Categories
Business History Memories Radio

Permissionless Airwaves: The Legacy of FCC Part 15

Right now, as you read this, the air around you is thick with invisible conversations. Your phone is whispering to your router, your wireless headphones are singing to your laptop, and the smartwatch on your wrist is syncing quietly in the background.

We take this symphonic digital ecosystem completely for granted. But this panoply of wireless magic wasn’t just an inevitable product of technological march. It exists because of a profound, remarkably philosophical decision made by a bureaucracy in 1985.

It traces back to a seemingly mundane piece of regulatory code: the Federal Communications Commission’s Part 15 rules.

Historically, the airwaves were treated like highly exclusive real estate. If you wanted to broadcast a signal, you needed a license, a specific frequency, and a strict, government-approved mandate for what you were doing.

But within the radio spectrum, there were segments known as the ISM bands (Industrial, Scientific, and Medical). These were essentially the “garbage bands” of the airwaves. Microwave ovens, for instance, operated here, blasting out radio noise at 2.4 GHz. The interference was so heavy that the spectrum was considered practically useless for traditional communications.

Enter an FCC engineer named Michael Marcus. Marcus possessed a visionary understanding of a World War II-era technology called “spread spectrum” (famously co-invented by actress Hedy Lamarr). Spread spectrum didn’t rely on a single, clean channel; instead, it scattered a signal across a wide swath of frequencies, easily dodging interference.

Marcus argued for something radical: what if we opened up these “junk” bands to the public, allowing anyone to use spread-spectrum devices without asking for a license, so long as they adhered to basic power limits and didn’t cause harmful interference to primary users?

Incumbents fought it bitterly. Broadcasters and traditional telecommunications companies warned of absolute chaos. But in 1985, the FCC adopted the new Part 15 rules.

“We often talk about the great technological breakthroughs of our time as hardware or software triumphs. But sometimes, the most important enabling technology is just a clearing in the woods.”

Think about the nature of most regulation. It usually prescribes behavior. It looks at the future and says, “You may do exactly X, under condition Y.” But the Part 15 ruling did the opposite. It created a sandbox. The FCC didn’t try to predict Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cordless phones, baby monitors, or the Internet of Things. In fact, they couldn’t have. They simply set the structural ground rules for how devices should coexist without stepping on each other’s toes, and then they stepped back.

This is the beauty of permissionless innovation. When you don’t have to ask a gatekeeper for access, a massive, uncoordinated burst of creativity happens.

A small company in the Netherlands could start working on what would eventually become Wi-Fi. Ericsson could invent Bluetooth. Innovators didn’t need to petition the government to launch a new product; the space was already cleared for them to play.

Part 15 was an admission of humility by a regulatory body—an acknowledgment that the most profound inventions are the ones we cannot yet foresee.

The greatest legacy of Part 15 isn’t Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. It is the enduring lesson that when you give brilliant minds a blank canvas and the freedom to experiment without asking permission, they will build a world more connected than you ever dared to imagine.

Note: this post was triggered by my reading of David Pogue’s new book Apple: The First 50 Years in which he describes the development of the Apple III and how its design met the requirements of the FCC’s Part 15 in terms of reduced RF interference.

Categories
Aging Living

The Architecture of Autumn

We have long been told that time is a thief, a silent prowler that robs us of our vitality and leaves us with the husks of our former selves. We track its progress in the mirror, in the softening of a jawline or the deepening of a crease.

But recent insights into the relationship between the mind and our biological “clocks” suggest a more haunting possibility: time isn’t just stealing from us; we are handing it over.

New research into epigenetic aging—the cellular measurement of how “old” our bodies truly are—reveals that those who harbor deep anxiety about aging actually age faster.

Specifically, the fear of declining health acts as a catalyst, accelerating the very decay we dread.

“Fears about declining health had the strongest link [to faster biological aging], while concerns about beauty or fertility didn’t appear to have the same biological impact.”

It seems the body is a faithful servant to the mind’s expectations.

