November 29, 2025 AI, Personal No comments
November 29, 2025 AI, Personal No comments

Disclaimer: I do not promote any of the tooling mentioned in this blog post nor have I used the vast majority of them. All of the text written by me is my personal opinion. All of the text generated by LLM is its creation – I will be explicit where it is LLM and where it is me.
Unlike most posts where I make emphasis on my own experience and writing by myself, this blog post will be assisted with LLM, but in a good way. I want to create a comprehensive AI toolset list to explore for myself. Although it will have some tools very specific to my personal needs (like climbing) I believe you can apply the same approach to get your ideal list. This could have been LinkedIn post “Definite list of AI tools you must use” but I cannot stand those posts. This is just idea on how you can come up with your own list:
Prompt: “Refine this prompt: Perform research on the landscape of currently available LLM products and AI tooling for both professional and personal development for the user profile and wider audience, using referenced examples of already used tooling. User Profile: A Software Engineer at a big tech company in the Seattle area. Family with two kids, sports (climbing, Muay Thai, running), writing blog posts, coding for fun, and wondering about life in general. Researching topics such as: health, finance, 3d printing, writing about tech, coding, taxes, parenting, relationships, career decisions, trip planning, real estate, etc. Reference examples: ChatGPT, Gemini (deep research, chat, image gen), Claude Sonet for coding, locally running small LLMs, trying out different AI startups for intermittent tasks.”
The above text was me. The below text is the proposed research plan by LLM:
(1) Research the current landscape of major LLM products (such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude) and emerging AI startups in late 2025, specifically analyzing their capabilities for professional software engineers (coding agents, debugging, architecture design).
(2) Investigate the ecosystem of open-source and locally executable LLMs (compatible with Ollama) and privacy-focused tools suitable for a tech-savvy user running consumer hardware.
(3) Search for specialized AI tooling and applications tailored to the user's specific hobbies and creative interests:
(a) Sports performance analysis for climbing
(b) Sports performance analysis for Muay Thai
(c) Sports performance analysis for running
(d) 3D printing modeling and slicing optimization
(e) Technical blogging and creative writing assistance
(4) Find AI resources and tools assisting life management, covering:
(a) Parenting, education, and kids' activities in the Seattle/Bellevue area
(b) Real estate market trends and housing analysis in Vancouver, BC
(c) Personal finance, tax preparation, and investment tracking in the Seattle/Bellevue area
(5) Explore AI interfaces designed for broad life topics, such as philosophical conversation, relationship coaching, career development planning, and travel logistics.
(6) Synthesize the findings to categorize tools by professional utility versus personal development, comparing them against the user's current stack (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Ollama) to identify gaps and superior alternatives.
I’ve run 4 reports with the above prompt or some variations of it. In the end I got four 20 page documents. After skimming through them it is obvious that either: a) some info is outdated, like recommending Claude Sonet 3.5 when I’m already using 4.5; b) recommendations are too generic; c) some sections were too verbose and some too short for my needs; d) some recommendations are contradictory, for instance using Ollama for privacy and then suggesting some startups that suggest uploading private data to small startups.
One idea I had was to feed all documents into another research specifically asking for summary with bullet points. Unfortunately the result was a 5th document of not better quality. Another approach I took was: “Create a maximum 5 pages summary from the four similar documents. Do bullet points. Keep links to websites. Do NOT do research.” This gave much better results.
So I’ve got approximately what I need. The next step was to iterate a few times on the list. E.g. I asked LLM to add a list of general health and longevity tooling following the same format. Copy-paste, read through, and add more sections. The appendix text in the end is the list by AI, with minor edits from me.
It is obvious that I won’t be trying all of the tooling (that would be crazy) but to do exploration of what’s available and within my area of interest. As an action plan I highlighted some tooling to use and play with below or use more actively:
I believe the AI and LLM tooling landscape is very saturated. There is a tool or a startup for almost anything you can think of. The point is not the specific list but how I arrived at it and how it is tailored to my needs. In this blog post I provided a method at arriving at your own list of AI tooling that is applicable specifically to you.
Alert: wall of text below.
Disclaimer: I am not advertising or promoting any of the tooling below, have no affiliation to any of the companies or products mentioned. The text below is generated by LLM. I only reviewed it.
The technological paradigm has shifted from “Chatbots” (passive Q&A) to “Agents” (active execution). The competitive advantage in 2025 belongs to the “Augmented Architect” who orchestrates specialized AI entities to manage full-stack development, complex financial engineering, and physical performance.
The modern workflow bifurcates into Integrated Agents (living in the IDE) and Headless/Terminal Agents (operating autonomously).
For IP protection and privacy, running models locally on M3/M4 Max chips (Unified Memory) is the standard.
For a Seattle engineer with RSUs and complex taxes, standard budgeting apps are insufficient.
Tools for deep research, interactive learning, and risk-free simulation (Paper Trading).
AI is transitioning from logging data to providing active biomechanical coaching.
The intersection of “Quantified Self” and AI for preventative health and programmable biology.
Bridging the gap between software and physical artifacts.
Tools acting as “Chief of Staff” for the household.
November 23, 2025 AI, Blog, Opinion, Personal No comments
Original content by Andriy Buday
I’ve been asked multiple times about my writing process, how I keep consistency, and why I write blog posts at all. Who in their right mind spends multiple hours weekly to write when there are LLMs that generate the same quality text within a minute? Let me share my secrets and answer these 4 questions:

Image credit: Gemini Nano Banana Pro. I admit the image is cheesy, lol, but it’s also fun.
Over time I confirmed to myself that ‘writing is thinking’ but also unlike speaking or thinking in my head writing is a structured way of thinking. You get the privilege of ‘parking’ some thoughts for further elaboration, you get the privilege to validate your thoughts with external research, you get all the privilege to mold things and shuffle them around, decompose and synthesize again.
Undeniably writing is a skill, but, in my opinion, it is a transferable one. By working on improving my process of writing it becomes easier for me to write documents at work and the easier for me it becomes to write my personal documents (financial planning, goal setting, emails, etc). The more I write the easier it is to overcome that initial ‘hurdle’ of starting a new document. I am a doc producing machine at work: meeting notes – I’ve got it; short design doc – I’ve got it; just documenting my work trip – I’ve got it; producing ‘announcement’ document – I’ve got it. None of it seems daunting. I also wrote a post on “Why documenting everything you do at work matters” believing it is beneficial for your career, especially performance reviews and promos.
Here is a big secret, my dear readers: I’m writing mostly for myself, and I have a strong argument why it is worth my time instead of just prompting LLMs. For the sake of argument, I just kicked-off Gemini’s ‘Deep Research’ on the topic of tech writing, answering 4 questions from above. I’m confident that in ~3 minutes I will have a PhD level research paper on this topic. What do I gain from that research? What do you gain from that LLM research? Well, we become consumers – I can read that research paper and, for sure, that will have many punchy arguments and external pointers to like 100+ websites to learn from, but this trains our “info => brain” path, this does not train our “brain => info synthesis” path. Very specifically, next time when you need to produce new information, your retrieval/producing ‘paths’ in your brain are not trained for that.
Let’s also do some numbers to see the worthiness of this activity:
To be honest, at times it is very challenging to come up with new blog post ideas and even when I have an idea expanding on it is also quite a tedious process. I have a “blog post ideas” document which just sits there in my Google docs. Whenever something crosses my mind I would add it there. Another source of ideas is just some question I would get from someone either at work or in my personal conversations. For instance, this blog post was inspired by a person asking about my writing process as he was struggling a bit with writing some roadmap/design document at work. I hear you. This blog post is for you.
At very early stages I usually start with just pouring thoughts and ideas in raw, unfiltered, and very unstructured ways. This is just the expansion step of my framework of dealing with ambiguity. At this stage focusing on quality, perfection, structure is counter-productive. If this is a technical design document, then some template for structure is usually already given, so that ‘pouring’ thoughts happens in compartments. Then, once I have lots of unstructured thoughts, I do more of research, I try to find key points and rephrase where needed, this is where trimming also happens. At later stages I would use LLMs to help me out, but I am generally against using LLMs for everything, and definitely not using for my blog writing. At work, generating summary or bullet points or initial structure is definitely easier with LLMs, and it would be a mistake not to use it.
Yeah, I do use LLMs – but not for writing or structuring my thoughts but for other purposes. The main one: finding blind spots in my thinking. I have made many profound realizations of missing some key arguments thanks to LLMs, not only that, even in my personal life I came to realize that there are things I perceive simply differently to other people – eye opening. Another use of LLM is to suggest refinements to text, but not so much proof-reading, unless this is obvious typo catches. Honestly, sometimes, I just cannot stand all this ‘sophisticated flowery’ text generated by LLMs. When I see people write ‘significant impact drastically improving leverage of comprehensive coverage of’ – I know it is LLM and it sucks. You can know these are my own words, because LLMs avoids confrontation. Another way I’m using LLM for my writing is coming up with a common theme in my thinking and generating ideas for the best title.
In the light of LLMs I found it to be ever more important to focus on my own experiences, strong opinions, and on building my own personal expertise. That’s the main distinguishing factor. No LLM has my brain or knows my thoughts.
