Full Width 
Shortcuts 
Sign Up 
Log In 
Articles 
Reading List More from Jorge Arango
Harry threw me off course in episode 48 of Traction Heroes. At first, I thought was reading from a book about mind mapping. Soon, it became clear it was about something else: how to define a clear vision for a team or organization. Visions are notoriously hard to articulate. Drawing a picture — especially a picture of the whole forest, plus the trees — can help. The passage Harry read from Cameron Herold’s Vivid Vision explores this idea: So to visualize something a little more tangible, think about a tree trunk in the earth, inner core with its branches stretching out into the sky. Each of those branches contains twigs extend further out. The mind map works in a similar way, a core that branches out into smaller components. Now, apply this to the world of business. As the leader of an organization, you’re firmly planted at the center, and the various areas that contribute to the business branch out: marketing, sales, engineering, and so forth. With that in place, build off that by describing those branches in about three or four bullet points each. In other words, describe what your marketing looks like and sales and so on until you’ve captured every idea. Remember too that among the branches of your business, you want to consider every aspect of the organization: the vibe, informal codes of conduct, the fiscal environment, the scenery, all of that. Deliberately leave out numbers and data. Get a feel for the place. When you step out of your time machine three years from now and walk around the office, what’s happening? What can you say that is typical of the business three years from now? The mind map is an initial foray into the vivid vision and will act as an outline for the rough draft that you, the leader, will then write. I’ve sketched diagrams before when outlining articles, workshops, and presentations, never in service of aligning around a company’s vision. Harry’s done it several times and found it easier than trying to write it out. Seems useful — check out our conversation for more: Traction Heroes episode 48: Visions
We keep reading scary reports of swarms of AI agents breaking into computer systems and doing other untoward and perhaps illegal things. To what degree do these agents influence each other? And is there anything we can learn from human behavior that would help mitigate these problems? That’s the heady backstory behind [episode 46](https://www.tractionheroes.com/2439976/episodes/19905275-tribal-psychology) of [_Traction Heroes_](https://www.tractionheroes.com/). Harry brought a short reading from David McRaney’s [_How Minds Change_](https://www.amazon.com/How-Minds-Change-Surprising-Persuasion-ebook/dp/B093R2CP2V/) about the impact of our groups on our thinking and behavior. Here’s the key fragment: > the latest evidence coming out of social science is clear. Humans value being good members of their groups much more than they value being right. So much so that as long as the group satisfies those needs, we will choose to be wrong if it keeps us in good standing with our peers. We never lack evidence for this: just tune in to the news. People do stupid things to remain in good standing with their milieu _all the time_. (I know I have!) And apparently, so do AIs. (Although as I pointed out in the show, we mustn’t anthropomorphize technology.) But more importantly, knowing about the perils of tribal psychology can help us be more effective when working in groups — and therefore, to gain traction. [_Traction Heroes episode 46: Tribal Psychology_](https://www.tractionheroes.com/2439976/episodes/19905275-tribal-psychology)
Are you more of an analytical or a holistic thinker? The answer might depend on the culture in which you were raised — and will impact your ability to gain traction. In episode 44 of Traction Heroes, Harry read a short segment from Joseph Henrich’s The WEIRDest People in the World, which argues that people in “WEIRD” societies — Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic — tend to think more analytically than holistically. I haven’t read the book, but do believe our culture influences our worldview — including how we think of timeframes and outcomes. If we’re driven by quarterly results, we’ll have a very different orientation than if we have a 10-year outlook. Learning how culture affects our perspective changes how we understand ourselves and how we communicate with others — and both affect our ability to gain traction. Traction Heroes episode 44: WEIRD People
Forty years ago, computer scientist Fred Brooks published a paper called No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accident in Software Engineering. As its title implies, the paper argues there are no technological shortcuts to making software radically easier, simpler, or more reliable. You may think AI is the ultimate silver bullet. It isn’t. Moore’s law was in full force in 1986. Hardware was getting more powerful, faster, and cheaper. Surely, some technology would come along to do the same for software. Brooks argued this wasn’t in the cards, since software is fundamentally different from hardware. For one thing, it’s of a different order: The essence of a software entity is a construct of interlocking concepts: data sets, relationships among data items, algorithms, and invocations of functions. This essence is abstract, in that the conceptual construct is the same under many different representations. It is nonetheless highly precise and richly detailed. Specifying, designing, and testing this construct is difficult. The challenge