data wrangler
2008 stories
·
38 followers

The quiet grief of adult friendship

1 Comment

A few weeks ago, a friend called me at 01:40 AM. Not texted. Called. For a brief second, my body prepared itself for bad news. Adulthood has conditioned most of us to believe that late-night calls only arrive carrying catastrophe. Someone in the hospital. Someone stranded. Someone dead. But nothing had happened.

She had just finished work, was driving home through near-empty roads in London, heard a song we both used to jam on together, and suddenly missed me. So she called. We spent thirty minutes talking about things that would sound painfully unremarkable on paper. Work fatigue. Bollywood gossip. How she was enjoying every bit of her married life. The indignity of back pain as soon as you touch thirty. A professor we once hated but now miss with alarming frequency. Nothing profound.

And yet after the call ended, I sat awake for a long time with the strange ache of having briefly encountered an earlier version of myself. Not younger exactly. Just…more reachable.

There was once upon a time when friendship did not require elaborate planning. We spoke for hours without checking calendars. Entire evenings disappeared on hostel terraces and tea stalls and long walks taken for absolutely no reason. Friendship in youth thrived on excess time – loose, unstructured, and gloriously wasteful.

However, somewhere between “Let’s catch up soon” and “Sorry, life has been hectic”, adult friendship became one of the most emotionally significant and least discussed losses of modern life.

The invisible funeral

Romantic heartbreak has an elaborate infrastructure. There are films for it. Songs for it. Poetry, rituals, sympathy, advice columns, entire industries dedicated to helping people metabolise romantic loss.

Friendship grief, however, remains oddly invisible. Nobody teaches you how painful it feels to slowly lose access to someone who once knew your inner life intimately. Someone who understood the silences before your sentences. Someone who could identify your mood from the way you said ‘okay’. Someone who knew everything about your crushes and petty insecurities.

And unlike romance, friendships don’t end dramatically. No final conversation. No clean rupture. No cinematic closure. Most friendships dissolve through unattended accumulation – postponed calls, exhausting jobs, geographic distance, emotional fatigue, different sleep schedules, different priorities, and different lives unfolding at different speeds. One day you realise the person who once knew your thoughts now only knows what you accidentally reveal on Instagram stories.

And because ‘nothing happened’, we often deny ourselves the right to grieve it.

We were never meant to live like this

Part of the problem is structural, not personal. Friendships in school and college survived because institutions did most of the work for us. Proximity created intimacy. Repetition created familiarity. We saw each other daily without effort.

Sociologists have long argued that human relationships are sustained less by intensity and more by regularity. Simply encountering the same people repeatedly builds
closeness over time. Youth offers this naturally. Adulthood dismantles it completely. Especially in urban life.

Today’s young professionals live inside systems that quietly erode friendship while pretending to celebrate connection. Work consumes emotional bandwidth. Cities stretch distances cruelly. Weekends become recovery periods rather than social spaces. Ambition transforms everyone into project managers of their own lives. Even rest now feels predicted on being productive.

And so friendship – the one relationship built almost entirely on voluntary presence – begins slipping through the cracks.

The tragedy is that this loneliness often coexists with constant digital interaction. We are perhaps the first generation to possess uninterrupted access to each other while simultaneously becoming emotionally inaccessible. We maintain ambient awareness of one another’s existence without participating meaningfully in each other’s lives. I know what my friends eat. Which cafés they visit. Which things they complain about. I know when they get promoted because LinkedIn informs me before they do. And yet sometimes I hesitate before calling because I no longer know the emotional weather of their lives.

The sanitised version of ourselves

Adulthood rewards self-containment. Everybody is tired. Everybody is working on themselves. Everybody is ‘going through a lot’.

A while ago, I met one of my closest friends after almost two years. We had both changed in ways difficult to articulate immediately.

He had become more efficient with language, as though corporate life had trained his thoughts into bullet points. I had become permanently tired in the peculiar way where exhaustion no longer feels temporary enough to complain about. For the first twenty minutes, conversation moved awkwardly through adult updates. Job. Parents. Health. Mutual acquaintances getting engaged with frightening regularity. And then suddenly he laughed – fully, loudly, head thrown back exactly like he used to – and time collapsed for a second. There he was again.
The brother who never split auto fares with me. The brother who sat beside me during lectures drawing nonsense in notebook margins. The brother who knew who I was before adulthood turned all of us into slightly polished versions of our résumés.

