Most of my work sits between two questions:

Do I understand the tech deeply enough to see what’s possible?

Have I spent enough time with people to know which problems are worth solving?

Here are a few attempts at answering both.

Building with AI

Yeah

AI Builder + Marketer · Still in Love AI Studio · 2026

Rotten Tomatoes for YouTube reviews

  1. 4,516 YouTube Videos

  2. 26,056 Claims Extracted

  3. 2,576 Themes Synthesized

  4. 3,442 SKUs Catalogued

  5. 342 Verdicts Published

  1. Run in the world

  2. Human evaluation

  3. Generative AI distribution

  4. More reviews + opinions

Millions of takes. One verdict: Buy. Skip. Consider.

Can a world-coupled pipeline combine probabilistic inference with deterministic checks to turn thousands of hours of video into auditable, 30-second decisions?

What would help someone trust that decision?

InsideClose

The challenge extends beyond a single model response: building a system that keeps incorporating new reviews, combines probabilistic interpretation with deterministic checks, and makes its conclusions traceable. As people turn to creators for advice, I wanted to help them weigh those opinions without spending hours watching.

  1. LLMs synthesize; code enforces contracts.

    Asking a model to cite its sources is fragile. A deterministic Python harness assigns run-relative claim IDs and derives citations, so a buyer can follow a sentence back to its evidence.

    DetailsClose: LLMs synthesize; code enforces contracts.
    1. A paragraph

      Buyer-facing writing points to the themes it draws from.

    2. Its supporting theme

      A theme identifies the particular opinions behind it.

    3. The attributed opinion

      The claim keeps the exact source identity used in synthesis.

    4. The source moment

      The evidence resolves back to the creator's original video and recorded timestamp quality.

  2. Change the contract, not the model.

    Adjudicating absolute truth failed in every trial. Aggregation with per-item failure containment made it possible to finish a run without one bad item taking down the pipeline.

    Adjudication
    27 / 27 failed
    Aggregation
    233 consecutive clean runs
    Cost per run
    ~$0.105
    DetailsClose: Change the contract, not the model.
    The system, end to end.

    Two independent engines turn review evidence into a grade and an explanation. They meet in the runner’s product page.

    Evidence

    Shared source material

    The grade

    Explicit grading rules

    The explanation

    Grounded reasoning

    Publication

    Editorial path only

    Delivery

    Stored grade + current editorial

    Creator reviews

    Independent running-shoe reviews enter through submitted videos, channels, playlists and scheduled discovery. Each voice keeps its identity.

    • The queue distinguishes video, channel, playlist and scheduled acquisition jobs.
    • Source records connect videos to creator metadata.

    Source identity

    Video and channel metadata establish who spoke, what the review covers and where the original can be found.

    • The metadata client uses the official YouTube Data API.
    • Channel, video and playlist lookups preserve their source identifiers.

    Timestamped words

    Transcript segments preserve the reviewer's words and their position in the video, giving later claims a place to point back to.

    • A configurable acquisition chain accepts supplied files and enabled providers.
    • A fetched document must match the requested source ID.

    Evidence store

    Source records and timestamped transcripts are stored before interpretation. Later stages can reuse evidence without acquiring it again.

    • Source artifacts preserve the original transcript payload and acquisition provenance.
    • The ingestion handler reuses existing artifacts before calling a provider.

    Corpus search

    Operators can search the stored transcript corpus without repeatedly parsing every original artifact or making another model call.

    • A rebuildable PostgreSQL full-text projection uses TSVECTOR and a GIN index.
    • This admin-only projection is separate from the original timestamped evidence.

    Mention extraction

    Structured extraction identifies product mentions, resolves which shoe they concern and removes duplicates before they reach the grading engine.

    • Time-marked windows pass through extraction and product resolution.
    • Accepted records are deduplicated and persisted as mentions.

    Stored mentions

    Product-linked review evidence is stored with source identity. This is the input to the deterministic verdict engine.

    • Mention records connect the product, source and extracted review evidence.
    • Recomputation reads those records rather than generated editorial prose.

    Deterministic verdict

    A separate grading engine computes score, tier, verdict and confidence from stored review evidence. The editorial model does not choose the grade.

    • The pure consensus engine applies shared, explicit grading rules.
    • Its result is stored as a product verdict snapshot.

    Attributed opinions

    The editorial pipeline begins by extracting what each reviewer said. An unsupported claim can be removed while faithful claims from the same source survive.

    Input
    Timestamped transcripts
    Output
    Attributed claims
    • Stage A produces source-specific distillates with claim-level admission.
    • The cached output records transcript content, model, prompt and product scope.