If we view the later chapters of life as a slow-motion catastrophe, our cells begin to prepare for the wreckage. This creates a tragic feedback loop: we worry because we see signs of age, and our worry ensures those signs arrive with greater velocity.

In my own reflections, I’ve begun to think of aging not as a process of depletion, but as one of distillation. In our youth, we are a broad, shallow lake—vast, shimmering, and scattered. As we age, the borders close in, but the depth increases. The water becomes clearer, the essence more potent.

If we can shift our internal gaze away from what is being lost and toward what is being concentrated, perhaps we can quiet the ticking.

To age well is not to fight the clock, but to stop treating the passage of time as an indictment.

We are not just growing old; we are becoming more of who we were meant to be.

The architecture of autumn is not one of collapse, but of a different, more golden kind of light.

Categories
Economics Energy History

Hoarding and Recession

While listening this afternoon to the latest edition of the Goodfellows podcast from the Hoover Institution I was reminded that I had been wanting to better understand the effects of hoarding behavior aggravating a situation such as the current conflict in the Middle East.

Wanting to explore this further I asked Grok the following: 

I’m listening to this discussion about recessions: https://youtu.be/UIB-fCsXzgs?si=L5kXmubqZOtcKnsz

Something I’ve wondered about in the present moment with the Iran situation is the effect of hoarding. 

What insights can you provide?

Here’s the response which I found very interesting:

Hoarding in the Iran Crisis: A Classic Shock Amplifier That Echoes the Podcast’s “Locusts and Pirates” Warning

You’re listening to exactly the right conversation. The Hoover Institution episode (just dropped today, March 25, 2026) with Tyler Goodspeed, Neil Ferguson, John Cochrane, and H.R. McMaster frames recessions as unpredictable “murders” by external shocks—locust plagues, pirate raids on shipping, coal strikes, or oil embargoes—rather than economies “dying of old age.”

The panel explicitly flags the ongoing Iran war as a live example: a potential energy shock via the Strait of Hormuz that could replay 1970s-style pain, especially if prolonged.

Hoarding is the behavioral multiplier they reference from history (panic coal buying in past shortages, 2020 toilet-paper runs), and right now it’s playing out in real time with the Iran situation.

Here’s a clear-eyed breakdown of its economic mechanics and recession implications.

The Current Iran Shock (as of March 25, 2026)

Since late February, U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran (including the assassination of Supreme Leader Khamenei and hits on oil infrastructure) triggered Iranian retaliation: closure of the Strait of Hormuz, attacks on tankers, and disruption of ~20% of global seaborne oil and LNG. Oil prices spiked above $100/barrel (Brent briefly hit $120 in early March before partial pullback), European gas doubled in spots, and shipping has largely halted. The war is not over—Trump has signaled possible diplomacy, but Iran denies talks and continues missile activity—leaving markets in a state of fragile “wait-and-see” with elevated volatility.

This is precisely the kind of supply-side “Captain Hook” shock Goodspeed describes: physical disruption (not just fear) that raises input costs economy-wide.

How Hoarding Enters the Picture—and Why It Matters More Than People Realize

Hoarding here operates on three levels: national governments, corporations/refiners, and households. It’s rational self-protection in uncertainty, but collectively it turns a manageable disruption into a self-reinforcing spiral.

  • National-level hoarding (the big one right now): Asian importers (India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Philippines, Nepal, Pakistan) are already redirecting fuel from industry to households, imposing work-from-home orders, rationing cooking gas/LPG, shortening workweeks, and stationing troops at depots to prevent private hoarding. China—smartly—had pre-stocked ~1.4 billion barrels of crude before the war and is still buying aggressively. The result? A “mother of all bidding wars” for remaining supply, as one analyst put it. Even the U.S. and allies face pressure not to release Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) too quickly, because everyone else is scrambling. IEA has ordered record releases, but if countries hoard reserves instead of sharing, global tightness worsens.
  • Corporate and trader hoarding: Refiners and traders are filling tanks wherever possible. Storage in the Gulf is hitting capacity, forcing producers to cut output (a real supply loss, not just transport). This adds non-fundamental demand and delays the normal market rebalancing.
  • Household panic buying: So far limited in the U.S./Europe (no widespread gas-line scenes yet), but it shows up as higher gasoline demand in Asia and could spread if prices keep climbing. The podcast’s historical note on 20th-century coal hoarding (“a woman begging for extra deliveries”) is spot-on for how this cascades.