The emotional economy of modern life

Modern adulthood encourages optimisation in almost every sphere. Be productive. Be efficient. Heal yourself. Monetise your hobbies. Curate your identity.

Somewhere along the way, friendships too began absorbing the language of management. We now discuss emotional bandwidth like data plans. Even affection sometimes feels evaluated through invisible cost-benefit analysis: Who texts first? Who makes more effort? Who is emotionally available? Who drains energy?

Friendship, however, has always depended on a certain irrational generosity. A willingness to waste time together magnificently. To listen to the same anxiety for the fifth time. To sit through silence. To remain available without agenda.

And perhaps this is why adult friendship feels increasingly radical. It resists the transactional logic modern life rewards everywhere else. Because a real friend offers something profoundly rare: unoptimised presence. Family is structured by blood. Marriage by institution. Work relationships by utility. Friendship survives purely through mutual choosing. Nobody has to stay. And yet some people do.

Despite impossible schedules and emotional fatigue, some friends continue returning. They send memes during meetings. They remember your important dates. They call you out-of-the-blue. Not because it is convenient. But because somewhere, beneath all the exhaustion adulthood imposes, they still consider your inner life important. Sometimes it is simply the stubborn decision to keep returning to people despite the world constantly training you to prioritise everything else.

Disclaimer

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

Read the whole story
digdoug
1 hour ago
reply
aforementioned, linked article, hopefully saved for posterity
Louisville, KY
Share this story
Delete

Adult Friendship

1 Comment

Sociologists have long argued that human relationships are sustained less by intensity and more by regularity. Simply encountering the same people repeatedly builds closeness over time. Youth offers this naturally. Adulthood dismantles it completely. Especially in urban life.

– From the article The quiet grief of adult friendship

This is one of the many reasons why we are building CreativeMornings/Clubs.

Read the whole story
digdoug
2 hours ago
reply
The linked article is excellent.
Louisville, KY
Share this story
Delete

Why Han Solo Was An Amazing TTRPG Player And TTRPG Players Of Han Solo Characters Mostly Aren’t

1 Share

It’s Star Wars day, and while I haven’t time for my Let Me Show You How Star Wars Actually Operates Via PBTA Moves, let’s try something else. There’s a lot you can learn about how to make your characters better by actually watching Star Wars.

I spent a few years writing Star Wars comics for Disney, which led to me studying them intently with adult eyes. The film which grew with rewatching was actually A New Hope – just this fairy tale, and a deeply strangely structured one. For all it being Patient Zero of The Heroes Journey in Hollywood, its lead doesn’t turn up until twenty minutes into it. That doesn’t turn up in the How To Write a Screenplay guides.A tight look at New Hope reveals stuff people forget (and whose absence is why some later stuff doesn’t land) but also a whole bunch which can make you make your writing (and playing) better.

This is transferable to games, as much of what makes Star Wars work is in the cast’s acting, not the dialogue per se. Not what they say, but how they say it. We have all these lines that have become part of pop culture, quoted until they’re worn thin. Actually look at Star Wars, and see these are performed with fear in the heart and sweat in the eyes. Folks look panicked. They are committed to it, absolutely. This is a long way from the action-as-videogame-cutscene that’s trapped the genre’s heart in Carbonite.

Anyone can make jokes about Storm Troopers’ accuracy. Easy. What you should notice is that there’s no point in the movie where the characters don’t run away the second they’re outnumbered, or treat the threat with the upmost sincerity. It’s not until Jedi we discover what happens if they stand and fight, and can ‘t run away – and the answer is “They get captured.”

And then there’s Han Solo.

Han Solo is the archetypal Han Solo in fiction. Generations of role-players have tried to play knock offs. Generations have shat the bed, as in their Love of the Effect of Han Solo On The Screen have failed to grasp how the magic trick worked.

It’s not just Han, of course. It could be Wolverine. Or any cynical loner who refuses to play by the rules, is clearly cooler than anyone else in the story, and really doesn’t want to be involved.

You know the sort.

What we’re talking about here is one of the classic gaming complaints of those in the trad space. As in, someone grinding the game to a halt with a “my character wouldn’t be involved in this adventure.”

