![\"A](\"https://eu.uploads.micro.blog/5908/2026/forbes-procrastinar.png\")
![](\"https://eu.uploads.micro.blog/5908/2026/forbes-correo.png\")
When you see a text a second or third time you recognise it, and that feeling of recognition is easily mistaken for actual understanding. This is the fluency illusion: the ease of processing something gets read as a measure of how well you know it. Rereading and highlighting raise how easy something feels right now (retrieval strength), but they barely build the deeper storage that remains once the text is no longer in front of you (storage strength). Take the source away, and the illusion of mastery collapses.
\nPassive techniques like highlighting and rereading feel productive precisely because they ask for almost no cognitive effort. You register that something matters, but that is not the same as integrating it into what you already know: explaining why it matters, saying it again in your own words, or finding it later without the text. Without that step you stay at the level of collecting information instead of building knowledge you can apply yourself.
\nThe fix is not a better way of highlighting, but building in friction: forcing yourself to retrieve, explain or generate something without the source at hand. That feels harder and less successful in the moment, precisely because you can fail at it, and that friction is what leaves a lasting trace. The same illusion is not limited to studying: nodding along through a text or a codebase because everything feels familiar does not give you the ability to solve the problem yourself either.
\nYou’re on holiday and something breaks at work. You drive back, you fix it, everyone applauds. And you feel it too: you were needed, and it worked.
\nThat applause is where it goes wrong. Praise is a signal: it tells the whole organisation what actually gets rewarded. You learn that you’re the one who always shows up. Your team learns that the call is yours, not theirs. Your own boss learns that you’ll handle it.
\nThis isn’t ego, or hardly ever. It’s identity. If you’ve been the reliable one for years, stepping back doesn’t feel modest. It feels irresponsible. Which is why deciding to delegate more isn’t enough on its own: you can tell your team to take more ownership and still sit on the context they’d need to act on it.
\nSo prove your commitment some other way. Share context before there’s a crisis. Say out loud who gets to decide what. And next time, before you get in the car, ask your colleagues one question: what do you need to handle this without me?
\n", "summary": "Stepping back from being the go-to problem solver is difficult because it challenges one’s identity, so sharing responsibility and context, and empowering colleagues is essential for true delegation.", "date_published": "2026-08-05T20:23:21+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/08/05/praise-for-rescuing-keeps-the.html", "tags": ["Digital garden"] }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/08/04/does-your-ai-work-for.html", "content_html": "Does your AI work for you or is it the other way around?
\nWhenever you’re pasting the output the AI gives you into another application, you’re just acting as a meat proxy (the next Times Word of the Year?).
\nBy all means, prompt AI.\n But don't just relay the output.\n Read it, understand it, validate it, and then write a response in your own words\n (a decent certificate that you've done the prior steps).\n Making that effort is value you can add.\n\n\n", "date_published": "2026-08-04T11:52:06+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/08/04/does-your-ai-work-for.html", "tags": ["Quotes"] }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/08/04/train-when-your-chronotype-peaks.html", "title": "Train when your chronotype peaks, but never let the perfect hour stop you from training", "content_html": "
Your body has a natural chronotype: a morning type, an evening type, or something in between, driven by the circadian rhythms of cortisol and testosterone. It determines when in the day you perform best, physically and mentally, and the gap between a clear morning type and a clear evening type runs up to eight hours. Evening types reach their aerobic peak around 20:00, roughly eleven hours after waking up, while morning types get there around noon.
\nTraining at the wrong moment costs measurable performance. A morning type who trains in the afternoon can perform 5 to 6 percent below their natural peak. For an evening type forced to train very early, the risk is a different one: the body has not yet reached its optimal temperature and neuromuscular activation, which raises both the injury risk and the perceived effort, especially on too little sleep.
\nEven so, consistency outweighs timing. Pushing a clear evening type into early morning workouts can backfire, but training at a non ideal hour still beats not moving at all. Your chronotype is largely genetic and does not shift radically. An owl does not turn into a lark by getting up early for a few weeks. Light exposure and a consistent daily rhythm can nudge it, but only gently.