The Recession Feedback Loop: Hoarding as an Accelerator

Here’s where it ties directly to the episode’s thesis:

  1. Price spike + inflation pass-through → Oil at $100+ for weeks/months fans headline inflation (0.4–1% globally per IMF models if sustained). Central banks face a dilemma: hike rates (worsening slowdown) or hold (letting inflation embed). The podcast notes 1970s price controls and windfall taxes amplified this exact dynamic.
  2. Demand destruction via higher costs → Households and businesses cut discretionary spending (travel, manufacturing, retail). Asian emerging markets—already rationing—are seeing this hit hardest and fastest. In the U.S., Goldman Sachs just raised recession odds to 25% citing the oil upside risk on top of softer jobs/retail data.
  3. Financial and confidence channel → Bidding wars drain liquidity, raise borrowing costs, and erode business investment. The episode highlights how supply shocks often trigger internal monetary drains (banks pull back lending) and equity drops—exactly what we’re seeing in modest S&P pullbacks and VIX spikes.
  4. Duration matters (the “prolonged” risk) → Short war = modest 10–30¢/gallon gas bump, limited recession odds. Prolonged Hormuz closure = guaranteed global recession via hoarding-driven tightness, per multiple analysts. Storage refill demand (U.S. SPR alone needs ~450 million barrels) adds extra buying pressure even after fighting stops.

Goodspeed’s optimism—that modern economies are more diversified and expansions last longer—still holds, but only if policymakers avoid 1970s mistakes (controls, hoarding of reserves). Strategic releases and diplomacy can short-circuit the hoarding spiral.

Bottom line: Hoarding isn’t the root cause (the Strait closure is), but it’s the behavioral “locust swarm” that turns a geopolitical event into a broader economic shock.

The podcast is prescient here—watch how SPR policy and Asian rationing play out in the next 2–4 weeks. If the war de-escalates quickly, hoarding fades and the recession scare passes.

If not, we’re living the exact multi-causal downturn the panel is warning about.

Categories
Authors

Tracy Kidder and the Human Code

Tracy Kidder died yesterday, March 24th, of lung cancer. He was 80.

I’ve been sitting with that quiet, heavy fact for a few hours now, staring at the screen, thinking about what his work meant to me—and specifically, about the enduring legacy of The Soul of a New Machine.

On its surface, the book is a chronicle of a team of engineers and coders at Data General Corporation, racing against the clock in the early 1980s to build a 32-bit minicomputer. If you haven’t read it, that description likely sounds like the synopsis for a dry technical manual. It is, gloriously, anything but.

What Kidder did—what hit me with such force when I first turned those pages—was capture the raw, unvarnished pulse of human obsession. He didn’t just document the architecture of a machine; he mapped the architecture of the minds building it. He translated the late-night pizza runs, the bloodshot eyes, the tribal hierarchies of the engineering floor, and the strange, almost religious fervor that overtakes people when they are creating something they profoundly believe in.

He called it:

“An adventure story, a kind of cultural anthropology.”

That is exactly right.

He ventured into a world most journalists would have fumbled or fundamentally misunderstood.

The early computer industry was hyper-technical, fiercely insular, full of impenetrable jargon, and populated by brilliant minds who regarded outsiders with a polite, if dismissive, suspicion.

But Kidder didn’t blink. He embedded himself. His deep reporting and novelistic prose illuminated the basement labs of tech just as deftly as he later illuminated home construction and global disease prevention. He held a fundamental trust that the human drama playing out inside the sterile machine room was worth finding. And he found it.

Reading Soul as someone who has spent years orbiting technology, I continually find myself marveling at a different kind of engineering: how does a writer actually do this? How do you make the arcane feel intimate?