    Grounded themes

    Opinions become useful themes: agreement, disagreement, minority views and individual observations. Each theme cites the particular claims that support it.

    Input
    Attributed claims
    Output
    Evidence-backed themes
    • Stage B resolves exact Stage A claim IDs through the harness.
    • A durable product theme set carries the evidence identities used in synthesis.

    Buyer editorial

    Grounded themes become clear writing about who a shoe suits and what tradeoffs reviewers describe. The writing can interpret buyer relevance without inventing product facts.

    Input
    Evidence-backed themes
    Output
    Product graph
    • Stage C rewrites accepted themes and audits for invention or reversal.
    • Its durable draft remains separate from the versioned publication.

    Fidelity checks

    Checks protect against fabrication, distortion and broken traceability. They act on individual claims, themes and paragraphs, while recording what was actually verified.

    • Deterministic validation works alongside configured model verification.
    • Verification coverage and exclusions remain recorded rather than implying universal review.

    Pinned provenance

    A published claim stays connected to the exact evidence used to write it, even if another ingestion run later changes the available corpus.

    • Each selected distillate is pinned by ID with its full cache identity.
    • Theme sets retain those pins for stable publication readback.

    Durable queue

    Work is recorded as database jobs, so acquisition and reasoning can continue independently of a page request or an operator's session.

    • Active jobs are deduplicated by kind and entity.
    • Workers claim queued rows with FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED.

    Bounded workers

    Workers claim a job, process its units and record progress. A maintenance pass recovers stale work and keeps operational state visible.

    • The worker dispatches registered handlers outside the short claim transaction.
    • Heartbeats and a stale-job sweep support recovery.

    Progress checkpoints

    Completed units are recorded as work proceeds. A recovered job can continue from its progress instead of repeating every finished unit.

    • The worker commits per-unit progress and refreshes heartbeats.
    • Budget pauses preserve the job's recorded progress.

    Bounded recovery

    Recovery handles infrastructure and unusable provider responses without repeatedly regenerating sound evidence because a checker disliked the content.

    • The reasoning harness bounds producer retries and distinguishes infrastructure failures from low yield.
    • Stages reuse durable upstream outputs rather than discarding valid prior work.

    Spend controls

    An estimate precedes execution. Per-call usage is recorded and reconciled, while a daily spend check can stop workers from claiming more billable work.

    • The ledger stores estimated and actual cost, and jobs can pause for budget.
    • In-flight work can still overshoot; this is not an exactly-once spending guarantee.

    Models by role

    Extraction, synthesis, writing and verification have distinct model roles. A run records its chosen configuration instead of leaving the model identity implicit.

    • Explicit request choices override saved prompt choices and curated defaults.
    • The runtime supports configured transports and records routing violations.

    Durable stage outputs

    Opinions, themes and draft editorial have their own stored outputs. One stage's failure does not require purchasing the work of every earlier stage again.

    • Distillates, product theme sets and editorial drafts are persisted independently.
    • Model, prompt and contract identity distinguish reusable outputs.

    Publication preview

    The operator can inspect the exact buyer-facing package before publishing a version. Its prose, citations and lineage are captured together.

    • The publication bridge exposes a free preview and idempotent version creation.
    • Its frozen public record excludes private runtime and transcript payloads.

    Explicit activation

    A published candidate becomes the current editorial only through an explicit activation choice. Producing a draft and making it public are distinct actions.

    • The bridge appends a version linked to its source run.
    • Only an explicit make_current choice changes the active editorial.

    Version rollback

    A previous editorial version can be restored without asking a model to recreate what the reader saw before.

    • The publication bridge retains version and previous-version identity.
    • Its rollback operation restores the previously current editorial.

    Stored-result API

    The product endpoint reads stored verdicts, editorial and evidence. Opening a product page does not launch the reasoning pipeline.

    • The product response combines separately stored outputs.
    • Import-boundary tests keep model runtime and pipeline modules out of the public read path.

    A useful answer

    The buyer sees a verdict, an explanation and the sources behind it. Separate systems come together in one understandable product page.

    • The frontend displays the backend's verdict rather than recomputing a grade.
    • Evidence links expose source identity and timestamp quality.

    Discovery surfaces

    Published product and source context also supports discovery through feeds, creator pages and rankings. Evidence becomes part of finding the product, not only explaining it.

    • The feed reuses the shared publication predicate.
    • Frontend clients expose creator and contribution leaderboard surfaces.

    Typed contracts

    Explicit data contracts connect Python services and the TypeScript interface. Optional additions preserve older responses while the system evolves.

    • Strict Pydantic models define consensus inputs and outputs.
    • The frontend's additive reasoning contract preserves the existing editorial surface.

    Pinned dependencies

    The backend CI installs a frozen dependency set so validation runs against the versions recorded in the repository.

    • CI installs Python through uv and uses uv sync --frozen.
    • The checked-in lockfile controls dependency resolution.

    Hermetic validation

    Backend CI tests behavior without provider calls or production data. Focused contracts protect the separation between reasoning, evidence and public reading.

    • GitHub Actions runs pytest and a blocking lint check over the transcript surface.
    • Publication tests check that evidence readback uses pinned source records.

    Review artifacts

    A branch and pull request carry each implementation slice into review. Recorded changes and check output give the next reviewer a durable starting point.

    • The operating model names GitHub PRs as the shared review artifact.
    • It requires command output rather than an unsupported claim that checks passed.

    Runtime and checks supervise the work. Dashed rules distinguish them from the data flow above.

    Runtime

    Safeguards

    Toolchain

  3. Dissent is context, not noise.

    A review depends on weight, pace, terrain, and foot shape. Contrasting citations sit beside supporting ones so a runner can find the experience closest to their own.

    DetailsClose: Dissent is context, not noise.

    I paired model-based evaluation with category judgment and weekly run-club field testing.

    The same structured evidence powers the product pages and the creative that helps people discover them, with advertising spend guided by performance signals.

    Yeah’s Li-Ning Red Hare 9 Ultra verdict, showing the shoe, recommendation, and links to evidence from independent reviewers.
    A source-linked verdict from Yeah · September 2026
  4. Leave the grade blank when the evidence is thin.

    The Evidence Gate withholds tier grades below three distinct creators. An incomplete catalog is more useful than a full grid of grades the evidence cannot support.

    170 of 340 published shoes · grades withheld by Evidence Gate, PR #142

    DetailsClose: Leave the grade blank when the evidence is thin.
    86× cheaper extraction. 45% fewer citations.
    Cost per video
    $0.43$0.005
    Citations per video
    11.96.6

    I reverted the cheaper extraction model when citation coverage fell. Coverage became a daily release check alongside category judgment and field testing.

Atomic + JournalKit

AI Builder · Still in Love AI Studio · 2026

iOS voice journal that compounds intent

1% better, each day

A reflection that holds onto the thought behind the words.

  • Reflection
  • Key points
  • Questions to sit with

Can intent routing and model orchestration absorb an accelerating flow of AI capabilities while the interface keeps getting simpler?

Can our thoughts and memories build on one another, helping us grow a little wiser each day?

InsideClose

Every new model, skill, and reasoning method introduces another choice. I wanted to absorb that complexity into the product, so people could begin with what was on their minds. The aspiration was something like Dumbledore’s Pensieve: somewhere to revisit a thought, recover a memory, and see connections we might otherwise miss.

  1. Keep the source distinct.

    Speech becomes a transcript on device. The capture keeps its identity; an edit creates a new revision, and each run binds to the saved revision it used.

    What it unlocked
    Different interpretations with a common, inspectable source.
    Why it mattered
    An author who can distinguish their words from an interpretation.
    Proof
    Source identity → saved revision → run.
  2. Give each run a contract.

    JournalKit keeps durable run and spend records to prevent silent duplicate work. Results must match the chosen route’s structure; Research citations must match retrieved sources.

    What it unlocked
    Bounded outputs with a record of how they were produced.
    Why it mattered
    Work an author can return to and review.
    Proof
    Run records, structured results and retrieved citations.
  3. Leave room for an unresolved thought.

    Debate lets positions inform one another, then returns a synthesis alongside what remains uncertain. Expand keeps possibilities, risks and open questions in view.

    What it unlocked
    Several ways to develop the same starting point.
    Why it mattered
    Room for a thought that is still taking shape.
    Proof
    Debate’s uncertainty; Expand’s risks and questions.
  4. Let the person choose the direction.

    Journal, Expand, Debate and Research are explicit choices. The server selects the configured model for the route the person has chosen.

    What it unlocked
    A clear boundary between intention and execution.
    Why it mattered
    Control over whether a thought is reflected on, challenged or researched.
    Proof
    Four explicit routes; server-owned model selection.

The original words remain the source. Each reflection, debate or research report is a separate interpretation tied to that source.

  1. Atomic · on device

    Capture the thought

    SpeechAnalyzer turns speech into a transcript. The capture keeps its own identity; an edit creates a new revision.

  2. Atomic → JournalKit

    Choose a direction

    I left the direction of the work with the person: Journal, Expand, Debate, or Research. Each run binds to the exact saved source revision, with availability confirmed by the server.

