Are You Sure About That? The Prompt That Changed How I Use AI

"Are you sure about that?"

This should have been the first thing I said to AI after every initial answer. Why? It gives better responses when I doubt it from the start. I've tried it on several prompts — and the difference is real.

Why Skepticism Works

AI models are trained to be helpful. That sometimes means they confidently fill gaps with plausible-sounding information. When you challenge an answer, you force the model to reconsider — to flag what it actually knows versus what it's guessing.

The Prompt I Use

I've found two versions useful, depending on how much control I want.

Short version

Always flag uncertain or speculative claims with [uncertain] or phrases like "I'm not sure about this." State well-established facts directly. Don't inflate responses with loosely supported points.

Long version

When answering questions, clearly distinguish between what you know with confidence and what is uncertain. For well-established facts, state them directly. For anything speculative, poorly documented, or based on indirect reasoning, flag it explicitly using phrases like "I'm not certain", "this is speculative", or a marker like [uncertain]. Do not pad responses with loosely related points just to seem thorough. If you don't know something, say so plainly.

Both versions do the same job. The short one fits in a system prompt easily. The long one leaves no ambiguity.

What Changes

Once you add this to your setup, you start seeing [uncertain] markers appear. You notice the model hedging more. You trust what's left unhedged a little more.

It's not that the AI suddenly becomes smarter. It's that it stops pretending to be more confident than it is.

What's your experience? Try it yourself and see what changes.

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

I Read a Lot. I Remember Almost Nothing. So I Built This.

I finish a book. I feel good about it. Two weeks later, I can barely recall what it was about.

That's the problem. And it's not a lack of effort — I read consistently. The problem is the format. You read a book once, in big chunks, and then... nothing. The ideas don't stick.

I'd read about the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve before — the idea that we forget roughly 70% of what we learn within 24 hours. I knew about it. I just didn't do anything about it.

So I built MarrowMinded. The name comes from the idea of extracting marrow — the most nutritious part of the bone. Books have marrow too. Most of what surrounds it is just filler.

What It Does

MarrowMinded gives me one lesson per day from a book I've already chosen. Not a summary. Not a chapter. One concept, structured into seven sections:

• A short quote from the text
• The key thesis in one sentence
• The idea explained in depth
• A specific example from the book
• How it applies to my life today
• A concrete task for the day (5–30 minutes)
• A reflection question

That's it. One lesson. Every day.

How does it look?

Why One Lesson?

Business books are mostly padding. An author has 40 pages of insight and writes 300 pages of anecdotes around them. The anecdotes make it readable. They also make it forgettable.

The insight from Effortless or Naval's Almanack is there. The signal is real. But the format — read it once, all at once — is broken.

One focused concept a day, repeated over months, beats a 3-hour reading binge I won't repeat or remember. Drip beats flood.

How I Built It

The stack is deliberately minimal. One Python file (FastAPI + SQLite), one HTML file with vanilla JavaScript. No framework, no build step. Books are plain .txt files. Lessons are generated once by AI and cached as JSON — so on day one of any book, there's no API cost at all.

Multi-provider AI support under the hood (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Groq), but Claude is the default. The prebuilt lessons cost me around $50 in tokens total. The whole thing took 10–12 hours to build, mostly evenings.

It runs on Render's free tier.

The Part That Surprised Me

I use it every morning. That's the metric I actually care about.

Building something you genuinely use changes everything about how you build it. You cut the features you don't need because you'd notice if they were wrong. You keep it simple because complexity would slow you down before breakfast.

I have eight books loaded in right now — a mix of English and Polish titles. Every morning, one lesson, one task. That's the whole thing.

Do you have a reading habit? And more importantly — do you actually remember what you read?

If you're curious how it works, have questions about the stack, or want to build something similar — ask. And if you'd like to take a look at the repo, just say so.

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

Siri Feels Like 2014—And Apple Doesn't Seem to Care

I've been using Opera Neon on my laptop. Together with Claude Code and Claude, I can do a lot. Research, writing, coding, data analysis—you name it. The AI works so well that I forget it's even AI.

Then I ask Siri to do something.

"I can't do that."

The contrast is jarring.

What Siri Can Actually Do

Don't get me wrong—Siri is useful for the basics:

• "Open app X"
• "Set a timer for 10 minutes"
• "Volume up"
• "Call John"

These work fine. Siri handles simple commands without friction.

But the moment you ask for anything more complex? It falls apart.

Where Siri Breaks Down

Last week, I asked Siri to create a card in Trello.

"I can't do that."

Fine. How about creating a reminder with a specific note attached?

"I can't do that."

These aren't edge cases. These are basic productivity tasks. Things I do daily with other AI tools without even thinking about it.

The Dissonance Is Real

Here's the thing: I've had voice conversations with Perplexity. It feels like watching "Her" v0.1. Not perfect, but you can see where it's going. It responds naturally. It understands context. It adapts.

Having a conversation with Siri feels like talking to a primitive chatbot from 10 years ago. More frustrating than helpful.

And that dissonance—the gap between what top-tier AI can do and what Siri offers—shows just how far behind Apple and Google really are.

What This Means

I'm not saying Siri needs to match Claude's reasoning capabilities overnight. But the difference isn't just about features. It's about expectations.

When you use Claude, Opera Neon, or even ChatGPT daily, you start expecting AI to understand you. To adapt. To work with context and nuance.

Siri doesn't do that. It's still a list of hardcoded commands wrapped in a voice interface.

Imagine the Alternative

Think about how good Apple's OS could be if their AI were even close to Claude's level.

Not as good. Just close.

Imagine asking your phone a complex question and getting a thoughtful, contextual answer instead of "Here's what I found on the web."

Imagine voice assistants that actually assist instead of just executing preset commands.

We're not there yet. But some of us are getting close.

Just not Apple.

What's your experience? Do you still use Siri regularly? Or have you noticed the same gap I have? I'd love to hear your take.

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

In Ten Years, Everyone Can Be a Developer

In ten years, everyone can create their own app. Hell, even a browser!

How many times have I written on this blog the magic sentence "mark my words"? I believe a certain number of times. Maybe even too many.

But here's another one: mark my words.

I'm a product manager. I don't have developer skills. Probably won't learn any soon, at an acceptable level.

But hey, I don't have to anymore.

The New Execution Model

I'm certain—in ten years, everyone can be a developer. You have an idea, and the execution is a matter of how well you operate with AI. And how stubborn and resilient you are.