\n", "summary": "Natural chronotypes dictate optimal physical and mental performance times, with training at suboptimal hours potentially hindering performance, yet consistency in exercise remains more beneficial than irregular activity.", "date_published": "2026-08-04T09:20:15+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/08/04/train-when-your-chronotype-peaks.html", "tags": ["Digital garden"] }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/08/03/ai-is-a-swiss-army.html", "content_html": "AI is a Swiss Army knife. It does everything and excels at nothing.
\nThat’s exactly why it wins. The best tool is not the sharpest one, it’s the one already in your pocket.
\n", "date_published": "2026-08-03T12:12:52+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/08/03/ai-is-a-swiss-army.html" }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/07/20/finished-reading-offerdjuret-by-henrik.html", "content_html": "![](\"https://cdn.micro.blog/books/9789189750845/cover.jpg\")
\nFinished reading: Offerdjuret by Henrik Fexeus 📚
\nFirst non-fiction book in a long time. I enjoyed the experience, even though the book is medium level.
\n", "date_published": "2026-07-20T22:57:51+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/07/20/finished-reading-offerdjuret-by-henrik.html", "tags": ["Reading"] }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/07/01/the-everthoughtful-hgc-gives-us.html", "content_html": "The ever-thoughtful @HG21C gives us the dictionary:
\n\nBeware the words and phrases that try to disguise the non-effectiveness of an individual or team. For example, they use ‘urgent’ but you know ‘they forgot to anticipate this’\n\n\n", "date_published": "2026-07-01T08:56:44+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/07/01/the-everthoughtful-hgc-gives-us.html", "tags": ["Quotes"] }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/06/17/sometimes-i-wonder-how-i.html", "content_html": "
Sometimes I wonder how I got things done before AI…
\n", "date_published": "2026-06-17T11:50:49+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/06/17/sometimes-i-wonder-how-i.html" }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/06/01/finished-reading-the-gifts-of.html", "content_html": "![](\"https://cdn.micro.blog/books/9781592859894/cover.jpg\")
\nFinished reading: The Gifts of Imperfection by Brené Brown 📚
\n", "date_published": "2026-06-01T13:23:45+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/06/01/finished-reading-the-gifts-of.html", "tags": ["Reading"] }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/06/01/cala-santes-creus-the-perfect.html", "content_html": "📸 Cala Santes Creus
\nThe perfect spot to disconnect…
\n![\"\"](\"https://eu.uploads.micro.blog/5908/2026/img-0084.jpg\")
\n",
"date_published": "2026-06-01T12:01:52+02:00",
"url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/06/01/cala-santes-creus-the-perfect.html"
},
{
"id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/05/18/you-never-learned-to-delegate.html",
"title": "You never learned to delegate. AI just made it obvious.",
"content_html": "You finish the day with thirty things still on your list. You ask your AI assistant to prepare a summary of the week’s meetings to send to the team. You give it five minutes, trust the output, and hit send.
\nThe next day, three replies. None positive.
\nWhat went wrong? Not the AI. The AI did exactly what you asked. The problem is what you asked, how you asked it, and what you expected without saying so.
\nWhen you delegate to a person, they fill in the gaps. They read the context, ask questions, assume what you probably meant. They patch your incomplete instructions with their experience and goodwill. Decades of working with people have trained you to rely on this buffer. You learned to delegate just well enough that a capable human could save you from yourself.
\nSo you never had to confront the actual quality of your instructions. The person you delegated to quietly filled in what was missing, and the work got done. You assumed you were a decent delegator. You probably were not. Neither am I.
\nAI assistants do not do this. They execute. They take your instructions at face value and produce output that reflects, without any filter, exactly what you asked for.
\nThat is genuinely useful information. If the output is wrong, the instruction was wrong. And now you can see it.
\nBefore AI, bad delegation was invisible. The person you delegated to absorbed the cost of your vagueness. They spent extra time figuring out what you meant, made judgment calls you never knew about, and delivered something that looked like what you wanted. The sloppiness was hidden in the process.