Now, I’ve found myself reading D&D Reddit, and… oh, let’s embed the post.

I've taken to reading D&D reddit, and the best comparison I have to my feelings is when queer folks just blink in confusion at the vagaries and weirdness of hetreo culture. You guys are doing WHAT!? Really? Why?

Kieron Gillen (@kierongillen.bsky.social) 2026-05-03T20:32:57.885Z

There’s a whole lot of stuff, and a mixture of good advice, terrible advice, and a whole world of clashing play styles.

But, were I to paraphrase the hardline advice that pops up when someone asks what to do about a player whose character doesn’t want to go on the adventure, it’s something like…

Just let the party go ahead, and tell the reluctant player that their character has gone off and done their own thing and is now out the game. If you want to carry on playing, roll up a character who wants to be involved in the game.

At which point I am gritting my teeth and trying to avoid barging in the walls of the Internet like the Kool guy going on about This Is Why Buy In is important.

But even that’s not helpful if someone wants to play Han Solo, because Han Solo – almost by definition! – doesn’t want to go on this mission, really. Are we really saying that you can’t pick this clearly popular archetype? After all, Han Solo has to be dragged backwards through the movie to be involved, and everyone loves him.

This is the moment everyone is thinking of.

             HAN
                         Now, look, don't get any funny ideas. 
                         The old man wants us to wait right 
                         here.

                                     LUKE
                         But he didn't know she was here. 
                         Look, will you just find a way back 
                         into the detention block?

                                     HAN
                         I'm not going anywhere.

But the important thing to remember is…

  LUKE
                         She's rich.

               Chewbacca growls.

                                     HAN
                         Rich?

                                     LUKE
                         Yes. Rich, powerful! Listen, if you 
                         were to rescue her, the reward would 
                         be...

                                     HAN
                         What?

                                     LUKE
                         Well more wealth that you can imagine.

                                     HAN
                         I don't know, I can imagine quite a 
                         bit!

                                     LUKE
                         You'll get it!

                                     HAN
                         I better!

Now, if you are looking with naïve eyes, you may think “this means that it’s the party’s job to convince the reticent character they want to be part of this game.”

This would be missing the key fact that Han Solo is a fucking idiot.

Imagine if Star Wars was an actual TTRPG. A classic Han Solo-esque player would have told Luke to sling their hook. It’s clearly a threadbare suggestion, and incredibly risky, and it all hangs on the say-so of this fucking farm boy they just picked up who’s already lost their old dude.

But the player of Han Solo in the film? Oh no. They’re all in. This half-arsed suggestion is all he needs. What they’ve done is used their character trait to create a scene which lets another player shine, and then buy into their answer completely. Rather than using it as a blockage, they’ve used it as a springboard. Rather than worrying about being cool, they have let the other player be cool. Which makes them cooler.

The fundamental mistake that a wannabe Han Solo player makes is thinking that it’s other players’ job to convince them they should play – when it’s in fact, by choosing to play an awkward character, it’s your job to work out why you remain in the game and go along with what’s happening.

It’s interesting that we’re used to thinking about Player Skill intersecting with the character class in terms of efficiently using the skills the class is based around… but we’re less likely to think about the character type in the same way. I think they’re actually identical.

If you’re playing a Han Solo finding ways to stay in the party is your problem in exactly the same way that working out how to throw a fireball and not kill your entire party is your problem as a wizard. If you didn’t want it to be your problem, you shouldn’t have picked the fucking class.

We love Han Solo for many reasons – but above all, we love Han Solo because he remains in the movie, on screen, and doesn’t leave at the forty minute mark, never to be seen again.

Because the one thing Han Solo never was, is boring.

Read the whole story
digdoug
2 hours ago
reply
Louisville, KY
Share this story
Delete

“I do not want to tell you about my recent experience.”

1 Share

On Mastodon, Hendrik Weimer posted 5 most boosted Fediverse posts of 2025. The numbers look kind of low, but the author explains the methodology below.

At any rate, two of the 5 posts have to do with our trust in software.