That's it. Idea + AI fluency + persistence = shipped product.

A Gorillaz Browser, Anyone?

Let's say I'm a die-hard Gorillaz fan. I want to create a browser with their leitmotif. Here's what Claude suggests when I ask for 5 unique selling points:

Me: Let's say I want to create a desktop browser for the Gorillaz band fandom. What would be 5 USPs?

Claude:

Phase-shifting UI — The browser's visual theme dynamically transforms to match the current "Phase" era of Gorillaz (Phase 1's raw comic aesthetic, Phase 4's psychedelic neon, etc.), making the browsing experience feel like living inside the band's evolving universe.

Murdoc's Dark Web Radar — A built-in privacy/tracker blocker styled as Murdoc's suspicious paranoia meter, showing blocked trackers with lore-accurate commentary and insults from the characters.

Kong Studios New Tab — Every new tab opens as an interactive Kong Studios hub—your bookmarks, speed dial, and widgets are embedded into the animated studio environment with the four characters present.

Noodle's Translation Engine — A built-in multilingual page translator with a personality layer, framed as Noodle's polyglot skills, with optional character voice narration for selected text (using the band's iconic audio aesthetic).

2D's Playlist Sidebar — A persistent music sidebar that surfaces Gorillaz tracks, remixes, and fan-curated playlists synced with Spotify or YouTube, styled around 2D's melancholic but dreamy personality—with mood-based recommendations tied to your browsing context.

Not bad for 30 seconds of work.

How This Actually Gets Built

Then I "hire" AI code assistants. When I have enough resources (AKA $$$), I "hire" ten AI agents, and I have my browser within a month.

When I see how fast the AI environment changes—and it looks like exponential growth—I'm certain it's possible.

What This Means

The barrier to building software isn't technical knowledge anymore. It's vision. Persistence. The ability to communicate what you want clearly enough that AI can help you build it.

That's a completely different skill set. And it's one that more people have access to.

The question isn't whether you can code. The question is whether you can imagine, iterate, and stick with it long enough to ship.

What would you build? If you could create any app or tool without needing to write code yourself, what would it be? I'd love to hear your ideas.

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

Managers Aren't Getting Younger—The Data Proves Me Wrong

I'm a big football fan—or soccer, if you're in the US. I love the history, the data, the statistics. Recently, I had a friendly argument with a fellow football enthusiast. My claim: young managers are taking over elite football. His claim: not at all.

Here's the thing about the Internet: you can't just let people be wrong.

The Hypothesis

I wanted to test my theory quickly and effortlessly. My hypothesis: the average age of trophy-winning managers has been decreasing over time. In other words, managers are younger when they win major trophies now than they were in the past.

To test this, I used Opera Neon. Here were my three prompts:

Analyze Champions League teams from 1992 until 2025. See who was the manager when winning the trophy. Check their age. Calculate the average age of all managers and the 5-year moving average.

Analyze UEFA Cup/Europa League winner teams from 1992 until 2025. See who was the manager when winning the trophy. Check their age. Calculate the average age of all managers and the 5-year moving average.

Analyze Premier League teams from 1992 until 2025. See who was the manager when winning the trophy. Check their age. Calculate the average age of all managers and the 5-year moving average.

The Results

Plot twist: managers aren't getting younger. My gut feeling was completely wrong.

The chart above shows the 5-year moving average for all three competitions. The trend is clear: manager ages have been increasing, not decreasing.

Champions League (1992-2025)

• Overall average age: 47.79 years
• Youngest winner: Pep Guardiola (38, Barcelona, 2009)
• Oldest winner: Raymond Goethals (71, Marseille, 1993)
• Recent trend: The 5-year moving average increased from 43.8 in 2007 to 56.2 in 2024-2025

UEFA Cup/Europa League (1992-2025)

• Overall average age: 48.35 years
• Youngest winner: André Villas-Boas (33, Porto, 2011)
• Oldest winner: Gian Piero Gasperini (66, Atalanta, 2024)
• Recent trend: Moving average rose from 42.6 in 2014 to 56.6 in 2025

Premier League (1992-2025)

• Overall average age: 51.61 years
• Youngest winner: José Mourinho (42, Chelsea, 2004-05)
• Oldest winner: Alex Ferguson (71, Manchester United, 2012-13)
• Recent trend: Moving average peaked at 63.4 in 2010-11 (Ferguson's dominance), then dropped to around 50 in recent years

The Power of AI Research

Here's what made this effortless: I spent less than a minute writing three prompts. Opera Neon handled all the research in the background, pinged me with updates, and delivered complete analysis. No Wikipedia rabbit holes. No manual spreadsheets. Just pure, automated research.

The data reveals experienced managers—particularly Carlo Ancelotti and Pep Guardiola in recent years—have actually driven the average age upward, not downward.

What's Next?

To get a fuller picture, I could analyze the top 4 finishers instead of just trophy winners. That would reveal whether younger managers are breaking into elite football at the highest level, even if they haven't lifted trophies yet.

What I Learned

Data beats gut feeling. Every time.

I was convinced young managers were taking over. The numbers show the opposite. The 5-year moving averages are trending upward across all three competitions, proving that experience still dominates elite football.

And AI made hypothesis-testing absurdly easy. One minute of prompts. Zero manual research. Complete analysis delivered on a silver platter.

What's your take? Do you think younger managers will start dominating in the next decade, or will experience always have the edge? Let me know what you think.

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

Not Good at It? Or Just Not Honest About It?

"I'm not good at sports. Languages. Mathematics. You name it."

When I hear myself—or someone else—say those words, I get a glitch.

Is this true? Is this something I actually believe? Or is this just an excuse I tell myself?

The Real Question

Is this really about not being good at something? Or is it about not being honest with myself?

Am I too afraid to admit I haven't thought it through? Too scared to say I have other priorities right now?

The Trick We Play on Ourselves

It's hard for me to believe I can't reach a decent level at anything.

So instead of admitting this to myself, I pull a trick. I figure out yet another plausible explanation. I construct a narrative that sounds reasonable but dodges the real issue.

"I'm not good at languages" sounds better than "I haven't prioritized learning a language."

"I'm just not a math person" feels safer than "I chose to focus my energy elsewhere."

Why Honesty Matters

Facing reality—acknowledging where we actually are—is the first step toward change.

Without honesty, it's hard to even start.