\nWith AI, the sloppiness becomes the output. And it lands in your inbox, or your client’s inbox, or your team’s inbox, before you catch it.
\nThis is not a technology problem. It is a delegation problem that technology has finally made visible.
\nDelegating well to a person or to a machine requires the same three things.
\nFirst: you need to know what you want. Not in vague terms (“a good summary”) but specifically. What is the purpose of this summary? Who is reading it? What decision should it inform? What should it not include? If you cannot answer these questions before delegating, the person or the AI will have to guess. Humans are better at guessing. That is their advantage. It is also why you never noticed you were not answering these questions.
\nSecond: you need to explain it clearly. Knowing what you want is not enough if you cannot translate that into a brief that someone else can act on. This is the craft part of delegation, and it is a skill most people have never deliberately practiced. We learn it accidentally, from working with patient colleagues who trained themselves to read our minds.
\nThird: you need to know how to verify the result. Before you send anything, you need a moment of “does this actually do what I said I needed?” That verification step requires you to reconnect with your original intent, and it only works if that intent was clear in the first place.
\nNone of this is new. It is just more urgent now.
\nDelegation and management were once skills for people who had teams. You needed direct reports, collaborators, employees before these competencies became relevant to your daily work. Most knowledge workers navigated their entire careers without seriously developing them.
\nThat changed.
\nIf you work with AI in any meaningful way, you are now managing something. You are setting direction, communicating intent, and evaluating output. The same skills apply, and the same gaps get exposed.
\nThe democratization of AI is also the democratization of management. Every individual contributor who uses an AI assistant is, in some small way, now a manager. And most of them are starting where managers have always started: thinking they are better at it than they are.
\nThe good news is that the feedback loop is faster. When you delegate to a person and the output is wrong, it might take days to surface. When you delegate to AI and the output is wrong, you see it in seconds. That speed is a gift, if you use it as a learning signal rather than as evidence that AI does not work.
\nThe path forward is not complicated, but it requires being honest about where the problem actually lives.
\nWhen AI produces bad output, resist the instinct to blame the model. Ask instead: what did I actually ask for? Read your prompt as if someone else wrote it. Is it specific? Does it include the context the assistant would need to make the right judgment calls? Does it describe what success looks like?
\nThen revise the prompt, not as a workaround, but as a genuine attempt to articulate what you want. This is the work. It is uncomfortable because it forces you to think more carefully than you are used to before you delegate. But it is also exactly the habit that will make you better at delegating to people, not just to AI.
\nOver time, you will get faster at it. You will develop a sense for what information needs to be in a prompt versus what can be assumed. You will learn where AI needs explicit context and where it can be trusted to fill in reasonable defaults. This is not prompt engineering in the technical sense. It is delegation skill.
\nIf you want to work through this more systematically, I teach a delegation matrix in my KENSO masterclass: a practical tool for deciding what you do yourself, what you delegate to a person, and what you hand to AI. The masterclass is in Spanish, but the framework applies regardless of language or workflow. You can find it at kenso.es/masterclass.
\n", "summary": "Effective delegation requires specificity, clarity in communication, and verification of results, particularly when working with AI, which lacks the human ability to infer context.", "date_published": "2026-05-18T20:16:25+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/05/18/you-never-learned-to-delegate.html" }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/04/29/miss-the-days-when-we.html", "content_html": "Miss the days when we all watched the same episode and talked about it the next day. Now everyone’s at a different point in the season. That shared TV excitement is getting harder to find.
\n", "date_published": "2026-04-29T14:10:17+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/04/29/miss-the-days-when-we.html" }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/04/28/the-day-siri-stopped-arguing.html", "title": "The day Siri stopped arguing about language", "content_html": "Living in Catalonia as a Dutchman means I navigate four languages daily: Dutch, Catalan, Spanish, and English. When it comes to my devices, though, I have a clear preference: Dutch. That’s the language in which I think most deeply, and I want my interface in my native tongue.
