I spent weeks writing technical posts that completely tanked on mobile. I was spending 2 hours drafting in obsidian, testing the snippets, and checking the architecture On my desktop monitor, the drafts looked clean Then I opened one of the live posts on my iphone, it was unreadable. A 4-sentence paragraph had stretched into 14 lines of unbroken text. Readers on linkedin saw zero whitespace and scrolled away in 2 seconds The code was solid, but nobody reads a solid wall of text on a 6-inch glass screen. I only fixed the retention when I stopped guessing line breaks and started using a layout grid. Today, I run a 3-tool workflow that separates the writing from the mobile formatting: - Raw capture in obsidian: I dump my terminal outputs, error logs, and architecture notes into local markdown without worrying about line breaks - Fluff removal in claude: I run the draft through claude with a strict prompt to cut passive voice, strip filler words, and keep sentences under 15 words - Layout extraction: I grab the structural skeleton from posts in blotato and that held high engagement on linkedin. It strips away the author's words and leaves the whitespace grid: a 1-line tension opener, a 2-line problem frame, 3 short mechanism bullets, and a diagnostic closer I drop my cleaned notes straight into that empty grid and schedule the post The structure makes the post scannable in 45 seconds on an iphone, while the substance stays 100% technical. My drafting time dropped from 2 hours of manual reformatting down to 15 minutes of review. When you post technical work online, do you write freestyle into a blank box, or do you draft inside a fixed layout grid?

https://fathom.video/share/Czme_Pjivw8LvsAqhVZRz3sxyWxuW_xe With Taryn Dubreuil Slides from presentation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a0lOobII2i9zfGL-L56mP84YH7i4tvCT/view

Hi all I'm currently setting up my YouTube page. I'd like to put in an email address that is not visible unless you click on it and have to do a "I'm not a robot" click. Does anyone know how to do this? Many thanks

I spent 3 months testing two different extremes of content creation, and both failed The first extreme was 100% automated AI generation. I set up workflows to scrape trending topics, generate full drafts with claude, and auto-schedule them. The speed was incredible, but the content was unreadable slop. It sounded like an enthusiastic press release written by a committee Nobody read it, and it damaged my technical credibility The second extreme was 100% manual writing. I opened a blank document every morning and wrote every single word from scratch. The quality was high, but it took 2 hours per post. Within 3 weeks, I was completely burned out and stopped publishing. I only built a sustainable publishing rhythm when I adopted the 70/30 rule The rule separates the structural mechanics of writing from human editorial judgment: - 70% Structural physics (delegated to software): I let tools handle the uncreative heavy lifting. Software parses the raw transcript, extracts 3 clear takeaways, and maps them into a tested mobile reading frame. It removes the friction of staring at a blank screen - 30% Human editorial taste (reserved strictly for me): This is where the actual trust is built. I spend 5 minutes stripping out synthetic buzzwords, injecting my real dollar numbers, adding the mistake I made last Tuesday, and cutting every generic adjective Software gives you the skeleton. You supply the marrow When you try to let AI do 100% of the thinking, you get ignored. When you try to do 100% of the formatting manually, you quit. 70% structural leverage plus 30% human conviction is the only formula that survived my testing. When you draft content today, what takes up more of your stamina: building the initial outline, or polishing the final draft?

So, I've stopped asking AI models for advice or brainstorming 6 months ago... Default LLMs are the worst kind of co-founder: they are polite yes-men that validate every single terrible idea you have 😫 You paste in an untested business concept, a vague pricing model, or an overcomplicated architecture. The model responds with 5 enthusiastic paragraphs praising your brilliance, followed by 10 generic bullet points that look like a carousel from 2022 It feels productive in the moment. In reality, it is just statistical flattery that hides the landmines in your plan I only fixed the dynamic when I stopped using AI as an answer engine and started prompting it as an adversarial sparring partner. The model doesn't need to give me answers. It needs to stress-test my thinking until the weak assumptions break. Here is the exact 4-part sparring structure I drop into claude or chatgpt before I make any major architectural or business decision: - Ban all praise and agreement: In the first 2 lines, I explicitly forbid validation. I tell the model: "You are an adversarial board member. Do not summarize my idea, do not tell me it has great potential, and do not be polite. Your only job is to find the operational flaw that will kill this project in 90 days" - Force clarifying interrogation first: Instead of letting the model jump straight into giving suggestions, I add a blocking rule: "Ask me 3 uncomfortable, probing questions about my unit economics, distribution, or technical dependencies before giving any critique" - Identify the hidden operational tax: I make it calculate the unsexy labor: "Assume this idea works. What is the hidden operational friction (maintenance hours, API rate limits, customer support overhead) that will make me hate running this in 6 months?" - The steelman alternative: Finally, I force it to propose the contrarian opposite: "If a competitor wanted to destroy this offer by making it 10x simpler and half the price, what would their MVP look like?"