When I say "I'm not good at this," I'm closing a door. I'm telling myself the story's already written.

But when I say "I haven't prioritized this," I'm acknowledging a choice. And choices can always change.

What I Learned

The language we use with ourselves matters.

"Not good at it" suggests something fixed. Permanent. Beyond our control.

"Haven't prioritized it" acknowledges agency. It admits we're making trade-offs, whether we realize it or not.

Both might describe the same current reality. But only one leaves room for change.

What about you? Is there something you tell yourself you're "not good at"? What happens when you reframe it as a choice about priorities instead?

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

AI Ain't Funny: Testing Which AI Tells the Best Jokes

I've had this nagging impression: AI is good at many things, but not at telling jokes, being funny, or creating witty punchlines. Every time I ask an AI to be funny, I get dad jokes. Or should I say "dAId jokes"? ;-)

Then I read this article from The Athletic about ski jumpers. Let's just say it was begging for a punchline, meme, or literally any kind of reaction.

The story? Ski jumping's latest "marginal gains" rumor: athletes may be injecting hyaluronic acid into their penises—not for vanity, but to "measure bigger," get looser suits, and catch more air like a sail. No one's named, but WADA says it'll investigate if evidence appears.

Instantly, several punchlines and retorts came to mind in my native tongue. They were witty, if I do say so myself :-D

But then I wondered: how would AI handle this? I'd been suspecting AI wasn't funny, and I wanted to test that theory once and for all. This article was perfect—easy material for anyone with a sense of humor.

The Experiment

I asked several AI providers to create funny punchlines, taglines, and retorts. The goal was simple: compare them and subjectively decide which one was actually funny—and which one won the dAId jokes competition.

Here's the prompt I used:

Here's the article: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7024688/2026/02/05/ski-jump-penis-enhancement-wada/ Read it carefully. Prepare 3 witty punchlines (up to 200 characters) I can use to create a meme for that article.

The Results

Gemini

When they said 'every inch counts' in the Winter Olympics, I don't think this is what they meant.

Forget the V-style—apparently, the new way to get more lift is the 'D-style.'

WADA: 'Is it doping?' FIS: 'It's a sail.' The rest of us: 'It's a bit much for 5 extra meters.'

ChatGPT

When they said 'go big or go home,' ski jumpers took it personally.

WADA checking ski jumping… now scanning everything FROM THE GROUND UP.

Olympics 2026: Breaking records and bending… rules?

Claude

WADA investigating 'Penisgate.' No hard evidence yet, but officials promise to rise to the occasion.

Scientists confirm every centimeter counts. Ski jumpers taking notes. Norway already caught 'adjusting' their suits.

Athletes willing to inject acid into their junk for 2.8 extra meters of flight. That's Olympic-level commitment, folks.

Neon

When you said "enhance your performance," I didn't think you meant at the tailor. Ski jumpers: redefining suit measurements, one bulge at a time.

WADA officials: "We'll investigate." Also WADA officials: Googling 'can you really ski jump with that?'

Other sports: blood doping. Ski jumpers: bulge doping. Aerodynamics just got a lot more... interesting.

Perplexity

When the ski jump goes from gravity to groin-gravity in one leap.

Took off like a champ, landed like science class—strictly no physics allowed.

Peak performance, zero chill: physics says "drop" and so does the ground.

My Subjective Ranking

1. Claude, option 1 - "Penisgate" with the "rise to the occasion" pun? Chef's kiss.
2. Claude, option 2 - The Norway callback was specific and landed well.
3. Neon, option 3 - "Bulge doping" is genuinely clever.

What I Learned

Here's the thing: AI isn't terrible at humor. But it's safe. Too safe.

The best human jokes walk a line. They're specific. They reference real things. They take risks. AI models are trained to be helpful and harmless, which means they naturally pull their punches.

Notice how Claude's responses were edgier than the others? Interesting. But even then, they felt calculated. Like someone trying to be funny rather than actually being funny.

The dAId joke theory holds up.

Which one made you laugh? Or better yet—what punchline would you have written? I'd love to hear what you came up with.

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

Markdown Will Be the New Doc Format. Screenshot This.

Take a screenshot of this prediction. Come back in a few years and prove me wrong: Markdown will be the new doc format.

I've spent the last few months conducting product analysis with Claude Code, examining user behaviors in our product. That means hours in the Terminal. Prompting, prompting, and more prompting.

And something interesting happened.

The Accidental Shift

Since most of my analysis happens locally, I stopped using Google Docs. Stopped using Google Spreadsheets. I create summaries, notes, and instructions locally via Claude Code.

Claude uses .md. Markdown.

And you know what? It works absolutely fine. I have everything I need in a clean, nice, minimalistic format. No formatting bloat. No compatibility issues. No waiting for documents to load.

Just text. Structured text.

Why This Matters

Here's the thing most people haven't noticed: AI coding assistants are changing how we create documentation.

Not intentionally. Not because someone decided "Markdown should be the standard." But because when you're working with an AI, Markdown is the path of least resistance.

It's already there. It's fast. It's readable.

The Network Effect Nobody Saw Coming

How will this affect Markdown adoption? I suspect significantly.

First, it's happening quietly. Most people outside the developer community don't even realize this shift is occurring.

But people using AI on daily basis are creating more documentation than ever before. They're doing analysis. Writing specifications. Creating knowledge bases. And increasingly, they're doing it in Markdown through AI assistants.

That's a massive behavior change happening under the radar.

What Happens Next

When developers document in Markdown by default, their teams start reading Markdown. Then those team members start writing in Markdown. The format spreads.

Add to that: more people are using AI assistants. More of those assistants default to Markdown. More people get comfortable with the format without realizing they're learning it.

It's not replacing Word documents for corporate reports. Not yet, anyway.

And let's be clear: Google Docs and Microsoft Word aren't going anywhere for collaborative work. Real-time collaboration with comments, suggestions, and tracked changes? Word and Google Docs still dominate. When you need multiple stakeholders reviewing a document simultaneously, seeing exactly who changed what, and managing permissions across an organization, those tools are irreplaceable.

Markdown has version control through Git, sure. But that's a developer workflow. Most people aren't going to learn Git just to collaborate on a document.

But for individual knowledge work, technical documentation, analysis, and internal communication? Markdown is quietly winning.

Why I'm Confident

I'm making this prediction because I've watched it happen to myself. I didn't decide to switch to Markdown. I didn't evaluate alternatives. I didn't plan a migration.