\nThat preference ran into a wall when we installed a HomePod. Since Siri doesn’t support Catalan, my wife and I settled on Spanish as the household language for it. What I hadn’t anticipated was what that meant for every other device in the house: all members of a HomePod household must use the same Siri language. My devices had to follow the HomePod’s lead and use Siri in Spanish, even though my OS remained in Dutch.
\nThen Apple Intelligence arrived and made things more complicated: system language and Siri language now had to match. I tried a Spanish OS for a while, but eventually concluded that Dutch simply works better for me and decided to skip Apple Intelligence rather than compromise.
\nDuring a recent clean reinstall, I set up my devices fresh without restoring from a backup. A few days in, I noticed something unexpected: Siri was responding in Dutch. It had defaulted to my system language during setup, and apparently nothing was blocking it anymore. The HomePod restriction I had struggled with for so long seemed to have quietly disappeared, possibly a change that came in with Apple Intelligence, even if I am not using it.
\nA small discovery with a surprisingly big impact on daily comfort.
\n", "summary": "Navigating multiple languages in Catalonia, a Dutchman finds newfound ease when Siri unexpectedly defaults to Dutch on his devices after a clean reinstall, overcoming previous language restrictions.", "date_published": "2026-04-28T18:17:27+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/04/28/the-day-siri-stopped-arguing.html" }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/04/10/currently-reading-ive-got-time.html", "content_html": "![](\"https://cdn.micro.blog/books/9781786789181/cover.jpg\")
\nCurrently reading: I’ve Got Time by Paul Loomans 📚
\n", "date_published": "2026-04-10T18:36:52+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/04/10/currently-reading-ive-got-time.html", "tags": ["Reading"] }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/04/09/currently-reading-the-gifts-of.html", "content_html": "\nCurrently reading: The Gifts of Imperfection by Brené Brown 📚
\n", "date_published": "2026-04-09T22:36:12+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/04/09/currently-reading-the-gifts-of.html", "tags": ["Reading"] }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/04/09/finished-reading-el-infinito-en.html", "content_html": "![](\"https://cdn.micro.blog/books/9788417860868/cover.jpg\")
\nFinished reading: El infinito en un junco by Irene Vallejo 📚
\nA fascinating trip through the history of books.
\n", "date_published": "2026-04-09T22:04:00+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/04/09/finished-reading-el-infinito-en.html", "tags": ["Reading"] }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/04/09/nicholas-explains-the-master-list.html", "content_html": "Nicholas explains the master list:
\n\nHow do you use it?\n\n", "date_published": "2026-04-09T15:31:58+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/04/09/nicholas-explains-the-master-list.html", "tags": ["Quotes"] }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/03/30/can-you-have-a-real.html", "title": "Can you have a real conversation with your notes?", "content_html": "\n\n
- Capture everything on it at any time, day or night. Work or play. For that reason, I prefer a paper notebook. It can be on my desk, in a vacation roller bag in a gym back-pack. It does not need electricity; it does not need wi-fi; it can’t ‘go down’.
\n- Towards the end of the day, scan it and break down sizeable items into smaller ones so that everything is both brain (I can do that!) and time (20-minute chunks) friendly. Only your eyes and your brain can do that.
\n- Then create your day list for tomorrow, bearing in mind pre-booked meetings and thus your true availability.
\n- Tomorrow, work your day list!
Niklas Luhmann, the prolific sociologist behind the Zettelkasten method, often described his note-taking practice as having a conversation with his system. He would write a note, and the system would “respond” by surfacing related ideas, unexpected connections, unexpected tensions.
\nIt was a metaphor. A beautiful one, but still a metaphor.
\nBut what if it didn’t have to be?
\nAt the PKM Summit in Utrecht last week, I proposed a breakout session around exactly this question: what would it mean to have literal voice conversations with your personal knowledge management system? Not just speaking to transcribe, but speaking to think, and having your notes respond.
\nI’ll be honest: I went in with more questions than answers. And I came out with even more. But the discussion surfaced a framework that I find genuinely useful.
\nThe participants in our session quickly recognized that “voice with PKM” means very different things depending on how sophisticated the interaction is. We mapped it into four levels.