As one reviewer aptly noted at the time, “Kidder makes the telling seem absolutely effortless.” Which is, of course, the ultimate tell. Effortless prose is always the product of staggering effort.

A friend once said of his process:

“Tracy throws up on the page and cleans up afterward. He was absolutely indefatigable in the writing.”

That immense labor shows—not as the sweat of a struggling author, but as the pure clarity of a master.

What the book quietly teaches, if you’re paying attention, is a profound lesson about the nature of craft itself.

Those Data General engineers weren’t just building a minicomputer. They were building an identity, a tribe, a shared sense of purpose. They were transferring a piece of themselves into the silicon and wire. Kidder understood this alchemy. He highlighted people who had mastered their realms, elevating them into characters whose struggles rang true because they were anchored by staggering amounts of research. He believed—and subsequently proved to the world—that ordinary people doing terribly difficult things in obscure rooms were worthy of the full weight of literary attention.

That was his extraordinary gift. And it is far rarer than it sounds.

The honors and brisk sales from the book vaulted Kidder into the top ranks of American nonfiction writers. But his true legacy lives in the narrative talents he inspired. I suspect a vast number of people who went on to write serious, empathetic nonfiction about technology read Soul at some formative moment and thought: This is how it should be done. I know I was one of them.

He will be deeply missed. But the book remains, waiting on the shelf. If you haven’t read it, today feels like exactly the right day to start.

Categories
Aging Financial Planning Living Taxes

Borrowing from Tomorrow: The Paradox of the Modern 401(k)

A retirement account is, at its core, a financial time machine. It is a profound act of optimism and delayed gratification, a quiet promise made by our present selves to ensure the security of our future selves.

We lock away a portion of our labor today, trusting that time and compounding interest will nurture it into a safety net for tomorrow.

But what happens when tomorrow’s safety net becomes today’s desperate lifeline?

According to a recent piece by Anne Tergesen in the Wall Street Journal, reviewing Vanguard’s “How America Saves 2026” report, we are currently living through a profound financial paradox. On one hand, the machinery of wealth building is working better than ever. The average 401(k) balance rose 13% in 2025 to a record $167,970. Thanks to automatic enrollment—which now encompasses 61% of plans—more people are participating and escalating their contributions than at any point in history.

Yet, hidden beneath these soaring averages is a quiet, parallel crisis.

In 2025, a record 6% of workers in Vanguard-administered plans took a hardship withdrawal. This is roughly double the pre-pandemic average. We are witnessing the stark reality of a “K-shaped” economy in real-time: a broad swath of the population is riding the upward arm of the “K” into financial security, while a growing minority is sliding down the bottom arm, facing acute financial stress.

The most telling, and perhaps the most heartbreaking, statistic in the report is the median withdrawal amount: just $1,900.

These are not individuals cashing out their life savings to fund frivolous luxuries. A $1,900 hardship withdrawal—subject to income taxes and a brutal 10% early-withdrawal penalty for those under 59½—is an act of absolute necessity. It is the exact cost of avoiding an eviction notice. It is the price of keeping the lights on, of covering a sudden medical expense, or of preventing a cascade of debt from pulling a family under. It is the cost of survival.

Recent policy changes have fundamentally altered the psychology and accessibility of the 401(k). The removal of the requirement to take a loan first, combined with new exemptions for domestic abuse victims, disaster relief, and penalty-free emergency withdrawals, has transformed the traditional retirement lockbox into a de facto checking account for emergencies.

From a purely mathematical standpoint, raiding a retirement account is a tragedy of lost potential. It interrupts the magic of compound growth and cannibalizes the future to feed the present. But from a human standpoint, it is difficult to judge. How can we ask someone to prioritize their 65-year-old self when their 35-year-old self is facing foreclosure?

David Stinnett of Vanguard offers a vital, empathetic reframe of this data. Because of automatic enrollment, he notes, “People are saving more, remaining invested, and being automatically rebalanced in a professional way.” This systemic forced-savings mechanism has created a financial cushion for millions of people who previously had none. Yes, it is heartbreaking that they are forced to use it. But the silver lining is that the money is actually there to be used.