I just started working differently. And Markdown became my default because it was there, it worked, and I had no reason to leave.

If that's happening to me, it's happening to thousands of others.

Screenshot this. We'll see.

Do you use Markdown? Did you choose it deliberately, or did you just... end up there?

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

What Would You Do If You Weren't Afraid?

Once upon a time, I walked down an alley and there was a litter bin. Gray, dirty, ugly, and a bit dented. Nothing to see there.

But it was a special bin.

It had a label on it that said: "What would you do, if you weren't afraid?"

It caught my attention. I'd never heard that before.

The Ultimate Stopper

What a powerful question.

I started wondering. Indeed, fear is the ultimate stopper for me. What if I did a thought experiment where I eliminated that factor? What if I could do everything, knowing there wouldn't be any fear?

Excellent question.

When to Use It

Once in a while, I ask myself this question, especially when I get stuck.

Not every day. Not as a mantra. Just when I notice resistance. When I'm avoiding something. When I'm making excuses. When I know what I should do but can't seem to start.

That's when this question cuts through everything else.

Try It Yourself

Ask yourself this question. See where it will get you.

You might be surprised by what comes up. Not because the answer is revolutionary, but because you already knew it. You just needed permission to admit it.

PS: Here was my answer back then. If I weren't afraid, I would open a pizza food truck for surfers on Canary Island.

What's yours?

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

I Stopped Using Stack Overflow. So Did Everyone Else.

I stopped using Stack Overflow. I recently noticed this. Before that, it was my primary point of contact. When I had a question about developing, and Google returned Stack Overflow in the results, I automatically headed there.

And then I stopped. I don't know when exactly. Probably when I discovered AI could answer my questions and the quality was at least good enough.

Was I the only one? I decided to check that.

Here's what I found.

The Data Tells a Story

I queried the Stack Overflow API for every month from August 2008 to December 2025. That's 18 years of data, covering the entire history of Stack Overflow.

The numbers tell a dramatic story.

Peak (March 2014): 207,258 questions per month December 2025: 4,470 questions per month

That's a 98% decline from the peak. But the decline didn't start immediately. Stack Overflow grew exponentially from 2008 until it peaked in 2016 at 2.1 million questions per year. Then it started declining.

Here's the complete history:

The Growth Years (2008-2016):

• 2008: 57,159 questions (4 months of operation)
• 2009: 340,305 questions (+495%)
• 2010: 688,587 questions (+102%)
• 2011: 1,180,358 questions (+71%)
• 2012: 1,613,093 questions (+37%)
• 2013: 2,018,896 questions (+25%)
• 2014: 2,117,461 questions (+5%)
• 2015: 2,179,745 questions (+3%)
• 2016: 2,187,227 questions (+0.3%) ← Peak year

The Plateau and Early Decline (2017-2022):

• 2017: 2,101,316 questions (-3.9%)
• 2018: 1,878,739 questions (-10.6%)
• 2019: 1,756,920 questions (-6.5%)
• 2020: 1,856,838 questions (+5.7%)
• 2021: 1,536,518 questions (-17.2%)
• 2022: 1,340,557 questions (-12.8%)

The Collapse (2023-2025):

• 2023: 792,293 questions (-40.9%)
• 2024: 401,603 questions (-49.3%)
• 2025: 130,099 questions (-67.6%)

When It Changed

Look at those year-over-year changes. Notice anything?

From 2009 to 2013, Stack Overflow grew by double digits every single year. Sometimes triple digits. It was unstoppable.

Then growth slowed. By 2017, it started declining modestly. 2020 even saw a brief uptick (+5.7%), possibly from pandemic-driven coding activity.

But 2020 to 2021: -17% decline. 2021 to 2022: -13% decline. People were still asking questions, just fewer.

Then 2023 hits. A 40.9% drop in a single year. Followed by 49.3% in 2024. Then 67.6% in 2025.

What happened in late 2022 that would cause this? ChatGPT launched on November 30, 2022.

The timing isn't a coincidence.

Looking at the full 18-year history, you can see four distinct eras:

• Growth Era (2008-2014): Average of 95,426 questions/month
• Peak Era (2015-2018): Average of 173,896 questions/month
• Decline Era (2019-2022): Average of 135,225 questions/month
• Collapse Era (2023-2025): Average of 36,777 questions/month

The most dramatic shift happened between the Decline and Collapse eras. Right when AI assistants became widely available.

What This Actually Means

Stack Overflow didn't become worse. The questions didn't disappear because developers stopped coding. They disappeared because developers stopped needing to ask them publicly.

When I hit a coding problem now, I don't:

1. Search Google
2. Click through to Stack Overflow
3. Read five different answers
4. Try them all until one works

I just ask Claude or ChatGPT. I get an answer immediately. It's specific to my exact problem. It explains why it works. And I can ask follow-up questions.

Why would I go back to Stack Overflow?

The Methodology Question

Before you ask: yes, I validated this data. I analyzed 24.1 million questions across 216 months (August 2008 - December 2025). I checked the API responses, tested multiple endpoints, and documented every limitation of this approach.

The Stack Overflow API's total field might not be perfectly accurate. It could be off by thousands. But it can't be off by millions. The trend is real.

If you want the full methodology breakdown with all the caveats about deleted questions, timezone handling, API limitations, and validation queries you can run yourself, I documented everything here.

What about you? When's the last time you asked a question on Stack Overflow? And if you stopped—did you notice when?

Data & Methodology

This analysis is based on 24,177,714 questions collected via the Stack Exchange API v2.3, covering 216 months from August 2008 through December 2025.

Key Findings:

• Peak month: March 2014 (207,258 questions)
• Peak year: 2016 (2,187,227 questions)
• Decline from peak to December 2025: 98%
• Most dramatic drop: 2023 (-40.9% year-over-year)

For complete methodology, data validation queries, limitations, and reproducibility details, see the full methodology document.

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

Don't Make Me Think About Your Email

Here's the message I got in my Imbox this morning. (I use "Imbox" since I use Hey as my email provider—more on that here).

What does it say? To be honest, nothing actionable or informative to me.

Here's What Happened

1. There's a fitness club chain called Zdrofit
2. I visited one of their locations a couple of times
3. I received this email:

Hey! With the start of the new year, we're sharing good news—starting January 7, we've extended opening hours at selected Zdrofit clubs! 🏋️‍♀️

New hours: 📅 Mon. – Fri.: 6:00 – 23:00 📅 Sat. – Sun.: 7:00 – 22:00

Not sure if this change applies to your club? Check the website or ask on-site. 📍

Well. It's not useful to me.

