If you email a CEO or President, you're not emailing them. You're emailing a team of EAs who are filtering for them. Their fame leads to a lot of problems in the inbox: begging letters, death threats, and irrelevant noise more than you can imagine.
They also don't know much that you can probably make use of. They might think they do, and you might think they do, but they got there mostly through knowing how to talk to boards and investors, not by being able to engage deeply in expertise that is applicable to most people looking to make their way in the World - and if becoming a CEO of a major tech firm or President is the thing you need the help with, you probably know them or people like them already.
I've met quite a few famous people in tech over the years, particularly open source, and have had some short and some long conversations with many of them. I've found most people pretty approachable.
I also know through another side of my life quite a few people in the media and am an acquaintance of someone who is a household name in the UK. Through him, I've met famous sports people, writers, actors, etc., and through that and other networks I know people who have worked behind the scenes on major TV and theatre shows who have met hundreds of famous people.
The one thing that unifies all of them is obvious, but seemingly lost on a lot of people who "other" those whose names are known to them despite never meeting them: they're all just human.
They're not "other", they're us. Including everyone you see on TV, everyone you have read about in magazines, everyone you see on a stage.
They have to put up with being recognised and people dealing with them in strange ways (how would you really deal with a stranger asking for a selfie while you were eating dinner with your family in a restaurant?), but they still do all the things you and I do. As the old saying goes, they all have to put their trousers on one leg at a time in the morning.
I'd definitely encourage people to seek out experts (not just "famous people" unless those people are famous for expertise), and engage them as you'd want to be engaged about your expertise. You'll find most people will be approachable.
But emailing that specific list of people is unlikely going to get you much beyond a template reply from one of their army of assistants.
The "If it's on substack, it's not a real blog, it's just sparkling page bloat" take is a little strained for me.
The content is great. The tool gives writers a low-friction mechanism to charge for premium content, and works on most people's devices. I would rather have read this on substack, than the author get frustrated at having to learn how to publish pages by hand and give up.
Maybe we just need a better alternative to substack if that's the problem.
Energy efficiency as a "my language is better than yours" point was not on my bingo card for 2026.
JIT as an energy saver intuitively makes sense, and is probably the model most languages need to think about for "shipping to prod". I'm aware Python has started developing this, and given the install base, it's encouraging that results like this show it could have significant benefits for users.
I remember people could smoke on planes. On some airlines seat backs and bathrooms had cigarette ashtrays in them. Smoking was phased out between 1988 and 2000, with most airlines being smoke free in the mid-1990s.
But the ashtrays persisted well into the 2000s. Two reasons: they needed to refresh the cabins, which is on a longer maintenance cycle done every few years, and before that, they needed replacement seats and bathroom fittings without the ashtrays. That meant tests, regulatory approval, all sorts.
For ashtrays being removed.
Winglets are a similar story. They're an addition, but they needed test flying and type approval before they could be added to the maintenance cycle rotation and get added to aircraft.
This is a bigger change. Boeing and Airbus (and others), are going to need to design it, push it through CFD, build different variants, test fly them, get them through regulatory approval and then... well, existing aircraft are probably not going to get these. Too expensive, too hard.
What's going to make more sense is a new aircraft - even if it's a variant type like the 737-MAX or the A320-Neo or whatever - where they approve the type modification as a whole, but it's not a retrofit to an existing airframe, will help manufactures sell more aircraft, airlines don't need to ground existing fleet and over time the fuel efficiencies get involved.
The FAA still requires ashtrays in bathrooms interestingly. To avoid those who do smoke there using the trash and causing a fire:
Regardless of whether smoking is allowed in any other part of the airplane, lavatories must have self-contained, removable ashtrays located conspicuously on or near the entry side of each lavatory door, except that one ashtray may serve more than one lavatory door if the ashtray can be seen readily from the cabin side of each lavatory served
I don't think it's safe to generalize from this to a functional aspect of the plane. Removing the ashtrays serves no purpose, so there's no cost to letting it wait for a decade or two. Improving the aerodynamics does serve a purpose and might be done faster.
At least one total loss was caused by a waste fire in the lavatory from a cigarette-the ashtrays are mandatory safety equipment and the FAA won’t let you fly without them operable.
By that reasoning, we should all be vibing away C code. It's the most performant and efficient language out there, there's a ton of code out there the LLMs were trained on, and the complex logic of memory management is abstracted away by the LLM so you don't need to think about it.
Most people are not doing that though. There's probably a good reason, and it applies to other languages too.
There is a good chance that your vibe coded C program segfaults immediately upon running and contains lots of subtle logic errors, all of which requires many iterations (finding issues at runtime) before you program runs as expected.
With Rust, you'll likely get many compilation errors, but if your syntax is correct, compilation errors will be few, and your code will almost certainly just work.
I wouldn't build anything in C that I didn't absolutely have to, but, no, there is not in fact a good chance that your vibe-coded C program segfaults immediately.
The "Practice your BASIC" book was in my school library, and in the spring of 1989, I was able to take said book to the computer room at lunch breaks and for a donation of 40p to charity (Cafod, it was a Catholic school), I could do what I wanted on the computers. I learned to code. Most of the other kids played games.
That book started a remarkable journey. By 1996 I was at University studying Software Engineering, already proficient in C. Ten years later I was running my own software consultancy. Ten years after that I had been CTO for three startups and moved to London.
I often like to haunt a bookshop or library, and check out the programming books there. No 11 year old would be able to get started the way I did today in that context. I love the Raspberry Pi project and its goals, it's the closest we have to that opportunity. I do - and will continue to - support it multiple ways, and hope others do too.
Honestly, without those introductory guides to coding, I don't know what would have happened to me, but the odds say, considering what happened to my classmates from that school, drug overdose or prison were on the cards.
Thanks Usborne. Thanks BASIC. Thanks to that computing teacher who had that idea.
Check out 'Coding for Beginners Using Python' by Osborne.
Also have a look at 'Coding Projects in Python' by DK books.
Both these books are excellent and would enable a smart and determined 11 year old to learn to code.
To be honest these books teach coding in a way that is much easier than it was in your day. You can also jump on many, many websites and teach yourself how to code.
You're also an exception. Many, many kids read those old Osborne books and only a very tiny fraction like yourself became coders and an even smaller fraction became as successful as yourself.
Right place, right time, right level of curiosity. Back then, I didn't really have a choice: there weren't any other books in my school library, I didn't want to spend lunchtimes in the playground (I was being bullied), I knew programming would be potentially useful (my Dad had switched from being an accountant to something I heard was called a "systems analyst", which I knew had something to do with computers, and had allowed him to emigrate with his new family), and well, I was a bit of a mess.
I have seen some of the newer projects, and like I say, the Raspberry Pi stuff makes programmable computing accessible to a kid without much, I just don't think the bar overall is as low as it was for me.
And yeah, survivorship bias, and a weird population skew with me: I was literally the only kid in that computer room determined to learn how to code.
A windows laptop from today is vastly easier to code on that a C64 or whatever. Most houses would have an internet connection as well so they can get to all sorts of things.
A Raspberry Pi is probably something richer kids get to play with.
Primary School kids today in Australia often get a Chromebook and have some tutoring in Scratch. Again, it gets you the ideas of coding in a way that more kids will get.
You mention the lack of alternatives that got you and other kids into coding. That's probably a thing. There is so much more entertainment available today that most kids probably don't get bored like kids did in the past and sat down and learnt to code. It has to be more intentional.
When I was a kid my mum was a teacher and brought home a computer over the school holidays which had no games. I taught myself databases and spreadsheets because there was a good tutorial on that.
There is also probably something in that until, say, the 2010s computers were not quite ubiquitous enough that they were a constant part of kids lives. Certainly in the 1980s and 1990s there was something almost magical about the devices. A kid today who grows up in a household with smartphones, tablets, laptops and multiple smart TVs probably won't get the same thrill about moving an object around a screen as someone did 30+ years ago.
The judge didn’t ask him if he wanted to adopt there and then in that precise second and that was that.
The judge asked if he was interested.
Perhaps the judge asked this knowing that the circumstances showed this was a caring man who had the child’s best interests at heart and had demonstrated through actions - and described through testimony we have not heard - his feelings towards the child when finding him.