This trend forces us to ask deep, philosophical questions about the modern American economy. If our total savings look so strong on paper, yet so many must still routinely puncture their life rafts just to stay afloat, what does that say about the cost of living, housing, and healthcare?

A 401(k) was designed to be a bridge to a peaceful retirement. Today, for an increasing number of Americans, it is the only bridge across the turbulent waters of the present. As we celebrate record-high balances, we must not look away from the $1,900 lifelines being thrown out every day.

The future is only guaranteed for those who can afford to survive the present.

Categories
History Living Telephones

The Coiled Tether

Do you remember the physical weight of a conversation? It lived in the coiled, plastic spring of a landline telephone cord. We would stretch it across the kitchen, pacing over linoleum floors, the coil twisting around our fingers as we talked into the evening.

That cord was a literal tether. It confined us to a specific radius, but in doing so, it anchored us to the present moment. When you were on the phone, you were nowhere else. You were anchored to the wall, and by extension, to the person on the other end of the line.

There was also the sheer tactile satisfaction of the device itself—the heavy, contoured plastic of the receiver that fit perfectly between shoulder and ear, and the definitive, emphatic slam of hanging up on someone, a punctuation mark that the gentle tap of a touchscreen will never quite replicate.

Then came the subtle, sharp click on the line. Call waiting.

“We traded deep, uninterrupted connection for the anxiety of possibility.”

It was our first taste of modern conversational fragmentation.

Before call waiting, a busy signal was a polite “do not disturb” sign hung on the door of an ongoing dialogue. It meant you were occupied, engaged, entirely spoken for.

The click changed everything. It introduced a sudden, silent geometry to our relationships. When that secondary tone sounded, you were forced into a split-second hierarchy: do I stay with the person I am talking to, or do I chase the mystery of the unknown caller? The phrase, “Can you hold for a second?” became a small, culturally accepted betrayal of the present moment.

We traded deep, uninterrupted connection for the anxiety of possibility.

Eventually, the mystery of the ringing phone was solved altogether by a small, rectangular box with a glowing LCD screen: Caller ID.

For decades, a ringing phone was an invitation to a blind date. You picked up the receiver with a mix of anticipation and vulnerability. It could be a best friend, a wrong number, a telemarketer, or the person you’d been hoping would call all week. You answered with a universal greeting—a neutral, expectant “Hello?”—because you had no idea who was stepping into your home through the wire.

Caller ID gave us the power of the gatekeeper. It allowed us to screen, to prepare, to decide if we had the emotional bandwidth for the name flashing in digital text. We gained control, but we lost serendipity. We lost the unfiltered, genuine surprise of hearing a familiar voice when we least expected it. We stopped opening the door blindly and started looking through the peephole.

Today, we are entirely untethered. There are no coiled cords tying us to the kitchen wall. We carry our communication in our pockets, capable of ignoring texts, sending calls to voicemail, and managing our availability with unprecedented precision. Yet, for all this freedom and control, it often feels as though we are more disconnected than ever.

The good old days weren’t necessarily better because the technology was superior; they were beautiful because the limitations of the technology forced us to be human. The cord forced us to stay put. The lack of caller ID forced us to be open. The absence of call waiting forced us to finish the conversation we started.

Sometimes, looking back, I miss the simple, undeniable commitment of answering a ringing phone, twisting the cord around my index finger, and just listening.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models Programming

The Era of the Synthesizer: How AI Is Liberating the Coder

For decades, being a programmer meant being a translator.

You stood in the gap between what someone wanted and what a machine could understand. You learned the syntax. You memorized the libraries. You once spent three hours hunting a missing semicolon that turned out to be hiding in line 847 of a file you were sure you’d already checked.

The New York Times Magazine recently ran a piece by Clive Thompson on what AI coding assistants — models like Claude and ChatGPT — are doing to that job. The anxiety in the piece is real. When you sit down with a modern AI assistant and watch it generate in seconds what used to take you days, it’s genuinely disorienting. Hard-won expertise suddenly feels less like a moat and more like a speed bump.

That reaction is honest. I’d be suspicious of anyone who didn’t feel it.