What They're Really Saying

"We're too lazy to check if this information is useful to you, so we're sending it anyway. You figure out if it's relevant. By the way, we don't care if you actually wanted this email or not."

That's not how you build trust. That's how you train people to ignore you.

The Three-Item Checklist They Ignored

Before you send any marketing email, check these three boxes:

1. Ask for Permission

First of all, I didn't give permission. I visited this gym occasionally, maybe three times total. When they set up an account for me, they didn't ask if they could stay in touch. All I wanted was to pay for a day pass and use their equipment.

Now they think they have the right to send me "informative" emails.

They don't.

No permission = No email.

2. Add Value

The email says: "We have gyms in our chain. Some of them may or may not have changed their operating hours."

What's in it for me? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

To make this useful, I'd have to:

• Visit their website
• Navigate to the club locator
• Find the specific location I went to
• Check if anything changed

That's four steps. Four steps to discover information they already know and could have just told me.

No value = No email.

3. Don't Make Me Think

This is the core problem. They sent information that requires me to investigate whether it's relevant.

That's backwards.

If you have my data—and you do, because I used your service—you should use it to make my life easier, not harder.

No simplicity = No email.

My Response

I opted out. Thanks to Hey's interface, it took one keyboard shortcut. Two clicks maximum.

Gone.

How It Could Have Been Done

If this email had followed the three rules, here's what it might have looked like:

Subject: Extended hours at Zdrofit [specific location name]

Hey [Name],

You've visited our [specific club location] in the past, and we wanted to let you know we've extended our hours starting January 7:

New hours: Mon. – Fri.: 6:00 – 23:00 Sat. – Sun.: 7:00 – 22:00 (Previously: Mon-Fri 7:00-22:00, Sat-Sun 8:00-21:00)

This means more flexibility for early morning or late evening workouts.

If you'd prefer not to receive updates like this, [click here to unsubscribe].

See you at the gym, [Actual person's name]

Notice what changed:

• Specific club location (I know this applies to me)
• Before/after comparison (I understand what changed)
• Why it matters (I know how it benefits me)
• Easy opt-out (I control the relationship)
• Personal sign-off (There's a human behind this)

That's an email worth reading.

If You're Responsible for Email Marketing

Here's your checklist. Print it. Tape it to your desk. Use it before you hit send.

Before You Send ANY Email:

1. Permission Check

• Did this person explicitly opt in to receive this type of message?
• Can they easily opt out?
• Would I be surprised to receive this if I were them?

2. Value Check

• Does this email solve a problem or provide useful information?
• Is the information specific and actionable?
• Would I personally find this worth reading?

3. Simplicity Check

• Is everything they need to know in this email?
• Does this require them to do extra work to understand?
• Could this be clearer or more direct?

If you can't check all three boxes, don't send the email.

The Books That Explain Why This Matters

If you work in marketing and haven't read these, start here:

• "Don't Make Me Think" by Steve Krug - About reducing cognitive load (applies to everything, not just websites)
• "Permission Marketing" by Seth Godin - About earning the right to communicate

Both books teach the same fundamental idea: respect people's time and attention.

When you fail to do that, they'll do exactly what I did.

They'll unsubscribe.

Have you received emails like this? What's your threshold for hitting "unsubscribe"?

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

2025: The Year Renewables Finally Beat Coal

Yale E360 just published a summary of 2025's clean energy milestones, and the numbers are remarkable.

The Headline

For the first time in history, wind and solar supplied more power globally than coal.

Read that again. Wind and solar beat coal.

This isn't a projection. It's not a goal. It happened.

The Numbers That Matter

Here's what else changed in 2025:

Energy Storage Got Cheaper Batteries are now 90% cheaper than they were a decade ago. This solves the biggest challenge with renewables: storing power when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

Electric Vehicles Hit Critical Mass Plug-in cars accounted for more than 25% of new car sales globally. In China alone, EVs made up over half of all new cars sold.

Renewables Met All New Demand Every bit of new power demand was met by wind and solar. Not some of it. All of it.

Economics Changed Wind and solar are now cheaper than coal and natural gas. The economics shifted, and the rest followed.

Why This Matters

This isn't just about clean energy. It's about momentum.

The journal Science named the rapid growth of clean energy its 2025 Breakthrough of the Year. When one of the world's most prestigious scientific publications calls something a breakthrough, it's worth paying attention.

These milestones happened quietly. No dramatic announcements. No global celebration. Just steady, compounding progress.

And they happened despite political resistance in places like the U.S., where federal support for clean energy was slashed during the Trump administration.

The transition isn't waiting for permission anymore. It's happening because it makes economic sense.

Read the Full Story

Yale E360's digest is short, well-researched, and packed with context I didn't cover here.

If you care about climate, energy, or just understanding what's actually happening in the world, read it.

Sometimes the most important shifts happen while we're looking elsewhere.

Sources:

• A Year of Clean Energy Milestones - Yale E360

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

We've Entered the Era of Creators 2.0

Twenty-something years ago, there was a promise: anyone can be a content creator. Share your ideas with the world.

And it happened. Blogs exploded. YouTube turned bedroom creators into celebrities. Social media made building an audience almost effortless. Podcasts gave everyone a radio show. Music streaming platforms launched stars from laptops.

The tools were accessible. The platforms were free. The opportunity was real.

But there was a catch.

The Price Was Time

Creating anything worthwhile took time. Massive amounts of time.

Want to make a video? Learn editing software, lighting, audio processing. Want to build an app? Spend months learning to code. Want to produce music? Master complex DAWs and music theory.

You had two options: pay someone with skills, or invest years developing those skills yourself.

That was Creators 1.0. The barrier to entry was low, but the barrier to competence was high.

Then I Watched My Kid Build a Game

My child sat down with zero coding experience. No tutorials. No courses. No Stack Overflow searches at 2 AM.

Just Claude, a browser, and a series of prompts.

Two hours later: a playable game. A mashup of Pacman and Minecraft that actually worked.

That's when it hit me. We're not heading toward something new.

We're already there. Welcome to Creators 2.0.

What Changed

The ceiling collapsed.

Anyone can now write a book. Build a game. Produce a video. Compose music. Design graphics. Create tools that once required entire teams.