isn’t implementation but design: “We still make syntax errors, to be sure; but they are fuzz compared to the conceptual errors in most systems.” Technical advances usually make development easier. No Silver Bullet traces the history of time sharing, unified programming environments, and high-level languages. Object-oriented programming was a promising new technology at the time and there were even rudimentary AIs in the form of expert systems. Brooks examines them and concludes they’re not enough. Why? Because coding isn’t the hardest part of making software. Instead, the hard part is knowing what to build: The hardest single part of building a software system is deciding precisely what to build. No other part of the conceptual work is so difficult as establishing the detailed requirements, including all the interfaces to people, to machines, and to other software systems. No other part of the work so cripples the resulting system if done wrong. No other part is more difficult to rectify later. What will the system do? How will it serve strategic objectives? How will it enable better judgment and allow people to derive meaning from data? These aren’t implementation questions, they’re design questions. Somebody must define the “construct of interlocking concepts” that define the system, aiming for good fit between the system and the context it serves. LLMs can help, but they can’t replace human understanding and judgment, at least not yet. Brooks calls out four inherent properties of modern software systems: Complexity: Software systems are among the most complex human constructs. They’ve only gotten more so as computers and operating systems have grown more powerful and capable. Conformity: Software solutions must conform to the goals, needs, constraints, and interfaces of the organizations that bring them forth. This is true whether it’s bought off-the-shelf or developed bespoke. Changeability: Anything that lasts does so because it’s able to adapt to changing conditions. Software is inherently more malleable than other complex designed systems, such as buildings. Invisibility: Whereas complex physical systems (again, think of buildings) can be represented with mechanical drawings, software specs are inherently abstract. This makes them hard to design. There’s been progress in the last four decades, but these properties remain fixed. LLMs haven’t changed that. Non-deterministic components add immense complexity and unpredictability to software systems. The ease, speed, and volume of code generation make software more malleable and opaque than ever. And LLMs promise to ease bespoke development, tempting orgs away from one-size-fits-all solutions. Which is to say, LLMs haven’t changed the nature of software. Instead, they’ve made it more so. So far, the technology’s killer application is developing software: teams can now produce more software, faster. (It’s unclear yet whether it’ll ultimately be cheaper, especially when you consider maintenance costs.) What LLMs haven’t done yet is replace software wholesale, at least not for tasks that require predictable behavior. And as their true costs and constraints become evident, it’s increasingly doubtful they will. Instead, LLMs will likely become part of systems that include traditional deterministic components — both inside the systems and as part of the development process. The resulting systems will be more complex, malleable, and abstract than prior ones. They’ll also be better fit to purpose than off-the-shelf solutions. But that requires design, which remains primarily a human challenge. And it’s hard: it is really impossible for clients, even those working with software engineers, to specify completely, precisely, and correctly the exact requirements of a modern software product before having built and tried some versions of the product they are specifying. Replace “software engineers” with LLMs, and this sentence still stands. But it also hints at where LLMs come closest to being a silver bullet: in their ability to spin up rapid prototypes. Good software is grown, not built. That is, it evolves from an initial core to a more complex system through an organic approach that respects Gall’s law: The building metaphor has outlived its usefulness. It is time to change again. If, as I believe, the conceptual structures we construct today are too complicated to be accurately specified in advance, and too complex to be built faultlessly, then we must take a radically different approach. Let us turn to nature and study complexity in living things, instead of just the dead works of man. Here we find constructs whose complexities thrill us with awe. The brain alone is intricate beyond mapping, powerful beyond imitation, rich in diversity, self-protecting, and self-renewing. The secret is that it is grown, not built. So it must be with our software systems. What was true then is true now: technology moves the bottleneck from production to orientation. LLMs make coding easier, much like high-level languages, IDEs, and compilers did in the past. But without shared models, structured context, feedback loops, governance, and clear interfaces, they won’t provide the results leaders expect. As always, how to build gets easier — knowing what to build doesn’t. AI can help with that too — but it needs steering. The question isn’t “Which systems can we replace with AI?” Rather, it’s “How can AI help us grow systems that better fit our needs?” The answer will consider AI as a system component and a production tool. But forty years on, there’s still no silver bullet — just better ways to find good fit, faster.