\nThis is where most people start. Tools like Wispr Flow, Onit, or Handy let you speak and get text back. It’s a fast, friction-free way to capture thoughts, especially useful when your hands are busy or you think faster than you type.
\nUseful, certainly. But this is essentially just a faster keyboard. Your PKM isn’t doing anything with your ideas yet.
\nHere’s where it gets interesting. You speak your thoughts, including instructions, and AI restructures them into something more useful than raw transcription.
\nThis is what I do myself. I’ll verbally draft an idea in Tana, weaving in instructions like “turn this into bullet points” or “reorganize this around the main argument.” The result isn’t just captured speech; it’s been processed into a form my PKM can actually work with. Non-linear thinking becomes structured notes.
\nThe key difference from level 1: you’re not just inputting; you’re collaborating.
\nAt this level, the AI doesn’t just process your input, it engages. It asks clarifying questions. It pushes back. It says: “You mentioned three different things here; which one is the core point?”
\nThis is where voice starts to feel like the conversations Luhmann was describing, and where I’m currently experimenting myself. Using the voice chat feature in Tana, I’ve found that my thoughts become sharper not because I transcribed them, but because something challenged them. It’s slower than level 2, but noticeably deeper.
\nThis is the aspirational level. Imagine being able to ask your PKM: “What did I decide about this project in January?” or “What sources have I read on habit formation?” and getting a coherent spoken response drawn from your own notes.
\nFull integration. Your PKM as a genuine thinking partner you can speak with, not just write to.
\nWe’re not there yet. But the direction is clear.
\nHere’s what I keep coming back to.
\nA few years ago, I wrote a post arguing that writing is the best medium for deep thinking. The act of writing forces you to formulate ideas clearly, to make vague thoughts concrete, to notice where your logic breaks down. The friction is the feature.
\nVoice removes that friction.
\nSo is voice input actually good for thinking, or just good for capturing? Is it a shortcut that helps you move faster, or a shortcut that lets you skip the hard part?
\nI don’t have a clean answer. My instinct is that levels 1 and 2 are primarily about capture efficiency: getting ideas into the system faster and with less friction. Levels 3 and 4 are where real thinking might happen, but only if the AI engagement is substantive enough to replicate what writing does naturally.
\nThe question is whether today’s tools get there.
\nMost people working with PKM systems are operating at level 1. A smaller group has reached level 2. Levels 3 and 4 are still being figured out.
\nWhat I took away from the PKM Summit is that the ceiling is much higher than the current tools suggest. And that the interesting work isn’t just building better transcription. It’s figuring out how spoken dialogue can become a genuine mode of thinking, not just a faster mode of typing.
\nLuhmann’s metaphor might become literal sooner than we think.
\nAt which level are you using voice in your PKM? And do you think voice can ever match writing as a medium for deep thought?
\n", "summary": "Exploring the integration of voice in personal knowledge management reveals varying levels of interaction, from basic transcription to a potential future where voice dialogue facilitates deep thinking.", "date_published": "2026-03-30T12:55:28+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/03/30/can-you-have-a-real.html" }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/03/24/nicholas-bate-hgc-on-eufriction.html", "content_html": "Nicholas Bate (@HG21C) on Eufriction:
\n\nDon’t aim to remove all friction from your day. Remove unhelpful friction such as bureaucracy, ineffective tools, and unclear messages. Keep the friction that brings value such as pausing before you send or the effort that leads to quality and better thinking.\n\n\n
Working slower promotes deeper thinking processes and better results
\n", "date_published": "2026-03-24T13:27:15+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/03/24/nicholas-bate-hgc-on-eufriction.html", "tags": ["Quotes"] }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/03/22/ein-bcn-ive-had-a.html", "content_html": "🛫EIN – BCN 🛬\nI’ve had a blast at the PKM Summit! Still wrapping my head around everything I saw and heard.
\n", "date_published": "2026-03-22T18:23:21+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/03/22/ein-bcn-ive-had-a.html" }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/03/19/bcn-ams-ready-for-the.html", "content_html": "🛫BCN – AMS 🛬\nReady for the PKM Summit!