The technical barrier—the years of learning, the complexity, the specialized knowledge—it's gone.

What matters now isn't whether you can create. It's what you choose to create and how well you can work with AI to bring it to life.

This Blog Is Proof

I'm not a developer. I can't code, apart from some basics.

But I wanted this blog. I wanted independence. Control. No platform dependencies.

So I spent time struggling with HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Astro, Git, deployment pipelines. Copying examples. Googling errors. Making it work without really understanding why.

It took time. Lots of it.

Now? I write. I focus on ideas. Claude Code handles the technical parts. I describe what I want, and it builds it.

The blog you're reading was built this way. The scheduled publishing system? AI. The automation? AI. Even this post? Written by me, but refined and improved through conversation with AI.

I still need to know what I want. I still need to have something to say. But the technical execution? That's no longer the bottleneck.

So What Happens Next?

When everyone can create anything, what becomes valuable?

Not the ability to create—that's commoditized now.

Maybe it's knowing what to create. Or why you're creating it. Or having something worth saying in the first place.

The barrier to making something has collapsed.

But the barrier to making something that matters? That's still as high as ever.

And maybe that's exactly as it should be.

What do you think changes when everyone can create? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

I Built a Digital Version of My Favorite 5-Year Journal

I'm a big fan of two things: Notesnook for private, encrypted note-taking, and the Hobonichi 5-Year Techo—a brilliant paper journal where you see the same date across five years on one page.

The problem? I wanted both. I wanted the format of the Hobonichi, but in Notesnook.

So I built it.

What Is the Hobonichi 5-Year Book?

If you've never seen a Hobonichi 5-Year Techo, here's the concept:

Each page shows one date across five consecutive years. January 1st has five rows—one for each year. You write a brief entry for that day, and next year, when you open to January 1st again, you see what you wrote last year. And the year before. And the year before that.

It's a simple idea that creates something powerful: you can see your life in patterns.

You notice how you felt on your birthday across multiple years. You see seasonal patterns in your mood. You track changes in what matters to you.

It's not just a journal. It's a time machine.

Why Digital?

I love paper journals. But I also love:

• Searchability: finding what I wrote about something specific
• Backup: never losing years of entries
• Privacy: encrypted, synced across devices
• Accessibility: writing from anywhere without carrying a physical book

Notesnook gives me all of that. But there was no 5-year journal template for it.

So I created one.

How It Works

I wrote a Python script that generates a complete 5-year journal as a single markdown file.

The file includes:

• 366 daily entries (including Feb 29 for leap years)
• Each date shows five years with space to write
• Automatic day-of-week calculation for every year
• A memo section for each day
• Bonus sections: yearly overview, lists, favorite things tracker, gift log, personal notes

You import it into Notesnook, and you have a complete 5-year journal ready to use.

The Structure

Each day looks like this:

### January 1

**2026** (Wednesday)

[Your writing space]

**2027** (Friday)

[Your writing space]

... (continues for all 5 years)

**Memo**

[Extra notes for this date]

Simple. Clean. Functional.

Why I Made This

Because I wanted it. And if I wanted it, maybe someone else does too.

The Hobonichi 5-Year book costs around $40–50, and you have to buy a new one when it's full. This digital version is free, customizable, and lasts forever.

You can generate it for any 5-year period. Starting in 2025? Done. Want 2030–2034? Easy. The script handles it.

And because it's just a markdown file, it works with Notesnook, Obsidian, or any markdown-compatible app.

How You Can Use It

Two options:

Option 1: Use the pre-generated file

1. Download the 2026-2030 journal file
2. Import it into Notesnook (Settings → Notesnook Importer)
3. Start writing

Option 2: Generate your own

1. Download the Python script from the repository
2. Run it with your preferred start year
3. Import the generated file into your app

That's it.

What I Learned

Building this took about an hour. But the process taught me something valuable:

If you want a tool that doesn't exist, you can build it.

I didn't need to wait for someone else to create a digital Hobonichi template. I didn't need to compromise with half-solutions. I just made exactly what I wanted.

Here's the honest part: I created this entire project using Claude Code through a series of prompts. I described what I wanted, asked for adjustments when something wasn't quite right, and Claude Code handled the Python scripting, file generation, documentation, and even the Git repository setup.

I didn't write the code myself. I didn't need to. I just needed to know what problem I was solving and communicate it clearly.

The script handles leap years, calculates days of the week for every date, and generates 69,000 characters of structured markdown automatically. Once it was done, I had a tool I'll use for the next five years.

The Repository

I made this open source under the MIT License. That means you can:

• Use it for free
• Modify it however you want
• Share it with others
• Generate journals for any year range
• Adapt it for other apps

Everything you need is in the GitHub repository:

• The Python script
• A pre-generated 2026-2030 journal
• Full documentation
• Development log (if you're curious about the process)

Try It For Yourself

If you're a Notesnook user, or if you use any markdown app, this might be exactly what you've been looking for.

If you love the idea of seeing your life across multiple years on one page, this gives you that—with all the benefits of digital note-taking.

And if you've ever wished a tool existed but couldn't find it, maybe this will inspire you to build it yourself.

Using Notesnook or another markdown app? I'd love to hear how this works for you.

Resources:

• Hobonichi Digital Journal - GitHub Repository
• Notesnook - Private Note-Taking
• Hobonichi 5-Year Techo Official

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

They Say They Care About the Planet. Their Actions Tell a Different Story

I'm tired of companies bragging about their eco-friendly approaches when their actions tell a completely different story.

It's called greenwashing—the practice of making misleading claims about environmental benefits while continuing harmful practices. And once you start noticing it, you see it everywhere.

The Grocery Store Email

Every time I order from my online grocery store, I get the same message:

"We care about the environment and limit printing, so we sent your order summary to your email. Thanks for shopping with us!"

Great. They saved one piece of paper.

Meanwhile, they still haven't figured out how to offer long-time customers the option to use reusable crates instead of forcing us to buy new paper or plastic bags for packaging every single order.

One email doesn't offset generating bags of waste with every delivery.

The Recycled Plastic Bottle

Walk down the water aisle in any store. You'll see bottles proudly labeled "Made from 100% recycled plastic!"

What they don't mention: plastic can't be recycled forever. Each time it's recycled, the quality degrades. Most plastic can only be recycled a handful of times before it ends up in a landfill anyway.

Instead of being honest—or better yet, promoting truly sustainable options like "Refill this bottle with tap water" or "Next time, use tap water instead"—they slap a green label on it and call it a win for the planet.

