I write code the same way I write blog posts: as if someone is going to read it. I want to make sure they understand, to the best of my ability. So I leave clues, and use names that hopefully give the reader an idea of my intention. With code, it has to work, at a machine level, so sometimes you have to trade off some human sense for machine sense. But the basic motivation is the same. If I can't work on it later, even when it isn't fresh in my mind, it's not worth nearly as much. #

In the early 2000s we had an API for writing tools to plug into content systems. We felt that writing tools should develop independently of how the writing is distributed. Simple idea, any developer can understand the need. But today, the systems don't offer choice. If you want to publish in their environment you have to use their text editor. Facebook makes you use their editor, it's a piece of crap, it has tiny little type, hard to read, super buggy. Why can't I use my own editor. Just want to tell non-devs out there, they could do it, easily and cheaply. Their reason for not doing it is to lock you in to using their tool. What a waste of our brainpower. It's as if your printer came with word processing software and you could only print stuff from that app. That's what Substack is doing, and Twitter's new newsletter software does it too. Use our primitive writing tool, that's the only choice. Ridiculous. It's a throwback to the way tech worked in the 1970s. Bottom line, start evaluating these services based on the quality of their writing tools, really criticize them, until they get tired of hearing it, and offer you a chance to use the ones you love. #

Have you ever heard this idea on the op-ed page of a major news org or spoken by a commentator on cable news. "The reason news is in such hard times as a business is that they let the tech industry control their distribution. If they had competed they'd be making plenty of money."#