BuffandGrind retweeted
Just remember:
1. Spending creates income.
2. Loans create deposits.
3. Taxes do not fund spending.
4. Government deficits create non-government financial surpluses.
5. Real resources, not money, constrain sovereign government spending.
BuffandGrind retweeted
Joan of Arc’s Heretical Tree of Domrémy medievalists.net/2022/09/joa… #JoanofArc
BuffandGrind retweeted
Most people think the answer to burnout is rest. It's not.
Step away. Take a break. Sleep more.
When you're burned out, the single most effective intervention isn't unplugging.
It's doubling down on your primary flow activity.
The one thing that reliably drops you into the zone.
Here's why → Burnout isn't just exhaustion. It's neurochemical depletion.
Stress chemicals like cortisol and adrenaline have been running the show for too long.
The recovery chemicals your brain actually needs to come back online (dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, endorphins, and anandamide) show up most strongly in flow states.
Rest stops the bleeding. Flow rebuilds the system.
And here's the part most people miss.
You don’t need a sabbatical. Even a few hours a week can start to reverse the slide.
Split it into a couple of sessions.
One afternoon protected for the activity that pulls you in completely.
That's it. One afternoon a week, deliberately reserved for the thing that flows.
Your primary flow activity isn't a reward you earn after the real work is done. It is the work.
The thing that keeps the rest of your work sustainable.
Protect it like your performance depends on it. Because it does.
👇 What's the one activity that always puts you in flow? Drop it below.
#FlowState #PeakPerformance #FlowResearch #StevenKotler #Neuroscience
BuffandGrind retweeted
you come to me today, on the day i disprove the jacobian conjecture, and you ask me to center a div
BuffandGrind retweeted
One pattern I find useful for working with LLMs is a nice long ramble session. Sometimes the LLM needs more bits to understand what you're trying to achieve, but you're too lazy to type them. In these cases I like to lean back, switch to /voice and just ramble for like 10 minutes, total mess, anything goes, full stream of consciousness. Sometimes I declare it up top, something like "switching to speech recognition sorry for any typos...". Sometimes I turn it into a small interview of a few turns. But I find that the LLMs are somehow very good at reconstructing long incoherent rambles and often their echo of your own tangle of thoughts comes out quite a bit cleaner than what you started with. The result is that you improve the mind meld and have to correct things less from that point on.
I asked chatgpt to make some Black Flag Resynced screenshots "photo realistic" ... not bad actually
🤖 Made with AI
BuffandGrind retweeted
Of course you want to hear a Prog Rock version of J.S. Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor!
Sky: Toccata (1980)
BuffandGrind retweeted
As agents become the biggest users of software, then all software has to be available in a headless fashion. Agents won’t be using your UI, they’ll be talking to your APIs.
So the question becomes what is the business model of software and this headless approach in the future?
Here are a few thoughts on how everything plays out based on what we’re seeing and doing at Box, but also conversation with other platforms.
1) Seats don’t go away for *people*. Seats are still a convenient and efficient way to have a customer use technology predictably for a set of users within a baseline set of usage. The key, though, is that when the customer pays for a seat, it has to come with a set of usage of APIs on behalf of that user that the agent can use on their behalf.
The user will need to be able to interact with their data and the underlying tool via any agent they work with, and an embedded amount of usage will come with the seat. I would imagine most software -Box included- will enable seats to work with their data at a relatively high volume via systems like ChatGPT, Codex, Claude, Gemini, Cursor, Copilot, Perplexity, Factory, Cogniton, et al. quite seamlessly. If you don’t do this, you’re DOA.
2) Agents may have “seats” if they are doing stateful work in the system, but they will be priced very differently than people. Seats (or the equivalent) can make sense when you have an agent that has its own workspace, stores its own data, needs a different set of permissions compared to the user, and so on.
If a company wants this agent to be around for long period of time, that may very well look like another “user” in the system. Openclaw-style agents highlight what this future could look like.
The only issue on pricing here is that one customer could decide to do all their work in 1 agent, and another might split it into 1,000 agents. So pricing like a human seat is nearly impossible and impractical; each company will have a different approach for this as it gets tricky perfectly trying to capture all the value within an agent seat.
3) The dominant pricing for headless use that goes above the seat allotment, or when an agent is firmly acting on their own, will be a consumption model. Many enterprises software platforms have previously operated like this with PaaS options, and agents will look like another machine user of their system.
In some cases the APIs might get priced just as they did previously, but in other cases there may need to be new types of APIs that represent the work an agent would do in one go -more akin to an outcome- instead of a series of API calls. This is especially germane when the headless software also has an agentic use-case embedded within in, such as orchestrating the process within their own system via AI.
Overall the growth of this usage pattern is effectively unbounded as the use-cases for agents operating on data in these systems will dramatically exceed what people do with their data and tools today. Every platform that goes headless (which will be anyone that wants to take advantage of agents) will need to adopt a model like this. Some may fight it initially but it’s an inevitably as there will always be more and more agents outside your platform than people.
Overall, there’s a lot of really interesting changes left to come in software due to headless use of these systems. Early days.
BuffandGrind retweeted
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
— Christopher Hitchens
BuffandGrind retweeted
LLM Knowledge Bases
Something I'm finding very useful recently: using LLMs to build personal knowledge bases for various topics of research interest. In this way, a large fraction of my recent token throughput is going less into manipulating code, and more into manipulating knowledge (stored as markdown and images). The latest LLMs are quite good at it. So:
Data ingest:
I index source documents (articles, papers, repos, datasets, images, etc.) into a raw/ directory, then I use an LLM to incrementally "compile" a wiki, which is just a collection of .md files in a directory structure. The wiki includes summaries of all the data in raw/, backlinks, and then it categorizes data into concepts, writes articles for them, and links them all. To convert web articles into .md files I like to use the Obsidian Web Clipper extension, and then I also use a hotkey to download all the related images to local so that my LLM can easily reference them.
IDE:
I use Obsidian as the IDE "frontend" where I can view the raw data, the the compiled wiki, and the derived visualizations. Important to note that the LLM writes and maintains all of the data of the wiki, I rarely touch it directly. I've played with a few Obsidian plugins to render and view data in other ways (e.g. Marp for slides).
Q&A:
Where things get interesting is that once your wiki is big enough (e.g. mine on some recent research is ~100 articles and ~400K words), you can ask your LLM agent all kinds of complex questions against the wiki, and it will go off, research the answers, etc. I thought I had to reach for fancy RAG, but the LLM has been pretty good about auto-maintaining index files and brief summaries of all the documents and it reads all the important related data fairly easily at this ~small scale.
Output:
Instead of getting answers in text/terminal, I like to have it render markdown files for me, or slide shows (Marp format), or matplotlib images, all of which I then view again in Obsidian. You can imagine many other visual output formats depending on the query. Often, I end up "filing" the outputs back into the wiki to enhance it for further queries. So my own explorations and queries always "add up" in the knowledge base.
Linting:
I've run some LLM "health checks" over the wiki to e.g. find inconsistent data, impute missing data (with web searchers), find interesting connections for new article candidates, etc., to incrementally clean up the wiki and enhance its overall data integrity. The LLMs are quite good at suggesting further questions to ask and look into.
Extra tools:
I find myself developing additional tools to process the data, e.g. I vibe coded a small and naive search engine over the wiki, which I both use directly (in a web ui), but more often I want to hand it off to an LLM via CLI as a tool for larger queries.
Further explorations:
As the repo grows, the natural desire is to also think about synthetic data generation + finetuning to have your LLM "know" the data in its weights instead of just context windows.
TLDR: raw data from a given number of sources is collected, then compiled by an LLM into a .md wiki, then operated on by various CLIs by the LLM to do Q&A and to incrementally enhance the wiki, and all of it viewable in Obsidian. You rarely ever write or edit the wiki manually, it's the domain of the LLM. I think there is room here for an incredible new product instead of a hacky collection of scripts.
BuffandGrind retweeted
I wanted to share a bunch of my favorite hidden and under-utilized features in Claude Code. I'll focus on the ones I use the most.
Here goes.
BuffandGrind retweeted
Gorillaz have released their new animated short film ‘THE MOUNTAIN, THE MOON CAVE AND THE SAD GOD’
“In a time of Al overload, this is our love letter to craftsmanship. We're chasing the feel of pencil on paper.”
🔗: youtu.be/ucRulNQsuYQ?si=4rGC…
BuffandGrind retweeted
Were you able to read at 900 words/minute. It gets more and more difficult.
I could until the last 20-30 seconds.
Anthropic has been coding with fast mode for Opus 4.6 and this has substantially increased our feature velocity.
Now, it’s available in research preview on Claude Code for all developers on our Claude subscriptions via extra usage and on Claude Console.

























