember this: the best solution isn’t the most impressive or complex—it’s the one that solves your problem now while leaving room for growth later. 🚨 Become a better software engineer. practice building real systems, get code reviews, and mentorship from senior engineers. Get started with 404skill
More in programming
Once a year at my church, I usually give one sermon. I was asked to tie the theme to a young adult retreat we had taken to the Sunshine Coast. My first experience giving a sermon was many years ago at my old home church in El Monte, California. It was a Vietnamese-American church, but…
Practical tools for design engineers to explore possible futures through speculative design
As with my last post on AI, let me open with a statement: Just because most people hold AI a certain way, doesn’t mean that we always must, either now or in the future. As I noted in that piece, and my shades of gray post, I am well aware — and agree with — … Continue reading Must we always use LLMs this way? →
The CSS Working Group resolved to use cursor: pointer for buttons and other clickable form controls in the new appearance: base styles. That happened on October 21, but I posted about it yesterday and, uh, people have feelings about cursors. I wrote about buttons and cursors back in 2022, when a post titled "Buttons shouldn't have a hand cursor" was making the rounds. I admitted I didn't have a strong opinion either way, then argued that not using the hand cursor had become the new anti-pattern anyway. The web isn't an operating system, and people expect clickable things to show a hand. The issue is Cursors For Base Appearance in CSS Forms Level 1. The group adopted the rules from this comment, and the part that's triggering half the Web is: select, option, input[type=checkbox], input[type=radio], button, input[type=button], input[type=submit], input[type=reset], input[type=color], input[type=image], ::file-selector-button { cursor: pointer; } It seems like we have a tabs vs. spaces sort of debate. Again. Nicole Sullivan pulled cursor data from a bunch of design systems and, in September, 27 of the 33 systems that set a cursor used pointer. After she added more systems, it was closer to a 50/50 split. Elika Etemad made the usability case in the meeting. Per the minutes, she said the hand "makes it clear, as soon as you're hovering an interactive control, you're supposed to click on it," and called it a "usability benefit even if not historically done on some platforms." "But the hand means it's a link" Haz had an interesting reaction: The debate is over, and evil has won. His point is that he can't tell whether ⌘-clicking something will open it in a new window anymore. He feels more confident clicking a button when he knows it won't change the URL, like when it just opens a popover or a panel. He's not wrong about that.* I replied that I've been on team evil since 2022 (albeit without a strong opinion, just following what users seem to expect). Touch screens don't have a cursor at all, and on desktop, browsers show a link's URL in the corner when you hover it. That's some type of hint, at least. Haz pushed back that he'd have to watch the bottom-left corner with his peripheral vision, which is fair. He also said he never cared which cursor buttons got, he just wanted links to have their own. I can appreciate that. "But desktop apps don't do it!" Jacob Paris liked the standard cursor on buttons because it makes web apps feel more like desktop apps than websites. My opinion hasn't changed, though. People have already learned that a hand cursor means clickable on the Web. It's by no means mandatory, but it's familiar and satisfying, so it stuck. Either way, nothing changes today. The resolution only covers appearance: base, which browsers haven't shipped yet. Buttons and selects still use appearance: auto, and their cursor is still default. If your CSS reset, design system, or web components already set cursor: pointer on buttons, keep it. When appearance: base ships, controls that opt in will get the same cursors by default. But remember, these are only defaults! You can still add whatever cursor you want to whatever element you want. Nobody's gonna stop you. In 2022, I said I'd keep changing the cursor on buttons until there's a good reason to stop. In 2026, I still haven't found one…and neither has the CSS Working Group. *Thinking about this more, if 50% of design systems opted to add cursor: pointer to buttons already, isn't this already a moot argument? **In general, I think the Web should be more personal and expressive so who even cares about a default? This is especially true for personal and fun sites. Just don't go too crazy, especially when it affects accessibility and the overall user experience.
TokyoDev has grown substantially over the past few years. We’ve expanded our community, dramatically increased the scope and frequency of our events, and have curated a library of articles for international developers. Despite all that, the way we run the business hasn’t changed much. I’ve continued to coordinate most of these activities myself, making the final decisions and keeping everything connected. In short, TokyoDev cannot run without my daily input. That approach worked well when TokyoDev was smaller, but it’s increasingly limiting how much we can accomplish. To help the business grow further, I wanted to find someone to take over some of my responsibilities and bring a fresh perspective. This is a significant step for me personally, as while I have worked with many contractors over the years, I have never actually hired a regular employee. Most importantly, I wanted to ensure that this person was someone I could trust to understand what TokyoDev stands for, and to make decisions in line with our philosophy. So I’m happy to announce that Scott Rothrock is joining TokyoDev full time as our Head of Operations. About Scott Scott has lived in Japan for nearly 20 years and has worked as a software engineer in multiple industries and environments, including small Japanese-owned businesses, overseas employers, and international companies based in Japan. Until the end of October 2026, he was the head of the Japan Markets team at Kraken Technologies, where he led an international team of software engineers in delivering complicated, regulated products on strict timelines for Japanese electricity and gas retailers, while also ensuring compliance with evolving organizational and global standards. He’s made a name for himself both inside and outside Japan as a kind, effective mentor who can cultivate great engineers and leaders. Scott’s previous role in TokyoDev Some of you may already know Scott in another capacity, as he has been involved with TokyoDev since 2022. He began as a community volunteer and later became our community manager, which also included responsibilities such as managing our article pipeline from submission to publishing. When I created TokyoDev’s Discord, I had no previous experience running an online community. Scott joined soon after I started and began helping other members, stepping in when people behaved inappropriately, and configuring our roles and permissions and safety features. I was impressed by his initiative and asked him to become an official moderator in January 2023. Outside of his role as a moderator, Scott has always pushed TokyoDev to grow; for example, he arranged internet events such as livestreamed AMAs and interviews. He organized TokyoDev’s first meetup as a volunteer in February 2023, which taught me that there was interest in TokyoDev events outside of the internet. By the end of 2023, I had brought him on as our part-time community manager. What I saw throughout his tenure was that Scott continued to take initiative in expanding TokyoDev. Scott was one of our first external contributors, writing about his experience living with a disability in Japan. He encouraged me to expand and refine both our editing and submission processes so that we could reach out to even more contributors and platform their perspectives. The editorial team now consists of him and Rebecca Callahan, and they’ve had a hand in every article that TokyoDev has published. In other words, since 2022, Scott has shown that he cares about TokyoDev as much as I do. He is invested in what we do and why we do it, and shares my vision for what TokyoDev can become. What changes now Scott’s experiences as an engineer, a mentor, and a leader make me confident that, as our Head of Operations, he will continue to help TokyoDev mature. A big part of what has made TokyoDev successful is that I see the software developers who use our site as my peers and genuinely want to help them. Scott shares that perspective, and will join me in ensuring that TokyoDev remains true to its principles while we grow. So what changes in the short term? Nothing dramatic. I will teach Scott about managing TokyoDev as a business, and he will document our processes and products as a part of that learning. He will also look for areas of improvement while ensuring that we remain compliant with regulations and labor law. Over time, I will hand over some other responsibilities. I will continue to run TokyoDev, but TokyoDev will become less dependent on me for its day-to-day operations. Long term, I’m excited about what this will enable us to do. TokyoDev has always been about helping international software developers build successful careers in Japan, and bringing Scott on full time puts us in a much better position to continue doing that. We look forward to writing the next chapter of TokyoDev together.