Number 1 from Max Leibman:

No, I do not want to install your app.
No, I do not want that app to run on startup.
No, I do not want that app shortcut on my desktop.
No, I do not want to subscribe to your newsletter.
No, I do not want your site to send me notifications.
No, I do not want to tell you about my recent experience.
No, I do not want to sign up for an account.
No, I do not want to sign up using a different service and let the two of you know about each other.
No, I do not want to sign in for a more personalized experience.
No, I do not want to allow you to read my contacts.
No, I do not want you to scan my content.
No, I do not want you to track me.
No, I do not want to click “Later” or “Not now” when what I mean is NO.

Number 5 from JA Westenberg:

RSS never tracked you.
Email never throttled you.
Blogs never begged for dopamine.
The old web wasn’t perfect.
But it was yours.

Read the whole story
digdoug
90 days ago
reply
Louisville, KY
Share this story
Delete

Why is Claude an Electron App?

1 Comment

If code is free, why aren’t all apps native?

The state of coding agents can be summed up by this fact

Claude spent $20k on an agent swarm implementing (kinda) a C-compiler in Rust, but desktop Claude is an Electron app.

If you’re unfamiliar, Electron is a coding framework for building desktop applications using web tech, specifically HTML, CSS, and JS. What’s great about Electron is it allows you to build one desktop app that supports Windows, Mac, and Linux. Plus it lets developers use existing web app code to get started. It’s great for teams big and small. Many apps you probably use every day are built with Electron: Slack, Discord, VS Code, Teams, Notion, and more.

There are downsides though. Electron apps are bloated; each runs its own Chromium engine. The minimum app size is usually a couple hundred megabytes. They are often laggy or unresponsive. They don’t integrate well with OS features.

(These last two issues can be addressed by smart development and OS-specific code, but they rarely are. The benefits of Electron (one codebase, many platforms, it’s just web!) don’t incentivize optimizations outside of HTML/JS/CSS land.)

But these downsides are dramatically outweighed by the ability to build and maintain one app, shipping it everywhere.

But now we have coding agents! And one thing coding agents are proving to be pretty good at is cross-platform, cross-language implementations given a well-defined spec and test suite.

On the surface, this ability should render Electron’s benefits obsolete! Rather than write one web app and ship it to each platform, we should write one spec and test suite and use coding agents to ship native code to each platform. If this ability is real and adopted, users get snappy, performant, native apps from small, focused teams serving a broad market.

But we’re still leaning on Electron. Even Anthropic, one of the leaders in AI coding tools, who keeps publishing flashy agentic coding achievements, still uses Electron in the Claude desktop app. And it’s slow, buggy, and bloated app.

So why are we still using Electron and not embracing the agent-powered, spec driven development future?

For one thing, coding agents are really good at the first 90% of dev. But that last bit – nailing down all the edge cases and continuing support once it meets the real world – remains hard, tedious, and requires plenty of agent hand-holding.

Anthropic’s Rust-base C compiler slammed into this wall, after screaming through the bulk of the tests:

The resulting compiler has nearly reached the limits of Opus’s abilities. I tried (hard!) to fix several of the above limitations but wasn’t fully successful. New features and bugfixes frequently broke existing functionality.

The resulting compiler is impressive, given the time it took to deliver it and the number of people who worked on it, but it is largely unusable. That last mile is hard.

And this gets even worse once a program meets the real world. Messy, unexpected scenarios stack up and development never really ends. Agents make it easier, sure, but hard product decisions become challenged and require human decisions.

Further, with 3 different apps produced (Mac, Windows, and Linux) the surface area for bugs and support increases 3-fold. Sure, there are local quirks with Electron apps, but most of it is mitigated by the common wrapper. Not so with native!

A good test suite and spec could enable the Claude team to ship a Claude desktop app native to each platform. But the resulting overhead of that last 10% of dev and the increased support and maintenance burden will remain.

For now, Electron still makes sense. Coding agents are amazing. But the last mile of dev and the support surface area remains a real concern.


Read the whole story
digdoug
90 days ago
reply
One of my favorite aphorisms about software dev is the 90-90 rule, ~ "The first 90% takes 90% of the time. The last 10% takes the other 90% of the time."

The fact that I internalized this so deeply now explains why I find the agents only half as useful as many peers.
Louisville, KY
Share this story
Delete

Unsung

1 Share
Marcin Wichary launched a new blog about "software craft and quality" last month and it's excellent #
Read the whole story
digdoug
92 days ago
reply
Louisville, KY
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories