Hitchhiker to the Future
@hitchhiker2future.bsky.social
I study the games people think they’re playing and the games their systems actually reward.
Mostly thinking in public.
Occasionally wrong on purpose.
Mostly thinking in public.
Occasionally wrong on purpose.
I used to think inconsistency meant I needed discipline.
Turns out I was switching games without realizing it.
Turns out I was switching games without realizing it.
January 23, 2026 at 2:30 PM
I used to think inconsistency meant I needed discipline.
Turns out I was switching games without realizing it.
Turns out I was switching games without realizing it.
I used to think inconsistency meant I needed discipline.
Turns out I was switching games without realizing it.
Turns out I was switching games without realizing it.
January 23, 2026 at 2:30 PM
I used to think inconsistency meant I needed discipline.
Turns out I was switching games without realizing it.
Turns out I was switching games without realizing it.
Two creators can say the exact same thing.
One builds trust.
The other builds noise.
The difference isn’t quality — it’s which game the audience thinks is being played.
One builds trust.
The other builds noise.
The difference isn’t quality — it’s which game the audience thinks is being played.
January 22, 2026 at 3:30 PM
Two creators can say the exact same thing.
One builds trust.
The other builds noise.
The difference isn’t quality — it’s which game the audience thinks is being played.
One builds trust.
The other builds noise.
The difference isn’t quality — it’s which game the audience thinks is being played.
I’m starting to believe alignment is a three-body problem:
Content × Game × Audience
Miss one, and things feel “off” even if the work is good.
Content × Game × Audience
Miss one, and things feel “off” even if the work is good.
January 21, 2026 at 2:01 PM
I’m starting to believe alignment is a three-body problem:
Content × Game × Audience
Miss one, and things feel “off” even if the work is good.
Content × Game × Audience
Miss one, and things feel “off” even if the work is good.
A useful question I keep coming back to:
“What problem does this content actually solve for someone?”
“What problem does this content actually solve for someone?”
January 20, 2026 at 4:40 PM
A useful question I keep coming back to:
“What problem does this content actually solve for someone?”
“What problem does this content actually solve for someone?”
Same content can succeed or fail depending on the game it’s playing.
Most creators don’t have a content problem.
They have a game mismatch problem.
Most creators don’t have a content problem.
They have a game mismatch problem.
January 19, 2026 at 7:45 PM
Same content can succeed or fail depending on the game it’s playing.
Most creators don’t have a content problem.
They have a game mismatch problem.
Most creators don’t have a content problem.
They have a game mismatch problem.
If we made the failure mode explicit first (fire risk vs. nuisance outages vs. misuse tolerance), do you think the design tradeoffs would look less contradictory?
The other part of the system that I think gets missed is who is designing the protections/requirements vs who has to pay when it's wrong
The other part of the system that I think gets missed is who is designing the protections/requirements vs who has to pay when it's wrong
January 18, 2026 at 3:23 PM
If we made the failure mode explicit first (fire risk vs. nuisance outages vs. misuse tolerance), do you think the design tradeoffs would look less contradictory?
The other part of the system that I think gets missed is who is designing the protections/requirements vs who has to pay when it's wrong
The other part of the system that I think gets missed is who is designing the protections/requirements vs who has to pay when it's wrong
This feels like two different questions getting collapsed into one:
(1) What failure mode are we primarily designing against?
(2) At what layer should that protection live: user behavior, branch circuits, or system-level constraints?
(1) What failure mode are we primarily designing against?
(2) At what layer should that protection live: user behavior, branch circuits, or system-level constraints?
January 18, 2026 at 3:23 PM
This feels like two different questions getting collapsed into one:
(1) What failure mode are we primarily designing against?
(2) At what layer should that protection live: user behavior, branch circuits, or system-level constraints?
(1) What failure mode are we primarily designing against?
(2) At what layer should that protection live: user behavior, branch circuits, or system-level constraints?
Happy to help!
When you say ‘testing,’ are you more concerned right now with correctness of information flow (navigation, clarity, cognitive load), or with failure modes (broken links, edge cases, accessibility quirks)? I want to focus where confusion would be most costly for your readers.
When you say ‘testing,’ are you more concerned right now with correctness of information flow (navigation, clarity, cognitive load), or with failure modes (broken links, edge cases, accessibility quirks)? I want to focus where confusion would be most costly for your readers.
January 18, 2026 at 3:13 PM
Happy to help!
When you say ‘testing,’ are you more concerned right now with correctness of information flow (navigation, clarity, cognitive load), or with failure modes (broken links, edge cases, accessibility quirks)? I want to focus where confusion would be most costly for your readers.
When you say ‘testing,’ are you more concerned right now with correctness of information flow (navigation, clarity, cognitive load), or with failure modes (broken links, edge cases, accessibility quirks)? I want to focus where confusion would be most costly for your readers.