More in technology
The resiliency startup has slashed the amount it spends on AI; down from $4,500 per dev, per month, in August, to $1,600 now.
Nathaniel Christopher has a lovely recap of his time at WordCamp Canada. Very cool that the dashboard widget helped connect him to the local community. Hat tip: Anne.
Managing a house with five kids can be challenging so I like to share what’s working for us when I can. This post is how we currently handle screen time. Screens can be addictive, and it’s easy for anyone (both kids and adults) to fall into unhealthy patterns using them. Historically, I’ve been uncomfortable with screen time restrictions because I don’t want to restrict all the useful, creative, and productive opportunities that screens can provide. We’ve tried zero restrictions in the past (alongside Daily Demos as a creativity incentive), which worked ok, but at some point we wanted bit more structure. Here’s what that structure currently looks like. Device use categories For family members without phones, we have carved out the following categories of time: “Free Time” - Kids are free to do whatever activities they want (bounded only by what we’ve made available for them at the house). Video games, movies, board games, homework, run around outside, whatever. Often, this time trends towards consumption on devices, but it doesn’t have to. We call it “free time” instead of “screen time,” because we want to emphasize that the opportunities are wider than just screens. “Project Time” - Kids are encouraged to do projects, which are usually defined as creative activities of all kinds (with or without screens). This category can be blurry so we’ve often put together lists of approved project time activities, including things like: arts and crafts, coding (including “Scratch create”), playing musical instruments, recording videos, Minecraft (creative mode), the Powder Toy, Dojo Islands, and anything on Let’s Get Creative. Device-based consumption is not allowed. Offline activities are usually considered fine (reading a book, doing a puzzle, etc). “No devices” - No device use allowed. Addendum: Grant Proposals If a kid wants a one-time exception to one of the categories above, we tell them to “submit a grant proposal.” This means they need to get some paper, and write out what they want to do, and why they think it is justified. Example 1: “I want to play Minecraft creative after dinner because I am building a full-scale piano, I want to demo it tonight, and I only have 10 more minutes of work until it’s done.” Example 2: “I want to play Terraria during project time because I am making an tutorial on how to beat Moon Lord, and I need to collect screenshots from the game for my tutorial.” We usually approve grant proposals, as long as they aren’t incomplete. Schedule With these categories defined, we just need to decide how much time to allocate, and when to schedule it. For example, here’s our current “no devices” schedule: "No Devices" times Reason After Dinner Reduce stimulation before bed Sundays Protected for church and family Saturdays, before chores are done Incentivize quick completion of chores, so our Saturday afternoons remain available The categories + schedule constitutes our device policy, in addition to Daily Demos, which we continue to hold on the side. Summary Addictive device consumption can easily crowd out activities that are important long-term but deliver less dopamine short-term. Our device-time categories create a protected space for those activities on a consistent schedule that our kids can expect and make plans around. This is what works for us. Your milage may vary! Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by leaving a comment on the original post or sending me an email.
There are few things worse than a dead AirTag when you need it. That's why we designed the The 4-Year Battery Keychain for AirTag. It replaces the low power CR2032 coin cell with an included Toshiba CR2477 battery for over 4x more capacity. And does so in a minimal form factor. Assembles in seconds. Split key ring + braided cord included. Easy to open with included tool. Perfect on a keychain. And great for backpacks or a purse. Also available on Amazon.