\n", "date_published": "2026-03-19T18:23:43+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/03/19/bcn-ams-ready-for-the.html" }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/03/18/two-of-my-productivity-tips.html", "content_html": "Two of my productivity tips made it into the March issue of Forbes España: on beating procrastination and taming your inbox.
\n
So true:
\n\nif you need an alarm to wake up, you are sleep deprived.\n\n\n
(This is a note to myself)
\n", "date_published": "2026-03-11T16:27:28+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/03/11/so-true-if-you-need.html", "tags": ["Quotes"] }, { "id": "http://jeroensangers.micro.blog/2026/02/25/multitasking-leads-to-an-overestimation.html", "title": "Multitasking leads to an overestimation of your own ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously", "content_html": "Multitasking is a common phenomenon in our modern society, but research shows that we are much worse at it than we think. The problem lies not only in the fact that we struggle to perform multiple tasks simultaneously, but especially in our inaccurate assessment of our own capabilities. Studies show that people who frequently multitask wrongly believe they are doing so effectively. They significantly overestimate their abilities, while the reality is different. This lack of self-awareness is worrying: we are not only bad at multitasking, but we also seem unable to see or acknowledge it.
\nThe consequences of frequent multitasking go beyond just a distorted self-perception. Research on chronic media multitaskers, people who regularly process multiple media streams simultaneously, shows striking results. These heavy multitaskers are actually more sensitive to environmental distractions and irrelevant information in their memory. Paradoxically, they even perform worse on tests measuring the ability to switch between tasks, likely because they are less capable of filtering out distracting information. This suggests that frequent multitasking is associated with a fundamentally different way of processing information.
\nThe comparison to a drunk person who thinks they are walking in a straight line captures the problem well: we think we are better than we actually are. Thus, multitasking creates a dangerous combination of reduced performance and inflated self-confidence. As multitasking plays an increasingly larger role in our daily lives, it becomes all the more important to be aware of these limitations and the gap between our perception and reality.
\nLast week I read about custom vibe-coded RSS readers: quick and scrappy tools, non-polished, built to solve a particular need of their owner. Today I read about Current, which has thoughtful design, interesting concepts, and attention to detail.
\nAnd then I noticed something curious.
\nOn one hand, there’s this artisan tendency. People who dedicate time to building personal tools with the same mindset a cabinetmaker uses to make a table: every decision matters, every detail counts. The result is beautiful, thoughtful, unique software.
\nOn the other hand, there’s the explosion of tools made with the help of artificial intelligence. Quick solutions, imperfect, often somewhat rough. But deeply personal. Software that does exactly what you need, even if it won’t win any design awards.
\nTwo completely different approaches. And both are happening at the same time.
\nWhat’s fascinating isn’t that both exist, but that they coexist without conflict. They’re not opposing approaches; they’re different answers to the same question: what should my tools look like?
\nThe artisan values the process as much as the result. Technical perfection, elegance, the pleasure of doing something well done. It’s software as personal expression, as craft.
\nThe person using artificial intelligence values speed and perfect adaptation to their specific case. They prefer something imperfect that works today over something perfect that requires months. It’s software as a practical extension of oneself.
\nNeither approach is better. They simply prioritize different things: craft versus immediacy, polish versus personalization, beauty versus direct utility.
\nHere’s the question: where are you on this spectrum?
\nWhen you think about the tools you use every day, the software that surrounds you, what do you value most? Do you care that something is well made even if it’s not exactly what you need? Or do you prefer it to fit like a glove to your way of working, even if it has rough edges?
\nThere’s no right answer. But knowing what you value says a lot about how you relate to your work, to your time, to what you consider worthy of your attention.
\nWhat kind of tools are you building, or choosing, for yourself?
\n", "summary": "The coexistence of artisan-crafted tools and AI-generated solutions highlights differing values in software design, emphasizing craft versus immediacy and personalization versus perfection.", "date_published": "2026-02-18T19:57:00+02:00", "url": "https://jeroensangers.com/2026/02/18/the-artisan-and-the-tinkerer.html" } ] }