But here’s what I keep coming back to: what we’re losing is the translation layer. The boilerplate. The muscle memory of syntax. What we’re not losing is the part that was always the actual job — figuring out what to build and why it matters.

The soul of software was never in the code itself. The code was always just a means to an end.

Think about what happens when the mechanical friction of a craft disappears. Photographers stopped having to mix their own chemicals in the dark and started spending that time making better images. Musicians stopped having to hand-copy scores and started composing more. The freed-up capacity doesn’t evaporate — it gets redirected upward, toward the work that actually required a human all along.

The same shift is underway in software. When the AI handles the loops and the boilerplate and the database queries, what’s left is everything that required judgment in the first place. The architecture. The user experience. The question of whether this thing should exist at all, and in what form, and for whom.

We’re moving from the how to the why. That’s not a demotion.

It does ask something of us, though. The old identity — programmer as master of arcane syntax — has to be relinquished. And letting go of a hard-earned identity is genuinely hard, even when what’s replacing it is better. That quiet grief the Times piece captures is worth sitting with, not dismissing.

But after you sit with it for a minute: we are entering the era of the synthesizer.

The synthesizer’s job is to hold the vision, curate the logic, and direct the output toward something that actually resonates with another human being. Empathy. Intuition. The ability to sense when something is almost right and know which direction to push it. These aren’t soft skills. They’re the whole game now.

The clatter of keyboards is fading. But the music we’re about to make — with AI doing the heavy lifting on the mechanics — has a lot more room to breathe.

Categories
AI Creativity Programming Writing

We Are All Painters Now: The Era of Vibe Coding

For decades, the act of creating software was exactly that: writing. It was a distinctly left-brained, agonizingly precise discipline.

Programmers were typists of logic, translating human intent into a rigid, unforgiving syntax that a machine could understand. A single misplaced semicolon, an unclosed bracket, or a misspelled variable could bring an entire system crashing down.

Building software meant placing one brick after another, working meticulously from the ground up.

In this traditional paradigm, coders were the ultimate embodiment of Annie Dillard’s writer. As she noted in The Writing Life, “Writers… work from left to right. The discardable chapters are on the left.”

When you wrote code, your mistakes, your refactoring, and your discarded logic were all part of a linear, grueling journey. If a feature didn’t work, you had to physically wade back into the text, debugging, reading line by line, and rewriting the narrative of the application. The discarded chapters were the endless hours spent wrestling with a single broken dependency.

But recently, a profound paradigm shift has quietly taken over our screens. We are transitioning out of the era of writing software and into the era of “vibe coding.”

Vibe coding fundamentally changes our relationship with the machine. With the rise of advanced AI coding assistants, we are no longer placing the bricks ourselves; we have become the architects and the creative directors. You don’t write the loop or manually construct the database query. Instead, you describe the feeling, the function, and the outcome. You tell the AI, “Make this dashboard feel more modern,” or “The logic here is too clunky, make it flow faster and handle edge cases gracefully.” You are coding by intuition. You are steering by the “vibe” of the output rather than the mechanics of the input.

Suddenly, Dillard’s other metaphor takes center stage. In the age of vibe coding, we have become painters.

“A painting covers its tracks. Painters work from the ground up. The latest version of a painting overlays earlier versions, and obliterates them.”

When we vibe code, we ask an AI for a functional prototype, and it gives us a canvas. We look at it, test it, and sense whether it aligns with our vision. If it doesn’t quite hit the mark, we don’t necessarily rewrite the code from scratch. We simply prompt the AI to try again, adding a new layer of instruction. The AI paints a new layer of code directly over the old one. The awkward, underlying iterations—the messy attempts at styling, the inefficient logic of the first draft—are obliterated by the newest prompt.

The machine covers our tracks for us. We don’t need to know exactly how the underlying pixels were rearranged or how the syntax was refactored. The final application emerges as a stunning obliteration of its own clumsy past.