It's not. It's greenwashing.

The Low-Fare Airline

Budget airlines love to encourage passengers to dispose of their trash when leaving the plane. They'll remind you multiple times during the flight. They'll thank you for helping keep the cabin clean.

Meanwhile, those same airlines sell food and drinks packaged in single-use plastic bags, bottles, and containers.

And after you've carefully thrown away your plastic cup? The crew collects dozens of enormous plastic bags filled with disposable items. The environmental impact is massive—they've just outsourced the guilt to you.

Why This Matters

Greenwashing isn't just annoying. It's actively harmful.

It lets companies appear environmentally responsible without making real changes. It misleads consumers who genuinely want to make sustainable choices. And it shifts the burden of environmental responsibility from corporations to individuals—while those corporations continue business as usual.

How to Spot Greenwashing

The Carbon Almanac and Good Good Good offer great guides, but here are some quick red flags:

• Vague claims like "eco-friendly" or "natural" without specifics
• Hidden trade-offs: promoting one green feature while ignoring larger environmental harms
• No proof: making claims without certifications or third-party verification
• Irrelevant claims: highlighting something that's already legally required
• Green imagery: using nature photos and green colors to create an eco-friendly impression

What Can You Do?

Ask questions. Demand transparency. Support companies that back up their environmental claims with concrete actions and data.

And most importantly: don't let a green label fool you into thinking the problem is solved.

Real environmental responsibility requires systemic change, not just better marketing.

Have you noticed other examples of greenwashing? I'd love to hear about them. Share your examples on Hacker News.

Sources:

• How to Spot Greenwashing | Good Good Good
• Tips for Noticing Greenwashing | The Carbon Almanac

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

Charts That Show the Story and Prove It

Every Thursday morning, I get an email with one chart. Sometimes it's a map. Sometimes it's a table. But it's always the same thing: a visualization that shows the story and backs it up with data.

This is Datawrapper's Weekly Chart, and it's one of the few things I consistently read.

What Makes These Charts Different

Most charts I see online are decoration. They're there to make an article look professional or to fill space between paragraphs.

Datawrapper's Weekly Charts are the opposite. The chart IS the story.

One week, they showed English proficiency levels across European countries. The pattern jumped out immediately—you didn't need to read paragraphs of analysis to understand what was happening.

Another week, they demonstrated how to visualize different time scales—years, months, days, and hours—in a single chart. The data was complex, but the chart made it crystal clear.

The charts don't just claim something is true. They show you why it's true. The evidence is right there in the visualization.

Why This Matters

I realized something after reading these charts for a while: I'd been making claims without evidence my entire life.

"Traffic is getting worse." "Winters are warmer than they used to be." "This restaurant's quality declined."

How did I know? I didn't. I just felt it.

These weekly charts remind me that feelings aren't facts. Every Thursday, I see someone who actually gathered data, analyzed it, and presented it clearly. No guessing. No opinions. Just evidence.

And that evidence tells a story far more convincing than any opinion piece could.

What You Actually Get

When you subscribe to Weekly Charts:

• One visualization every Thursday—a chart, map, or table
• Real data from the Datawrapper team's research
• Clear presentation where the pattern is impossible to miss
• The story shown visually, not buried in text

It's been running for years. They've published over 300 weekly charts. That's over 300 examples of how to present information so clearly that the truth becomes obvious.

The Lesson I Took Away

These charts changed how I think about making claims.

Now, when I catch myself saying "it seems like..." or "I feel like..." I stop. Do I have evidence? Or am I just trusting my biased memory?

Just like I discovered with my weather perception—I was absolutely certain 2025 was cloudier than usual. The data proved I was completely wrong.

The Weekly Charts are a weekly reminder: you can show your work. You can find data. You can present it clearly. And when you do, you create something far more valuable than another hot take.

Try It For Yourself

If you're interested in seeing what evidence actually looks like when it's presented well, subscribe to Datawrapper's Weekly Chart.

One email every Thursday. One visualization. No noise.

Just charts that show the story and prove it.

Subscribe to Weekly Charts

Sources:

• Weekly Charts | Datawrapper Blog
• This is the 300th Weekly Chart | Datawrapper Blog

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

One Page That Shows My Current Priorities

I have a /now page on this blog. It's a simple idea that more people should know about.

The idea is simple: a single page that answers the question "What are you focused on right now?" Not what you did in the past. Not your entire life story. Just what's consuming your time and attention at this moment.

Where This Came From

The concept was created by Derek Sivers in 2015. He wanted a way to tell people what he was currently working on without having to repeat himself in emails and conversations.

The idea caught on. Today, thousands of websites have /now pages. There's even a directory at nownownow.com where people share theirs.

Why It's Different From an About Page

An about page is static. It tells your story, your background, your general interests. It rarely changes.

A now page is dynamic. It changes as your priorities shift. Mine has been updated dozens of times since I created it.

When I look at someone's website, I check their /now page before their about page. The about page tells me who they were. The now page tells me who they are.

What Goes On a Now Page

Derek Sivers suggests three simple questions:

• What are you focused on?
• Where are you?
• What are you reading?

That's it. No need to overthink it.

My /now page includes:

• Where I'm based (Wrocław, Poland)
• What I'm working on (my job, side projects, current interests)
• What I'm reading (with strikethroughs for finished books)

It's not polished. It's not comprehensive. It's honest.

The Real Value: Accountability

Here's what I didn't expect: maintaining a /now page keeps me honest with myself.

When I update it, I'm forced to confront what's actually consuming my time versus what I wish was consuming my time. If something has been on my now page for months without progress, that's a signal.

It's like a public commitment device. When I write "I'm working on X," I have to ask myself: am I really? Or is that just something I tell myself I'm doing?

How to Create Your Own

1. Create a page at yourdomain.com/now
2. Answer: What are you focused on right now?
3. Update it whenever your priorities change (monthly is a good rhythm)
4. That's it.

No fancy design needed. No perfect prose required. Just clarity about what matters to you today.

If you want to join the movement, add your now page to the directory at nownownow.com/submit.

Start With This Question

If someone asks "What are you up to these days?" and you had to answer in under 100 words, what would you say?

That's your now page.

The rest is just keeping it updated.

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

I Thought 2025 Was Cloudy. 26 Years of Data Proved Me Wrong

It was a gloomy December day of 2025 when the thought hit me: "I feel like 2025 was cloudier than usual. I barely saw the sun all year."