In the corner of the rear Floodgap lab sits a pile of classic game consoles. It used to look like this: Sega Dreamcast all the consoles here only came with NTSC RF output and date from the pre-flat panel TV era. That includes multiple Atari consoles (including the inevitable VCS, here a Darth Vader 2600), several Pong machines — including two Commodore units — with various chipsets, an Intellivision (as the rebadged Tandyvision One, my first) and a Bally Astrocade with lots of upgrades. It seems wrong to use them with a flat panel, and CRTs lag less. Plus, games with a light gun (here the Dreamcast and one of the Pong consoles) often rely on the CRT's rapidly scanning beam to know where they're pointed. So what do you do when the CRT TV goes bad? I should note that this isn't all the old school gaming fun in the house. In the commons next to the pinball machines are an Xbox 360 Slim and a PlayStation 2, and in the home theatre connected to the 3D projector is a PlayStation 3 since it has some stereoscopic titles. These might appear in future articles. But most of the rest are here. I bought this Panasonic Omnivision PV-M2035 from a friend at church in 1999 for $100 [about $200 in 2026 dollars]. He had no use for it, and the top of the plastic shell had been heat-warped by sitting in his car too long, but it worked, still had the remote, and was a suitably cheap TV for my unsuitably cheap studio apartment. I used it for local news and Friends with a set of rabbit ears, VHS movies, and speakers for playing music by connecting a CD player to the single rear input. When I moved to a less cheap 1-bedroom, it came along, and its flat top was flat enough to become a shelf for a DVD player. I got the Dreamcast from Fry's in 2001 after Sega discontinued it and managed to share the composite input between them. That apartment was my crashpad for about a decade before moving to the current orbiting HQ, whereupon I bought a passive-3D flat panel TV and moved the Omnivision to its current location in the back of the house. It shared the RF input between the Inty, and later the Atari 2600, and later still the Astrocade and various Pongs. At any one time there were at least four consoles always connected to it via switches and switchboxes, and I wired up an accessory port for more. plastic was broken and on these TVs that's pretty much the load-bearing part. When it arrived at the mailbox and I unpacked it, I could see the lower half had sandwiched right through the VCR slot, with visible PCB fragments and broken buttons; aside from the tube itself (ironically), the thing was a total loss. The seller nevertheless made good on the refund, to their credit, and I got to schlep it to the recycler. Overall, however, it had occurred to me that there were very few TVs sufficiently contemporary with the M2035 out there, which might be a hint about their general longevity. So, if I was going to be forced to buy a different Panasonic, then it might as well be a more recent one, and it should be one of the "triple play" units (i.e., TV, VCR, DVD) so that I could at least get rid of the external DVD player. Mission: Impossible '88 and '89 DVD sets, where the "in stereo" animation was even burned into the video stream.) not recording and thus impossible to watch many DVDs, for which the Sima CopyMaster was the cheapest solution: it simply blots out that portion of the vertical blank along with the pulses, which also has the side effect of sometimes stripping closed captioning (in the vertical blank as well), though DVDs with proper subtitles are of course unaffected. Later Sima devices could regenerate portions of the vertical blank for better quality, and Macrovision actually sued them over their products in 2005, but later settled. The mixer on the right was purchased literal decades ago at Radio Shack (more specifically a "Video Enhancer Stereo Audio Mixer") that I think we used for a Halloween display exactly once and then forgot about. Here it was used first as a cutoff switch, and second as a way to match the audio volume from the DVD player with the audio volume from the Dreamcast, which was also directly connected to the second rear Y-cable. This TV is mono, so the stereo channels from the audio mixer and the DC get merged using their own Y-connectors (also Radio Shack) before going into the Y-cable to the single line audio input. The video function isn't used here at all; it was just a audio mixer on the shelf I wasn't otherwise using. The DVD player is under the mixer and the CopyMaster, a cheapie Sony special that will only eject discs if it's in the mood or summarily threatened with violence. You already met this system when we adjusted the laser pickup and refurbished its rechargeable battery. you met the Tandyvision One (otherwise identical to the Mattel Intellivision Master Component, and manufactured by them as an OEM) when we installed a composite video modification and a front power-cutoff reset. I later upgraded it with an original Mattel Intellivoice speech synthesizer (Tandy never rebadged these) and a CuttleCart. But you haven't met the Bally on the bottom, officially introduced in 1978 as a game console and simple home computer, sold under various names such as the Bally Professional Arcade seen on early units, later the Bally Computer System badging here, and now collectively referred to under its final incarnation as the Astrocade. These machines were based around a 1.789MHz Z80 (half NTSC colourburst) combined with the same graphics hardware Dave Nutting Associates used for Midway's arcade games Gorf and Wizard of Wor, among