I am a big fan of Deena Kastor. She’s an Olympic bronze medalist and former U.S. record holder for the marathon.

Deena shared her approach for injecting joy into miserable situations in her TEDx talk, which is certainly something I can empathize with as a former marathoner myself.

Doing wind sprints up the hill behind Coffman Union doesn’t sound like much fun, but when you’re doing it with others and trying to make each other laugh while you do it, it’s an experience you’ll never forget.

I am supposed to be camping with my family today, but I feel like death, so instead, I’m gonna lay on the couch and clear through my watch later queue.

First up, this inside look at Apple’s approach to chip fabrication.

It’s videos like these that make me feel as though hardware is an approachable hobby to get into.

Yeah, maybe I don’t know how to put a billion 6 nanometer transistors onto a piece of silicon… but I don’t think I need to know that in order to make something useful.

Also, this was delightful to experience with the hindsight of 8 months. We now know about Apple Intelligence, and we also know how the Vision Pro rollout went.

I haven’t felt like much of an Apple fanboy lately, but this piece made me appreciate how hard their engineers are working to build super useful products.

I personally tried withdrawing cash at three financial institutions in different weight classes, as was told it was absolutely impossible (in size) at all of them, owing to the Falcon issue.

At one, I was told that I couldn’t use the tellers but could use the ATM. Unfortunately, like many customers, I was attempting to take out more cash from the ATM than I ever had before. Fortunately, their system that flags potentially fraudulent behavior will let a customer unflag themselves by responding to an instant communication from the bank. Unfortunately, the subdomain that communication directs them to runs on a server apparently protected by CrowdStrike Falcon.

I have some knowledge of the history of comprehensive failures of financial infrastructure, and so I considered doing the traditional thing when convertibility of deposits is suspended by industry-wide issues: head to the bar.

I’ve ignored the CrowdStrike news primarily because it didn’t directly impact me, and secondarily because I made an assumption that this was yet another example of the joys of late stage capitalism.

I’m glad I read this article, though, because it helped put the crisis in perspective.

While it didn’t impact me, it certainly caused issues for those in my real life. Software truly has reached a point where it can cause massive headaches for large swaths of society.

When a big part of society gets bumped by an outage like this, the ripples of its consequences will surely be felt by everyone at some point down the road.

Second, I gotta stop being so cynical about capitalism. I should stop pretending I’m above it or better than it. Like it or not, it’s the system I have to play in.

It would probably be less stressful for me to accept the game and use it to accomplish my own set of goals.

One of my main goals in life is to build technology that helps make people’s lives better.¹ Say what you will about CrowdStrike, but this article reminded me that it’s because of tools like Falcon that we are provided a society in which we all can live better lives.

So instead of sitting here and (a) ignoring the news and (b) complaining about the existence of bad actors in our system, maybe I should instead do my best to help make our system as stable as I can.

We All Want Impossible Things is a novel which follows the journey of a woman whose best friend is in hospice, living out her final days after fighting a tough battle with cancer.

I started this book a couple months ago and got up to about 70% of the way through before putting it aside.

I'm pretty sure I let it sit because I didn't want to see how it ended. Obviously the death was going to come, but I wasn't quite ready to take on someone else's outlet for grief.

That is, until this past week, when I was in search of something to help me process my own grief.

Last week, I learned that a really good friend of mine died unexpectedly from a heart attack, which set me up for one of the worst mental health stretches I've experienced in recent months.

The last 30% of the book provided some much needed catharsis and meaning. Although the main character's experience wasn't directly similar to mine, it gave me some well considered insights into what love and friendship is all about.

If you're also grieving, I highly recommend this book.

My kids have been on a kick lately of trying to trick people with this riddle:

Kid: "If the blue man lives in the blue house, and the red man lives in the red house, who lives in the green house?"

Me: "The green man"

Kid: "Who lives in the purple house?"

Me: "The purple man"

Kid: "Who lives in the white house?"

Me: "The white man"

Kid: "Wrong! It's the president!"

This riddle initially reminded me of what it was like to work with large language models.

It's easy, I assumed, to trick these models into outputting virtually whatever you want by presenting them with leading questions. Giving them "few shot" answers like this (e.g. "the blue man lives in the blue house, red man lives in the red house") would certainly result in them getting it wrong like I did, right?

This morning, I thought I'd see what the latest models would actually respond with given this game:

ChatGPT 4o (the latest model):

The President of the United States lives in the White House.