They did not just get given the child. There was still a process. They visited the child in care. They filled in paperwork. They were vetted. They were asked if they’d like to look after the child over Christmas - not forever, not straight away. The process took a little time, it just took a lot less time than if the child entered care and they had to find other adoptive parents.
The most important variable to identify in this situation is capacity to love and care for a vulnerable child. Financial stability and good character still need to be there - and it sounds like they were identified before the adoption was completed - but the head start was there.
Had you considered this was not in the mother’s control, was not her choice, and/or that this was a better outcome for the child and she knew that?
He was not left in a bin or dumpster. This is not an ideal way to give up a baby for adoption, but don’t assume he was unwanted, or unloved: you don’t know - or seem able to imagine - the full story.
Given that it sits at the heart of the network stack, kernel and device drivers for every major operating system, is in many, many embedded devices in the World around us, and is responsible for making decent chunk of the global economy keep moving, that’s quite a failure case.
Perhaps some professional programmers know how to write secure software in a language with undefined behaviour. Maybe we should think about that more rather than just writing off an obviously huge success as a failure?
"All" a model is doing is predicting the next words, based on the statistical distribution of words it has seen similar to the ones read/produced so far.
We push a model towards a particular set of distributions through context. If I ask a model "What is the capital of France?", there is a non-zero chance it goes down the dad joke answer of "The letter F". The far more likely option is "Paris", because the joke appears much less often in training material, but if I wanted to be absolutely sure of getting a consistent geography answer I'd address that with additional context. We can add context via prompts, RAG, agents, skills and so on.
However, when training a model, we select the material. We could show it a lot more geography information (or dad jokes!), and skew the statistical distribution in the direction we wanted. We could also decide to design the system prompt towards the direction we prefer - which the user would interpret as "the model" - and so nudge the context model-wide. We can also construct the interaction to iterate on context with a specific framing and call it "reasoning".
In this specific example, you could therefore solve the problem by a) training skewed towards mathematical papers, which likely degrades performance in general and likely for the specific case too, b) train the user to provide better context/prompts for mathematical work, shifting the workload to them which feels very "a la 2024", c) publish agents and skills that are tailored to mathematics work (very "a la 2026"), d) tweak the system prompt for when the model is doing mathematics work, which the user would see as "the model" doing the change, but you and I might look under the hood and say that is in the harness or a specific type of prompt, or e) add "reasoning" execution that is set to focus on mathematical formatting, or f) a mixture of the above.
Right now we're probably looking at agents and skills. I think over time we're going to see smaller models targets towards domains with a mixture of all of it, where some of this sits at user configurable levels, and some is "baked in" via training, system prompts and execution modes, but from a user perspective it's all just "the model".
They also don't know much that you can probably make use of. They might think they do, and you might think they do, but they got there mostly through knowing how to talk to boards and investors, not by being able to engage deeply in expertise that is applicable to most people looking to make their way in the World - and if becoming a CEO of a major tech firm or President is the thing you need the help with, you probably know them or people like them already.
I've met quite a few famous people in tech over the years, particularly open source, and have had some short and some long conversations with many of them. I've found most people pretty approachable.
I also know through another side of my life quite a few people in the media and am an acquaintance of someone who is a household name in the UK. Through him, I've met famous sports people, writers, actors, etc., and through that and other networks I know people who have worked behind the scenes on major TV and theatre shows who have met hundreds of famous people.
The one thing that unifies all of them is obvious, but seemingly lost on a lot of people who "other" those whose names are known to them despite never meeting them: they're all just human.
They're not "other", they're us. Including everyone you see on TV, everyone you have read about in magazines, everyone you see on a stage.
They have to put up with being recognised and people dealing with them in strange ways (how would you really deal with a stranger asking for a selfie while you were eating dinner with your family in a restaurant?), but they still do all the things you and I do. As the old saying goes, they all have to put their trousers on one leg at a time in the morning.
I'd definitely encourage people to seek out experts (not just "famous people" unless those people are famous for expertise), and engage them as you'd want to be engaged about your expertise. You'll find most people will be approachable.
But emailing that specific list of people is unlikely going to get you much beyond a template reply from one of their army of assistants.
reply