This is another question I get quite often. The answer: Consistency is Hard. The way it works for me is a multi-year habit building. I failed many times and I had to re-start it over and over again until it actually started working in a connected chained manner. The analogy I give is from rock climbing: to climb a mountain you connect multiple single pitch climbs. We get inspired at times (new year resolution, someone inspires you) and then you do a few iterations and then you fail. I say: get inspired more often, on purpose, and then connect into a continuous chain! Get inspired by books, people you admire, your mentors, your super-smart colleagues, someone you love, and last but most importantly, your future self!
Writing is not always just the output, but also the process. I see writing as “gym for the brain”. For sure, LLMs can lift weights for you, but that won’t make your thinking and writing stronger. It is like watching fit and strong people on Instagram and wishing you will be one like them without doing anything. The world is dominated by consumption and in my opinion being able to structure your thoughts and clearly articulate is something that will make you stand out.
Below are some interesting extracts from the 17 page ‘Research Paper’ produced by Gemini on my ‘deep research’ request about technical blow writing and from analysis of the above text:
You mention LLMs generate “flowery” text that sucks. While often true, advanced prompting can mimic style fairly well. Suggestion: Strengthen the argument that the value isn’t the final text, but the struggle to produce it. Even if an LLM wrote a perfect post in your style, it would still be a “waste” because you didn’t do the cognitive lifting to get there. It’s like sending a robot to the gym for you.
Blogging increases an engineer’s “Luck Surface Area.” This concept suggests that the amount of serendipity (job offers, speaking invitations, consulting opportunities, co-founder inquiries) one encounters is directly proportional to the number of people who know what one is doing.
Beyond the internal mechanics of a current employer, blogging functions as a potent “sales aid” for the engineer’s broader career trajectory.2 Recruiters and hiring managers at elite firms increasingly value communication skills as a primary differentiator. According to industry data, a significant majority of recruiters prioritize communication skills, sometimes even above raw technical proficiency, because technical knowledge can be taught, whereas the ability to articulate complex logic is a rarer trait.
The process of writing requires the linearization of thought. Code can be non-linear; it jumps between functions, modules, and asynchronous callbacks. Prose, however, must flow logically from premise to conclusion. This forcing function exposes gaps in understanding. As noted in the analysis of engineering blogging benefits, writing a blog post often reveals that the author does not understand the code as well as they thought they did. This aligns with the “Feynman Technique,” which posits that one does not truly understand a concept until one can explain it in simple terms to a layperson.
However, LLMs struggle with context, nuance, and novelty. They cannot hallucinate genuine experience. They can explain what a circular dependency is, but they cannot explain how it felt to debug one at 3 AM during a Black Friday traffic spike, nor can they navigate the specific political and technical constraints that led to that dependency in the first place.
The value of human writing has shifted from Transfer of Information to Transfer of Experience. The “Small Web” movement is a reaction to this; it is a flight to authenticity. Readers are looking for the “red hot branding iron” of human personality—the idiosyncrasies, the opinions, and even the biases that signal a real person is behind the text.15 As AI content proliferates, the premium on “human-verified” knowledge increases.
Gergely Orosz serves as the gold standard for the modern technical writer. His transition from engineering manager at Uber to full-time writer was built on a specific process 39:
November 16, 2025 Opinion No comments
I was thinking about what makes a software engineer productive. There are so many things that come to mind: enough focused time, right tooling, fundamental knowledge, soft and hard skills, energy, motivation, attitude. So much of everything and you can definitely find arguments online for one or the other being the most critical. In this post I want to argue, what is more critical, but rather want to make a point that generally there are two categories and then suggest some action items in the end based on this. Additionally, I will try to present examples with personal stories.