This was the first model I tried, and it straight up was like, "nope, I got this."

Ugh. Maybe it had seen this in its training data before?

The "Who lives in the White House?" game or riddle is a common one that I've encountered multiple times in various forms. It's often used to playfully lead to the punchline that the President of the United States lives in the White House.

Well, damn. Okay, let's try an older model and see what happens.

ChatGPT 4 (the legacy model):

The gardener lives in the greenhouse!

In the spirit of the previous joke, perhaps the grape man lives in the purple house!

The President of the United States lives in the White House.

Even though this is an older model, I like this answer even better.¹

Alright, well, OpenAI is onto my tricks... how about Anthropic?

Claude Sonnet 3.5:

I apologize, but I don't have enough information to determine who lives in the green, purple, and white houses. The puzzle only specifies that the blue man lives in the blue house and the red man lives in the red house. There's no information provided about the occupants of the other colored houses.

To solve this puzzle completely, we would need additional clues or information about the residents of the green, purple, and white houses. Without that, those houses' occupants remain unknown.

This is an even better answer! It's perhaps the least fun answer, but when I'm working with an AI assistant, I think I'd prefer it to err on the side of caution rather than boisterousness.²

When I asked it if it had seen this riddle before, it gave an equally diplomatic response:

I don't have specific information about how many times I've encountered that particular puzzle or game in my training data. As an AI language model, I don't have personal experiences or memories of my training process. My knowledge comes from processing large amounts of text data, but I don't retain or count individual instances of specific puzzles or games.

What I can say is that logic puzzles involving colored houses and their occupants are fairly common in puzzle collections and brain teasers. The most famous version is probably the "Einstein's Riddle" or "Zebra Puzzle," which is more complex and involves five houses of different colors, their occupants, and various other attributes.

The specific version you presented (with just blue and red specified, and asking about green, purple, and white) isn't one I immediately recognize as a standard or famous puzzle. It seems like it might be a simplified version or a variation of the more complex house puzzles.

The main takeaways here? First, just because I'm dumb enough to fall for this elementary school riddle doesn't mean our AI LLMs are, so I shouldn't make assumptions about the usefulness of these tools. Second, every model is different, and you should run little experiments like these in order to see which tools produce the output which is more favorable to you.

I've been using the free version of Claude to run side-by-side comparisons like this lately, and I'm pretty close to getting rid of my paid ChatGPT subscription and moving over to Claude. The answers I get from Claude feel more like what I'd expect an AI assistant to provide.

I think this jives well with Simon Willison's "Vibes Based Development" observation that you need to work with an LLM for a few weeks to get a feel for a model's strengths and weaknesses.

As I mentioned in my post about ditching my iPhone, I'm trying to get back into reading books.

One of the hardest parts about getting back into reading is to adjust my mindset about how I read books.

For the last couple decades, I was extremely selective about the books I read. I wouldn't pick up a book unless I was positive that I'd make it through without abandoning it early.

After all, dedicating time to a few hundred pages was a significant investment! I'm a busy man, after all.¹

A couple weeks back, my family walked up to the library together. Usually, it's a time where my wife gets to meander down the aisles, picking out books for herself and the kids, while the rest of us play with the puppets and dinosaurs they've got set up in the kids area.

This time, I decided to walk through the new release section and see if anything caught my eye.The distinctive pink cover of this book caught it right away.

I was slightly embarrassed as I sat down on the couches and started reading a book about a movie geared toward teenaged girls. I didn't realize that fifteen minutes had gone by when my family was asking if I was ready to leave.

I finished the book up yesterday and recommend it if you are into behind-the-scenes stories of how media gets made. The author interviewed all the actors from the movie, including those who only had one or two lines.

I was particularly compelled by the story of Rajiv Surendra, the actor who played Kevin G. He talked about how much effort it took to cultivate the confidence that his character exudes, and how he often channels that character in real life when he needs a boost.

Self confidence is an area I'm actively working on, so I appreciated being able to pull a little inspiration from a book I picked up on a whim from the library.

I'm sure none of this is new information to you all. Libraries have books, books are useful for transmitting new ideas, yadda yadda. Give me a break, I'm trying here!

I'm also working my way through A Hacker's Mind by Bruce Schneier based off a recommendation from my pal Arun.

Not sure if you all knew this, but reading books can be pretty dope.