As someone who has spent time wrestling with the rigid demands of syntax, there is a strange, quiet grief in letting go of that left-to-right process. There is a deeply earned, tactile satisfaction in building something manually, understanding the precise weight and placement of every line of code. Relinquishing that control can feel like a loss of craftsmanship.

Yet, there is also a breathtaking liberation in this new medium. We are moving from a world of manual construction to a world of artistic curation. The barrier to entry is no longer fluency in a specific, arcane language; it is simply the clarity of your imagination and your ability to articulate your intent.

The next time you sit down to build something digital, notice the shift in your own posture. You no longer have to carry the heavy burden of the writer, agonizing over every word and leaving your discardable chapters on the left. You can step back, look at the whole canvas, and trust your intuition. Let the AI cover the tracks. Embrace the obliteration of the early drafts.

We are all painters now, coaxing the future into existence one brushstroke at a time.

Categories
Living

The Geometry of Chaos

“Just for a minute, imagine you’re standing on that aircraft carrier flight deck,” said Caine. “There’s 30 knots of wind in your face. The deck is slippery, covered in grease. It’s noisy. There are propellers spinning. There’s jet blast everywhere. The helicopters are running. Your head is on a swivel and you’re trying to direct a multi-million dollar fighter into a one-foot square box so that those naval aviators can be shot off into the black of night to go do America’s work.”

The world often views precision as a quiet endeavor. We picture the watchmaker in a silent room or the coder in a hushed office, finding clarity through the absence of noise. But General Caine’s description of a carrier deck flips this script. It suggests that the highest form of human precision doesn’t happen in spite of the chaos—it happens within it.

To stand on that deck is to exist in a state of sensory assault. You have the “thirty knots of wind,” the “grease,” the “spinning propellers,” and the “jet blast.” It is an environment designed to overwhelm the nervous system.

Yet, in the center of this metallic purgatory, there is a person—head on a swivel—tasked with moving a multi-million dollar machine into a “one-foot square box.”

There is a profound metaphor here for the modern life. We often wait for the “wind” to die down before we attempt our most important work. We tell ourselves we will start the project, have the difficult conversation, or find our focus once the “noise” of life subsides. But the “black of night” doesn’t wait for the deck to be dry. America’s work—or rather, the soul’s work—is often requested exactly when the deck is most slippery.

The beauty of the flight deck officer is not just their technical skill, but their ability to maintain an internal stillness while the external world is screaming. It is the realization that the “one-foot square” is the only thing that matters, even when the rest of the world is a blur of grease and jet fuel.

We are all, at various points, standing on that deck, trying to guide something precious into position so it can take flight.

The chaos isn’t an obstacle to the mission; it is the environment in which the mission earns its meaning.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models AI: Prompting

Using a Developmental Editor

I recently came across an X post by @heyrimsha where she shared several AI prompts that looked quite interesting.

One of them in particular was based on the notion of having a “developmental editor” from a major publication (like the Harvard Business Review etc.) reviewing content and suggesting ways to make the content “better”.

Obviously “better” is in the eye of the beholder but I wanted to give it a try. Here are my results using Gemini 3 Fast on my post from yesterday about John F. Burns.

The prompt:

I'm going to give you a draft of one of my blog posts below. You are to act as a world-class developmental editor for a major publication (like _The Atlantic_ or _Harvard Business Review_). 

Read my draft and identify:

1. **The 'So What?' Factor:** Where is the argument too generic or 'safe'?

2. **Borrowed Authority:** Where am I using quotes as a crutch instead of developing my own original ideas?

 3. **The Narrative Thread:** Is my personal history a list of facts, or a cohesive story?
 
After the critique, provide a 'Masterwork Rewrite' that heightens the stakes, removes the fluff, and gives the piece a unique, proprietary framework (like 'The Seasonal Soul')."

Here's the post: [POST]

Here’s Gemini’s response which includes a suggested rewrite at the end:

This is a poignant tribute to a journalistic titan. You’ve captured the “vibe” of John F. Burns perfectly—the Burberry raincoat, the smell of cordite, and the steady hand at the keyboard.