Image credit: Gemini
These are examples of things where being good enough is usually sufficient to get a great boost in productivity but where pushing for being world-class good only gives smaller diminishing returns and only makes you good in that specific area.
Typing speed. Naive example, but for its simplicity it’s easy to understand. Extremely slow typing speed would slow you down. But the difference between really fast 100wpm and 150wpm is tiny for your productivity as a software engineer. To give a personal flavor, back in my university I trained my typing so I could type fast but then when I was in a sports programming competition (speed matters there), the guy who was a slow typer but a ‘big brain’ easily would beat me on hardest problems.
Tooling familiarity. For example, your IDE. If you get lost on how to use it at all, doing anything even simple is extremely tedious. Remember how frustrating it is to find some simple functionality that should be there right at your fingerprints. I would say this is logarithmic as well, but the curve bends at a much higher elevation compared to typing, so you do need to spend deliberate time to learn core functionality of IDE and your entire productivity will be elevated. Knowing some nice rarely used features probably won’t help too much. Back at my first job, I learned how to be productive with JetBrains ReSharper and could execute large refactorings quickly – this distinguished my productivity from others, but not too much from others who knew these tools as well.
Physical and mental health. Being sick sucks for productivity so it is clear the healthier you are the better your productivity is going to be. The difference between being “generally healthy” and “an elite athlete” on your ability to code is not 10x, lol. My intensive Muay Thai classes don’t help me with my coding at all, but general weekly activities help maintain a healthy baseline that doesn’t make you ‘tired’. Arguably this becomes more important as you age. With age our mental capabilities degrade a bit as well as needs for rest increase.
… there are more …
This is a category I have for things where being better actually makes your productivity be higher, either just linearly or even exponentially, being good is good, being better is much better, and being great makes you 10x.
Fundamental knowledge and understanding. The way I imagine it is that fundamental knowledge is setting the upper limit on your productivity. If you don’t have enough fundamental knowledge it would be hard to break through the “ceiling” and come up with something truly innovative. Yeah, that’s why big tech is chasing those ML PhDs with ludicrous pay as this is what is pushing that most upper boundary limit. That’s why new grads, people who acquired some strong knowledge, are like those big unknowns with huge potential. I know many folks who studied with me, but having had more in-depth knowledge, have achieved greater results sooner.
Consistency. If you are productive consistently, the progress might not be visible immediately but over time it will become apparent and accumulated and it will get you really far. This time I think of this somewhat as linear dependency up to a point, but I also think there is a ‘breaking point’ where this converts into exponential uptrend – there aren’t many people in that space to even compare with you. Imagine someone with great knowledge, but just not consistently utilizing it.
Mental resilience and attitude. Having the right attitude towards dealing with stress, projects, being ‘can handle anything’, being resilient usually sets apart people who get stuck at some point and those who get more done. Resilience is what allows you to tackle a complex, multi-month project without giving up. It’s what allows you to take criticism in a design review and turn it into a better product. This one is arguably hard, but I would also say this psychological factor is huge.
Soft interpersonal skills. If you are a single engineer trying to do something your productivity is capped. Someone who can clearly articulate a technical vision, persuade a team, and mentor others can be that “multiplier” of their impact across the entire organization.
… there are more …
So where am I going with these two buckets of Hurdles vs Levers or whatever we call them? Why does it matter?
IMO it does matter a lot as most engineers spend their time optimizing the wrong thing.
Let’s conclude this as a framework:
What are your thoughts? What obvious examples have I missed? Do you generally agree with this categorization or think there is even a 3rd category?
November 9, 2025 Uncategorized No comments
Have you ever thought about large software systems as organic living organisms? This sounds a bit odd and, maybe, philosophical. Starting with first principles: everything in the world is based on fundamental physical laws. When we think about the organic world we often imagine fuzzy, imprecise, evolving and reproducing things. But when we think about a software program, we often imagine strictly deterministic outputs to given inputs with no typical attributes of living organisms, though on a completely fundamental level both are build with the same basic physical particles and follow same laws. At the level of modelules of even proteins organic world is fairly deterministic similarly to small software systems, but when we get to a system that is built by hundreds of software engineers over a decade that serves millions or billions of requests per day it has more resemblance of a living organism than of that exact deterministic machinery.
I could think of multiple similarities, for instance:
Counterarguments could be things like:
Working for multiple very large companies serving billions of users definitely made me think that large software systems grow beyond human-scale comprehension. Sometimes I think these large systems are organisms and software engineers are part of this organism working on making parts of this organism alive and evolving. Also thinking of an analogy of software engineers looking after a large system as gardeners looking after a living garden. If it’s not looked after properly it becomes messy and bushy.
What does this mean practically? Well, this was just a thought I typed in, so not 100% sure but, maybe, it could mean:
November 2, 2025 3D No comments
Not sure if there is a definition for ‘vibe 3D printing’, but watch me do it, LOL. I bought my daughter a 3D printer for her birthday half a year ago. She prints a bunch of cool stuff from printables.com or does simple models in tinker. Some of the models she is printing are crazy complexity and quality. I was wondering how much 3D printing I can learn/do in just half a day or so. Here we go.
Project: creating custom magnet with topographical map featuring engraved run from STRAVA.
This is the end result:

The context is that I used to go on 10k runs with friends around Burnaby Lake in British Columbia. I no longer live there but my memory of good weekly Sunday runs remains.
First I went to my strava runs and took a screenshot of an actual run. Now, a more correct way would probably be to fetch GPS coordinates either from Garmin or Strava, nevertheless I started with images in a true “vibe mode”.

Now, I only wanted to extract this red line into a 3D object. I expected this to be fairly challenging for someone like me who knows nothing about 3D printing, photoshop or other tooling, so I used Gemini LLM. I convinced LLM to convert this image to just a red line and white background. This took quite a few prompts, but it worked much quicker than it would take me to figure this out in a proper tool. I got this:

Next, I wanted to get a 3D model out of this, the issue is that the image is JPG. I tried some AI software called MeshyAI, but it generated a really bad 3D model, so instead I used a multi-step process. I used some online tool to convert my JPEG into SVG, so I can programmatically work with it (yeah, now GPS coordinates would have been better).
Next, I vibe coded python script to use Blender’s tools to convert SVG to STL (3d printing file).
https://github.com/andriybuday/burnaby_lake/blob/main/svg_to_stl.py In my vibe-coding I also added platform so I can print it right away and validate it looks ok.
So now I got some reasonable 3d printable trail map, which you can see below in OrcaSlicer:

Next, I wanted to take this even further and generate a topological map, potentially with buildings. Turns out there is an add-on “Blender GIS” for Blender software. I had to register at https://opentopography.org/ in order to get an API key for retrieval of topology. This is where things got a bit more complicated. Specifically, I could print buildings but the elevation wasn’t printing.
Next I had to export this into another STL with buildings on top of the topology.

Now that I had different objects prepared, I went to add them to Orca Slicer. The most challenging part with terrain was that it wasn’t printing because it was just a surface floating in the air instead of filled-in mesh, so the technique that worked for me was to assemble Cube and meshed terrain from Blender and then do Mesh binary difference between the two, leaving the bottom part of the Cube that was sliced by the terrain. This is what I got in the model:

Turns out that printing tiny buildings actually doesn’t work too well so I stopped on just using the terrain and the trail. Here are 3 results:

Registered with strava API, then vibe-coded the tool that retrieves GPS coordinates and changes them to SVG. SVG is already importable into Orca slicer and Blender.
Here is the git repo: https://github.com/andriybuday/strava/tree/main/strava-plugin
It would take another day to actually make properly working nice plugin, but next time around I would have some building blocks in place.
Yesterday’s activity on strava: https://www.strava.com/activities/16326534438
Same activity after running my tool and manual overlap with terrain:

I think my conclusion is that building things is cool. In this post I was able to combine wild usage of AI for image augmentation, vibe-coding python to convert SVG to STL, vibe-coding STRAVA integration, and a bunch of googling & LLM-ing to find answers to my questions, and then sitting with my daughter and fighting Mesh boolean operation. Cool stuff.
P.S. Found this tool that almost does what I’ve done here except it doesn’t export the entire terrain: https://gpxtruder.xyz/ Result of exporting of my today’s hike:

October 25, 2025 Personal, Sports 2 comments
I consider myself a bit of a recreational athlete, meaning I do sports for fun and health: rock climbing, Muay Thai, running, and occasionally visiting conventional gyms. In 2021 I worked out 365 days straight and as of now have 2.3K logged activities on Strava with a 140 weeks long streak. I haven’t been like this 9 years ago or earlier, barely doing any activities back then, but over time I realized that health and time are the most valuable assets I have. This post is a few things: self reminder to stay on track, potentially some inspiration for you, and an attempt to drive analogies between athletic performance training and software engineering careers.
There are only three fundamentals in my opinion. Compromising these is the worst thing you can do to your health, not just physical, but also mental performance, yes including your software engineering career.
I am going over sleep again but this time with more practical recommendations if you are targeting greater benefits.
Besides all of the regular recommendations I would like to mention few additional ones:
Optimization comes last. Once you have all of the key ingredients and are consistent only then you can start thinking about all of the niche nitty-gritty optimizations, not before.
Pushing for anything in performance can have negative effects as well. Here are some personal notes (not universally applicable):
Probably the most challenging part of the any of the above levels is consistency. It’s just hard. It’s hard to go on a run when you just don’t enjoy it or when the weather sucks, it is hard to go climbing when the mood isn’t striking, it is hard to find time when you have an intense work schedule. So how do you solve these? I found a few ways that helped me, maybe something would work for you.
Our cognitive performance is inseparable from our physical health. The same principles that build a 10k PR or a V7 climbing grade are the exact same ones that build a high-impact, sustainable engineering career: you need fundamentals, deliberate training, and recovery.
You can’t sprint a marathon, and you can’t sprint a career without burning out. By investing in your physical platform, you are directly investing in your mental output. The return on that investment is a career and a life that is more performant, resilient, and sustainable.
Let me know what you think!
P.S. This post was in part inspired by my personal trainer from Vancouver. Thank you for your recommendations! And now I promise to incorporate compound barbell training once a week back into my routine and will report back after some time! 🫡
October 19, 2025 AI, Opinion No comments
I would like to discuss a dilemma between near science fiction predictions of development of AI and grounded practical applications of AI.

First of all, it is completely undeniable that AI is changing our lives and will have a transformative effect on the future. We can argue that humanity has lived through many transformative events over and over again: invention of fire, agriculture, writing, electricity, industrialization, information technologies, so AI can be seen as just one more invention on our part. Now, is AI really just one more invention or something that would absolutely change what it is to be a human as we know it? Is this our last invention?
I just finished reading the book “The Singularity is Nearer”. The book is arguing that we will eventually extend the capabilities of our biological brains and go beyond the limits of our organic bodies. At first we would come up with inventions that would greatly extend and improve our lives (reaching “longevity escape velocity” in mid 30s) and that we will build brain-computer interfaces (think of phones now, AR glasses or something of the like next, brain implants next, nanorobots next, with eventual consciousness upload to the information network). As another book “Homo Deus” (my review) argues – we eventually become god-like and gain the ability to control life and environment and Homo Sapiens go extinct. We might eventually lose our carbon-based existence and just become information.
To my way of thinking, while much of that, like nanorobots repairing our bodies, may sound like science fiction, as long as it doesn’t break the laws of physics I’m on board that it can and may happen.
Now, let’s look at some more practical examples.
This same pattern of hitting a practical limit is not just a historical curiosity because I can see it already happening in the world of AI. Let’s have a look at some examples:
My point is that in many individual fields where AI is applicable we will be reaching the some kind of optimal point between theoretical possibility and practical application. In the process we will be seeing major transformations, like the entire sector of jobs associated with driving will be replaced by self-driving vehicles. There is a good chance this could create socio-economic disruptions and ripple effects. Just imagine, some rich “haves” can give their child superpowers while some poor “have nots” could not afford that. But I agree to the point that this is only “in-transite”, because now people in some poor countries can afford a phone that would be multi-billion worth of technology if this was mid last century.
My own predictions are that:
October 11, 2025 AI, Fun 2 comments
The other day my daughter showed me the typing game her teacher encouraged kids to play. My daughter was impressed with my typing speed. This blog post is to impress her even more.
The game she played was online typing practice – you type text and compete with other players for speed and accuracy. Players are represented as racing cars. If you win races you qualify to higher league of players. In this post I want to do few things:
Here is the result of about 30 minutes of work. You can play it yourself (if reading from e-mail you may need to open the blog).
This was achieved with 13 prompts, summarized like this:
1. Initial project creation prompt
2. CORS issue fix request
3. Container class addition request
4. HTML demo update request
5. Simple version (typing.html) request
6. Visual version creation request
7. Error display duration adjustment
8. Error display fix attempt
9. Revert request for error display
10. UI enhancement with "click to activate" label
11. Visual version adjustment request
12. Final revert request
13. History documentation requestNow instead of working with Claude, I started working with Gemini to create a design for the multiplayer game.
Here is the high level system design document: opens in another page.

Given that I explicitly prompted it to be fully stateless, relying only on client side local history, no login and no other complications this seems to be a fairly good start. My prompt was:
Now I want you to create a comprehensive system design to build the game described above. We need:
- simple website with JS logic
- backend that can create rooms of gamers based on their levels
- the game should protect user privacy so there is no user info stored on backend
- game history is only stored as long as user has local cookies
- backend should handle at least 10k users
- single game has max 6 players
- if user wins the game they are placed into higher leagueAs a next step I fed the generated system design document back to Claude in Visual Code. This time I had to fight a lot more with the AI as it was running into issues connecting players but finally arrived at the multiplayer game:

Prompting history:
- Initial setup of multiplayer backend server
- Setup Node.js with Socket.IO and databases
- Create basic server structure
- Implementation of matchmaking system
- Create skill-based queue system
- Handle player matching logic
- Game room and state management
- Implement room creation and management
- Handle player synchronization
- Create typing texts table
- Add sample data
- Visual keyboard integration
- Add keyboard visualization to multiplayer version
- Implement key highlighting
The backend is powered by:
- Node.js
- Socket.IO (for real-time WebSocket communication)
- Redis (for server-side data/caching)
- PostgreSQL (for the database)I have complete confidence that if I had 2 or 3 days to spend on this I could actually create a game that can be put out there on some servers and be actually playable by actual human beings! The new world of AI is nuts. I’m out of my time allocated to blogging, but I’m convinced over and over again, that the old times of programming are over – the only way to survive is to adopt.
P.S. Another thought: I have a friend who works on Linux kernel stuff. You would imagine that hardcore stuff like that would not be affected by the era of AI, but no, he says that AI helps to properly review pull requests to the kernel and catch real issues, moreover it does help to build more complex things. Caveat, of course, is that the proper knowledge is still required. Who knows, if I knew nothing about programming, maybe, I wouldn’t be able to build this typing game so quickly? Or, maybe, this is just a matter of time?
October 5, 2025 Opinion, RandomThoughts No comments
“If you stay silent as a mouse you will just stay where you are.“
This was the advice I got from a team lead at my first job, right after I’d rushed through the office to complain about a broken system that endangered a delivery to our client the next week. He praised me and didn’t want to shut me down, even if I might have overdone it. For many of us, finding that voice is the hardest part. We hold back our ideas, questions, and concerns for a number of reasons. Let’s break down the four most common ones:
One of the biggest mistakes we make is assuming that others have the same knowledge or perspective as we do. What seems obvious to you is often the result of your unique experiences, learning, and context. But others may not have the same background.
One of my university professors used to say there are only three types of proof: by contradiction, by reasoning, and obvious. I struggled with the 3rd one because when something is somehow “obvious”, it wasn’t that obvious to me at all.
Quickly re-stating that “obvious” part often removes the ambiguity from the discussion and sets the common baseline. Without being aligned on the same baseline the entire conversation doesn’t make sense, that’s why it is super-important to simply re-state the “obvious” and explicitly list what the assumptions are.
Sometimes I notice how very senior leaders would ask very basic questions about something only to witness that not everybody in the room was on the same page about this basic truth.
Sharing the “obvious” has very little drawback. While there may be a small cost, say a bit more document space or an extra minute in a meeting, that cost is a cheap insurance policy against catastrophic misalignment. A little information overhead is always better than massive miscommunication.
It is oftentimes true that others know better (to state the obvious). But this shouldn’t be a blocker, rather it should be an incentive! If you speak up and you’re wrong, you become the main beneficiary: you get corrected and learn a critical piece of information. If you’re silent, you leave the meeting still misinformed. If a question is forming in your mind, it’s highly likely that several other people in the room are thinking the exact same thing but are too afraid to ask. By asking, you don’t expose your ignorance; you serve the collective need for clarity.
Sometimes it’s not fear or lack of clarity, but simple deference to authority. When senior leaders are present, people instinctively stay quiet, assuming their ideas matter less or that others will take the lead. This one is tricky as it also includes some cultural aspects of how you were raised and also cultural aspects of your company.
More often than not, however, leaders actually want more people to speak. They value a challenging question or divergent perspective far more than a room full of nodding heads. In fact, leaders sometimes speak first precisely to kick-start the conversation, and they often intentionally hold back because they don’t want their presence to silence the room. In fact, sometimes leaders don’t speak at all precisely because they want to ensure others feel there is room to contribute. Silence out of deference is perceived as alignment, which can lead to misguided decisions. Don’t assume your idea matters less. Assume your perspective is a critical puzzle piece the decision-maker needs.
This one is a tough one because it’s rooted in our fundamental human desire for psychological safety. This is a need that is not always easy to satisfy in high-pressure environments, such as the big tech corporate world.
Google has done this famous study “Project Aristotle” which concluded that psychological safety was the number one predictor of a team’s effectiveness, more so than the individual skills, intelligence, or seniority of the team members. The “how” a team worked together was more important than the “who.” Safety there means that team members are confident that no one will embarrass or punish them for admitting a mistake, asking a question, or offering a new idea.
Being comfortable taking “interpersonal risks,” such as challenging the status quo, offering divergent ideas, or asking for help is a lot more beneficial than taking another risk of closing in and solving the problem on your own.
The path from “mouse” to “wolf” isn’t about aggression or volume. It’s about recognizing that your unique perspective is a crucial piece of the collective intelligence. Your job isn’t to be an expert on everything, but to ensure that the room has all the information it needs: whether that’s stating the obvious, asking the ‘dumb’ question, or challenging the senior leader. So:
Ask the ‘n00b’ question. Challenge the status quo. State the obvious. Share your ideas. You lose virtually nothing, but the collective clarity and your growth is a big win. Speak up!
September 28, 2025 Opinion No comments
How many times have you been in a meeting where a brilliant idea was discussed, only to have it disappear into thin air? “Talk is Cheap; Show me the code” by Linus Torvalds perfectly captures the frustration, which roughly means that ideas, promises, or arguments don’t carry much weight until they’re backed by action. In software, the ultimate proof is working code. To be brutally honest, I often talk more than I code, and while talking is important at more senior roles, the ultimate delivery is still code.
I have been in multiple discussions where we were talking about some tool or some product and we all thought, “oh, it would have been nice if the tool had this capability or just this extra command flag we can use”, but because none of us had familiarity with the tool it basically stayed with that “would have been nice”. Over time I noticed: diving into the code is usually less intimidating than it looks. Once you do, you not only solve the problem but also gain familiarity others don’t have.
Why don’t people do this more often? It’s simple: it requires effort taking time away from your main project and has a high risk of failure. My proposal is to time-box your effort. There is definitely a sweet spot where you can spend y hours on the thing, where uncertainty reduces the most drastically, to make the final call if more effort is worth it. The ‘y’ should be somewhat proportional but limiting to the benefit ‘x’ you get, maybe y = sqrt(x).
Another example: I was using some internal tool and it had a simple UI validation bug. One path to take was to file a ticket with the team owning the tool, someone would look it up, which would definitely be low priority on their plate, and this would get fixed in few weeks or not at all, but I needed the fix right now to avoid workarounds, so I published the fix code change – literally 2 lines of code. It would have probably taken 2x more time to file the ticket and communicate with the tool owners. They only had to stamp the change.
A bit more abstract: let’s say you are using a system owned by someone else, and you need to change something from x to y. In one way you know that’s a simple change and the person is likely to agree, but explaining it and waiting for them to apply the change causes friction. Instead if you just do the change on your own, and getting Y instead of X is just an “approve” stamp on the other side you will get your stuff really soon.
But won’t you come across as someone for pushing for a change without aligning first? – Yup, there is such a risk. There is a very simple way to avoid this: just soften how you propose the change. Ideas: 1) give a quick short “heads-up” message “I have this idea to improve Z by changing x to y, I will share a preview change to show what I mean”; 2) frame your code change as a light proposal, a “preview”, a “suggestion”.
This is perhaps where the ‘smallest code change’ provides the most value. Many of us, myself included, can get lost in the abstraction of system design by drawing diagrams and talking through every possibility. While this is a necessary step, it’s not a substitute for engaging with the actual code. I’ve worked with software architects in the past who were so detached from the codebase that their designs were completely unworkable. They simply didn’t know what they were talking about. The solution is to complement your high-level design with ‘on the ground’ code.
The key learning for myself: whenever working on the design of something: do more code digging and make small refactorings along the way (even if a bit unrelated).
This one is a bit subjective, but we are humans as well as software engineers. There’s a fundamental difference between talking about progress and actually making it. Pushing code feels a lot better than just talking about it. Wouldn’t you agree?
Next time you’re tempted to keep talking, try the smallest code change instead. It speaks louder than a hundred conversations. This is one lesson for me.