The feeling was so strong that I decided to prove it. I downloaded 26 years of hourly cloud cover data for Wrocław, Poland—227,928 measurements spanning from 2000 to 2025.

Spoiler: The data had other plans.

What the Numbers Said

When I ran the analysis, my jaw dropped. The year I was certain was exceptionally cloudy turned out to be one of the sunniest on record:

• Average cloud cover: 61.1% (vs. historical average of 65.2%)
• Clear sky hours: 33.0% (vs. historical average of 24.7%)
• Ranking: #25 out of 27 years in cloudiness

Only 2 years since 2000 were sunnier than 2025.

Let that sink in. The year I was absolutely certain was gloomy was actually one of the brightest in over two decades.

Why My Brain Lied to Me

The answer came from the monthly breakdown. October 2025 was indeed cloudier than usual—about 4.3% above average. Since I formed my opinion in late December, those recent cloudy autumn days dominated my memory of the entire year.

Meanwhile, August 2025 was spectacularly sunny with only 43.7% cloud cover (compared to the historical average of 56.1%). But I'd already forgotten about it.

That's recency bias in action. Recent experiences weigh disproportionately heavy in our memory, drowning out everything that came before.

The Broader Lesson

Our feelings are terrible statisticians.

How often do we confidently assert things like:

• "Traffic is getting worse every year"
• "Winters aren't as cold as when I was a kid"
• "This restaurant's quality has declined"

Without data, we're just trusting our flawed, biased brains to accurately aggregate hundreds of experiences over months or years. We're not built for that.

We're systematically biased by:

• Recent experiences (recency bias)
• Memorable dramatic events (availability heuristic)
• Negative experiences (negativity bias)
• Our current emotional state (mood-congruent memory)

The Bottom Line

Yes, I miss the sun. But 2025 gave me plenty of it—I was just looking the other way.

Next time you catch yourself thinking "this year was unusually [something]," challenge yourself to gather data. You might be surprised by what you find.

So here's my question: What perception are you holding onto without evidence? What feeling seems so obviously true that you haven't bothered to check?

The data might surprise you.

Discussion: This post is being discussed on Hacker News.

Further Reading

If you're fascinated by how our minds deceive us, these books dive deep into cognitive biases:

• "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman - The classic exploration of how our two thinking systems lead us astray
• "Misbelief" by Dan Ariely - A fresh look at why we believe things that aren't true and how misinformation spreads

Want to check your own weather perceptions? Download the data fetching script and analysis script to replicate this for any city using the free Open-Meteo Historical Weather API.

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

I Stopped Reading News. This Weekly Email Is Better.

This is an email I read every week. Because of it, I know what has been happening in the world. The idea is beautifully simple: a digest of the most-edited Wikipedia articles and discussions from the last week, sent every Friday.

No algorithms trying to keep me engaged. No clickbait headlines. No doom-scrolling. Just what thousands of Wikipedia editors collectively decided was worth documenting and debating this week.

How It Works

Every Friday, Hatnote's Weekly arrives in my inbox. It shows me which Wikipedia articles got the most edits and which talk page discussions were the most active.

Here's an example from December 26, 2025. Thanks to the email, I knew it was worth checking the topics of Trump-class battleship, Chris Rea, and Avatar - they seemed to be on fire that week.

The beauty is in what it reveals: these are the topics that enough people cared about to research, write, edit, and debate. Not what an algorithm thinks will keep me clicking. Not what advertisers paid to promote. Just genuine collective attention.

Why This Works Better Than News

Traditional news has a problem: it optimizes for engagement, not information. Headlines are designed to provoke emotion. Articles are structured to keep you reading. The entire system is built around holding your attention as long as possible.

Wikipedia editors have different incentives. They're trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. When thousands of them swarm to edit the same article in a single week, it means something genuinely significant is happening or has happened.

The weekly digest gives me context without the noise. I can see what topics are trending in human knowledge without the anxiety that comes with constant news updates.

What I Actually Do With It

I don't read every article mentioned. That's not the point.

I scan the list. If something catches my eye, I explore it. If not, I know what topics people are discussing, and that's enough. The awareness alone is valuable.

Sometimes I discover fascinating rabbit holes I'd never have found otherwise. A historical battleship. A musician I'd never heard of. An ongoing debate about a film franchise. Each one is a doorway to learning something new.

The Real Value

This isn't about staying "informed" in the traditional sense. It's about having a lightweight, low-stress way to maintain awareness of what's capturing collective attention.

One email. One Friday. No push notifications. No endless scroll. No anxiety.

If you're tired of news but don't want to be completely disconnected, try it: https://weekly.hatnote.com/

Sometimes the best way to know what's happening is to see what people think is worth writing about.

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.

Would You Still Celebrate If It Wasn't a Day Off?

I'm wondering how many people would actually celebrate New Year's Eve / New Year's Day if they could choose to have their day off on New Year's Day or take it whenever they want.

The same question goes for other public holidays: Christmas, Passover, Independence Day, and more.

The Religious Holiday Test

Let's take into consideration religious holidays. Are these the days I truly value because I celebrate what they represent? Or do I celebrate them (probably in a different way) just because I have the days off?

Would I participate in a family gathering every year on December 25 if it weren't a day off?

This isn't about criticizing anyone's faith or traditions. It's about understanding our own motivations. Do we gather because the day has meaning, or because everyone else is off work too?

The National Days Question

How about all the National Days? Watching the parade or the fireworks—is it something genuinely interesting to me, or do I just do it because I have a day off and everyone else does it?

If Independence Day celebrations happened on a random Wednesday, and you had to take vacation time for it, would you? Or would you save that day for something else?

What This Reveals

This thought experiment reveals something uncomfortable: many of us might be celebrating the time off more than the occasion itself.

And that's okay. But it's worth knowing the difference.

Because if we're honest about what we value, we might make different choices. Maybe we'd skip the obligatory family gathering that drains us, and use that precious day off for something we actually want to do. Maybe we'd realize some traditions matter deeply to us, regardless of the calendar.

The Real Question

The question isn't whether holidays should be mandatory days off. They probably should be - shared cultural moments have value.

The real question is: what would you do with complete freedom to choose?

The answer tells you what you truly value.

Discussion: This post is being discussed on Hacker News.

Thanks for reading this post via RSS! Let me know your thoughts by sending me an email.