However, as an editor for The Atlantic or HBR, my job is to push you past “tribute” and into “thesis.” Currently, this reads like a very well-written appreciation. To make it a major publication piece, we need to turn your reflection on Burns into a diagnostic of our current cultural moment.

1. The ‘So What?’ Factor: The Risk of Nostalgia

The Critique: Your argument is currently: “John Burns was a great reporter from a better era, and I miss that.” This is a “safe” sentiment. Most readers over 40 agree that the “pre-internet era” had more gravitas. The Fix: You need to answer why this matters now, beyond just missing a legendary writer. The “So What” isn’t that Burns is gone; it’s that the “Institutional Anchor” he provided—the ability to remain “straight” while the world tilts—is a lost technology we are now desperate to reinvent.

2. Borrowed Authority: The Quote as a Shield

The Critique: You use Burns’ quotes (the “gold standard,” “missionary complex,” “sweep of history”) to do the heavy lifting. You are describing his excellence using his own definitions. The Fix: Don’t just quote his “gold standard.” Define what that standard looks like in the wild. Instead of saying he avoided the “missionary complex,” analyze whythat complex is the dominant toxin in modern discourse. Use your own voice to categorize his genius.

3. The Narrative Thread: The “Passive Reader” Problem

The Critique: Your personal history here is a bit “list-like”: I read the obits, I remember his retirement, I read this specific obit today. It positions you as a passive consumer of his work. The Fix: Link your personal evolution to his reporting. Did his dispatch from Sarajevo change how you viewed a specific conflict? Did his “considered writing” influence how you built your own “civilized center” (to use your phrase about his wife, Jane)? Turn the “list of memories” into a “narrative of influence.”

Masterwork Rewrite: The Architecture of the Straight Line

The Framework: “The Architecture of the Straight Line” This framework posits that in a world of ideological “curves” and “slants,” the hardest thing to build is a straight line of fact. It moves the focus from the man to the method.

The Draft:

We are currently living through a Great Slant. In our rush to be “right”—morally, politically, or algorithmically—we have abandoned the rarest craft in the human repertoire: the ability to keep the paper straight.

I spent my morning submerged in the obituary of John F. Burns, the longtime New York Times foreign correspondent. To many, Burns was the last of the “firemen,” a man who appeared in the world’s most fractured zip codes wearing a Burberry raincoat and a look of studied detachment. But as I traced the arc of his career—from the sniper alleys of Sarajevo to the blast-walled compounds of Baghdad—I realized I wasn’t just mourning a reporter. I was mourning a specific type of sanity.

Burns practiced what I call The Architecture of the Straight Line. In today’s media, we suffer from the “Missionary Complex”—a term Burns himself used to describe the urge to save the world rather than see it. Modern reporting is often a performance of empathy or an exercise in tribal signaling. We no longer want the “telling detail”; we want the detail that tells our side of the story.

Burns was different. He understood that the only way to survive the “chaos of war” was to build a “civilized center.” We see this literally in his partnership with his wife, Jane Scott-Long, who turned a derelict house in Baghdad into a fortress of state-of-the-art coffee and blast walls. But Burns did this intellectually, too. While the world was screaming in ideological shorthand, he was looking for the “sweep of centuries” in the reburial of a King or the notes of a lone cellist.

This is the “So What” of his passing: We have traded Considered Writing for Instant Reaction.

In the pre-internet era Burns inhabited, the time-zone differential acted as a natural filter—a mandatory pause that allowed the “blue pencil” of the editor to catch the slant before it hit the page. Today, that filter is gone. We are drowning in the “instant, unvetted roar.” We have plenty of missionaries, but very few architects.

Reading Burns taught me that keeping the paper straight isn’t a passive act of “objectivity.” It is a violent, daily struggle against one’s own biases. It is the refusal to let the heat of the moment melt the integrity of the record.

As the obituary section grows more familiar to me, I find myself looking for more than just a list of achievements. I am looking for a compass. John Burns kept his bearings not because he ignored the fire, but because he was the only one in the room who understood that you cannot describe the flames if you are busy trying to stoke them.

The “Straight Line” is a lost art. It’s time we started rebuilding it.