others. Unfortunately, much of its theoretical graphics power went unrealized because it only has half the video memory of the arcade units (i.e., 4K) — and that's all the memory it has, so it has to interleave bits in the video memory to store BASIC programs, meaning only game ROMs can take full advantage. Still, that was enough to be solid competition for the likes of the Atari VCS and Fairchild Channel F, and it holds its own well against the slightly later Intellivision. does have is a doozy: the cooling vents are on the underside. These machines are very prone to overheating and can be easily damaged by it, which is why I use two foam struts to keep it off the carpet. The yellow label is for Astrovision, a separate enterprise that had been attempting to develop their own console. The (then) Bally Professional Arcade was selling poorly, though part of this was due to a tardy launch and Bally's weak retail presence, and Bally decided to sell off the consumer products division in 1979. Astrovision, unable to get their unit to market quickly, bought it in 1981 along with a limited license to the Bally name and reintroduced it at Winter CES 1982. Astrovision units are otherwise the same except for the badging and are the most common Astrocades today, though the company became another victim of the 1983 video game crash and went bankrupt shortly afterwards. Simultaneously, an Astrocade derivative merged with Bally's unfinished ZGRASS-100 expansion chassis was reworked into the Datamax UV-1 graphics generator, sold in small numbers until around 1982. the wall warts and power strips, and do a little spot vacuuming with the Roomba. out in spring. Gremlin's Blockade; and a simple calculator and screen paint toy ("Scribbling"). The display is a bit noisier than the Inty/Tandyvision, probably because of the difference in shielding, but still quite good. Videostak Video Game Center, which allegedly could accomodate a VCS, Intellivision or ColecoVision. The front decal is somewhat worn and the woodgrain veneer doesn't match the Vader VCS nearly as well, but it's still a fun-looking setup. Intellivision System Changer which has Atari 2600 hardware in an expansion box for the Intellivision II (useable on the original Inty with modification). It might be fun to explore the reputed irregularities between what is believed to be a VTI clone TIA in the System Changer and the slightly earlier Coleco Expansion Module 1 (and the related Coleco Gemini), and see how they differ in practice. Now for the Pong machines. These attach to the "accessory port" on the input switcher. The current Pong menagerie are mostly MOS 7600-based, MOS' own Pong-on-a-chip: two from Commodore themselves but PAL only using the MOS 7601 (the TV Game 2000K and TV Game 3000H), plus two MOS 7600 (NTSC) systems, a Coleco Telstar Gemini, not to be confused with the Coleco Gemini or Coleco Telstar, and an Allied Leisure Name of the Game II, possibly the earliest use of the chip in NTSC regions. We'll play the Name of the Game II and Telstar Gemini below. These will be consoles for another day, but I also have a boxed Atari Video Pinball, an "honorary" Pong machine though it plays several other games, and a boxed Atari Ultra Pong Doubles, which we had before we got the Tandyvision, but I don't ever recall it working fully and it later failed to power up and got thrown away, so this is a replacement. My least favourite of the Pongs here (I really only picked it up because it was cheap) is a 1977 Magnavox Odyssey 3000. The 3000 is basically an upmarket Odyssey 2000 with proper handheld controllers, but otherwise the same me-too AY-3-8500 Pong-on-a-chip generating the same black-and-white display. Allied Leisure Name of the Game II is a two-player Pong based on the MOS 7600-001. This chip notionally contains three field games (a tennis game, a "goal" game usually billed as either soccer or hockey, and a racquetball game) and a skeet shooter, but the racquetball game can be put into a single player mode by setting it to "four" players and the NotG2's switch triggers this mode in place of the skeet shooter. It was noisy on the other TV and it's noisy here, possibly because it has its own internal RF switchbox, but it plays fine. Coleco Telstar Gemini, an MOS 7600-004 system. This has two "pinball" variants (with flippers and moveable Pong paddles, so it's still a Pong of sorts) and two shooting gallery variants involving shooting a deformed bear sprite. The light gun connector is the same as the Coleco Telstar, so I borrowed the gun from that. sing along with The Offspring. But the output looks crisp through the rear jacks, the sound is proper stereo, and we now have front inputs I can use for something else without rigging a whole bunch of Y-adapters again. Plus, if the Telstar Gemini's gun works, it's all but guaranteed the Dreamcast's does. am likely to play some Video Pinball, and in its box that's easy to move, so that can go on top of the 2600 and the NotG and Telstar Gemini can sit next to it. The old TV is out in the garage and as I have time I'll extract its circuit boards and go over them more thoroughly, since I had a lot of good times with that television and it would be nice to fix. If I do, I'll write it up here, since it's an actual old VCR. Meanwhile, I have some possible projects in mind for the Tandyvision and Astrocade, and maybe some mods to go in the VCS, and you can read about those in future articles too. In the end, with the new TV all set up, the 1980s can live again in my rear office. Or, as my wife likes to point out, they never actually died there either.