(My buddy Paul recommended a few graphic novels that I'll reserve from the library next, but I'm still looking for a solid fiction series to get behind, so holler if you have any suggestions! )

Visualize what I am about to share with you. Take a glass beaker with clear water in it. Throw in some gravel and stir vigorously. It becomes cloudy but, in a few minutes, the gravel settles down and the water becomes clear again.

Now put in a handful of sand and stir again. It takes longer but the sand finally settles down and the water becomes clear once more.

Now put in some gooey mud and stir. It could take weeks before that muck gets to the bottom, and you have clear water again.

And what happens if you stir this mixture every day?

You never have clear water in your beaker.

That is the situation we are in. All the stuff we let into our brain clouds and disturbs our mind.

In the old days there were fewer distractions, and we could return fairly easily to a state of relative calm. These days there are many disturbances causing influences and they take forever to settle down. And, we have been brainwashed into liking the gooey mud, so we keep stirring the water and it never becomes clear.

I am very excited to see if I can get my beaker to have clear water when I ditch my iPhone soon.

LEE: The president now takes comedic license for the most serious shit imaginable. This attitude of "Hey, who gives a shit? We're going to say what we want but not be held accountable whatsoever because we're just using comedic license,” It’s kind of mind blowing that those tools were taken and now comics are left sitting there like with their dicks and their lady parts hanging out.

We're the ones that are supposed to have a who-gives-a-fuck attitude because what I say doesn't matter! And now the comics are like, "Well, Jesus, if they have no reverence whatsoever, to humanity or ethics or morals or decency or democracy, then yeah, then how interesting is irreverence? I feel like comedy is seems pretty impotent right now. At best it can describe the nightmare, but it certainly can’t influence it.

This article is seven years old, and Wonder Showzen is more than twenty years old. So reading this article helps me put our current times into a different perspective.

When George W. Bush was elected in his second term, I remember feeling a general sense of victory. That’s because my parents were both big Bush supporters, and the muted din of Fox News constantly reverberated through our house.

Now that I’m a little older, it’s useful to have a piece like this which paints that period in a much different hue.

And any excuse to rewatch Wonder Showzen is a good one for me.

But as far as the pull quote I used: I think this is one of the trickiest lines to walk in a democracy and in a society writ large.

We seem to really care about our sacred cows, but when you’re balancing the needs of billions of sacred cows, are any of them really sacred? How do you determine which sacred cows are worth holding onto?

How do you find that right balance which keeps our species moving forward together?

Enbies and gentlefolk of the class of ‘24:

Write websites.

If I could offer you only one tip for the future, coding would be it. The long term benefits of coding websites remains unproved by scientists, however the rest of my advice has a basis in the joy of the indie web community’s experiences.

I love the reference to Wear Sunscreen, one of the great commencement speeches.

There is amazing advice and inspiration for building websites in here. It also reminded me of POSSE, meaning “Publish (on your) Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere.”

This article is a few months old, lamenting the death of the historic Sports Illustrated brand.

I wanted to share it now because (a) yadda yadda instapaper backlog, and (b) I think it reveals a truth about the future of journalism to which it didn’t intend.

First, from the article:

We will muddle along in a new Dark Ages caused by the constant static of an overwhelming blitz of contradictory and false content that largely only serves the aims of the people and companies that create it, pulling us further and further from one another and our shared interests as a species that should seek the improvement of ever member of its kind. I know this is some pretty hyperbolic stuff to extrapolate from the death of a magazine that published photos of bikini babes, but that’s where I’m at. I wish I had better news. I wish I had a solution for you besides voting for the few political figures who don’t want this to happen and maybe wandering some car parks if that doesn’t work out.

Then, also from the article:

We’re going to try to keep this thing going no matter what happens in the future, and we’re not going to lie to you to serve some weird outside or nefarious interests.

That’s it. That’s the solution.

Journalism, in its modern implementation, is almost always subsidized by billionaires. There’s no profitable business model in telling stories, in speaking truth to power.

Yet we still feel compelled to do journalism. Telling stories, after all, is an integral part of the human experience.

Yes, it sucks that these historic brands are suffering terrible deaths. But that doesn’t mean citizen journalism is dead, and it doesn’t mean we can’t find ways to continue to support our best story tellers as they tell the necessary stories of our time.

I’m glad we are alive at a time where we have the internet which enables anybody to do good journalism. I proudly support my own community-run news organization called Racket, and I encourage everyone out there to support their own.