  3. JournalKit · server

    Run bounded reasoning

    The server selects the configured model for the chosen route. Research retrieves sources before synthesis. Durable run and spend records prevent silent duplicate work.

  4. Back to the author

    Keep a useful result

    The result must match its route’s structured contract. Research citations must match retrieved sources. The artifact retains its source lineage for reading and review.

JournalKit’s Studio also supports author-selected Library context and a separate skills workbench. Atomic’s Expand route uses a bounded structured call; it does not run the Studio skill chain.

Four ways to develop the same thought

Journal
A reflection that holds onto the thought behind the words.
Expand
Develop the idea into possibilities, risks, and a next step.
Debate
Let different positions inform one another, then surface a synthesis and what remains uncertain.
Research
Findings connect to retrieved sources before they become a report.

This is an illustrative system view. It uses no recording, private thought, or live model call.

Agentic development system

AI Builder · Still in Love AI Studio · 2026

Autonomy, guided by judgment

How do we turn probabilistic coding agents into a dependable engineering system, preserving explicit contracts, fault isolation, and disciplined verification as autonomy increases?

Can I keep what I understand and what I build coherent enough to stand behind the work?

InsideClose

Autonomy amplifies stale contracts, weak tests, and shared-state mistakes. These are the controls I changed after encountering them.

The cases span nine repositories. Authorization and enforcement varied by project.

9 repositories · 1,504 merged PRs · 6 months

  1. Scope execution authority.

    Yeah’s growth envelope allowed one review-ready PR per session. Merges, production writes, and spend stayed out of scope. Completing the task did not widen the authorization.

    DetailsClose: Scope execution authority.

    The August 27 brief defined the permitted work and stopping conditions. Handoffs recorded the starting state and next assignment, so another session could continue within the same limits.

    The record establishes the permission envelope, not independently verified overnight execution.

  2. Give the product contract precedence.

    Agents reverted a correct Yeah fix at least four times because tests defended obsolete behavior. I made the product contract authoritative and rewrote the tests around its rejection rules.

    Voice note
    Decision record
    1. Question
    2. Objective
    3. Non-goals
    4. Hard stops
    DetailsClose: Give the product contract precedence.

    Rejection was limited to fabrication, material distortion, or broken traceability. Disagreement and low counts were not exclusion criteria. Any new rejection rule required an explicit product decision.

    Parsing and provider failures still required separate fixes. Changing the contract alone did not restore the pipeline.

  3. Bound scope before granting autonomy.

    Seven approval gates delayed a JournalKit campaign; my oversized brief then drove overbuilding under broader autonomy. I set line, table, spend, and reachability limits. The revised campaign still exceeded its line ceiling and closed partially complete.

    Shared brief

    Context + hard stops

    APIOwner A · own worktree
    WebOwner B · own worktree
    DetailsClose: Bound scope before granting autonomy.

    The revised brief specified a 3,000-line ceiling, zero new tables, a provider-spend cap, and a reachability check. The agent stopped at an acceptance condition I had written incorrectly; I corrected it and recorded the decision.

    These were self-checked constraints. The revised implementation reached 3,705 lines against the 3,000-line ceiling.

  4. Isolate coordination state.

    Four sessions sharing one coordination checkout committed each other’s files. Code worktrees were isolated; coordination state was still shared. I added per-session coordination worktrees and explicit-path commits.

    ControlReview releasedDeploy waiting
    ImplementRequest sent
    ReviewReleased
    VerifyResult returned
    DetailsClose: Isolate coordination state.

    The growth program used four peers plus CONTROL, write manifests, request files, and numbered rulings on a non-deploying branch. Documents and human relays carried decisions between sessions.

    File isolation did not prevent later conflicts between contract definitions. CI enforcement of write manifests remained proposed.

  5. Make review findings falsifiable.

    Re-measurement downgraded two High-severity findings in this portfolio’s audit to Medium and Low. Both fixes stayed. Pinning the revision kept the object under review stable while the assessment changed.

    Pinned revision
    Heading scaleHigh → Medium
    Particle motionHigh → Low
    Re-measure
    BuildCheckEvidence

    Severity revised. Fixes retained.

    DetailsClose: Make review findings falsifiable.

    Review prompts distinguish measured facts from beliefs and require attempts to refute each finding. A written response and a 41-check verifier made the disagreement inspectable.

    This case does not establish a reviewer-accuracy rate or a review policy shared by every repository.

  6. Test whether the test can fail.

    Deleting the résumé privacy guard left all 134 tests passing. Its fixture failed structural validation before reaching the privacy guard. I changed the fixture; removing the guard then failed the test.

    Evaluation loop · demonstration
    1. CI passes
    2. Counterexample
    3. Revise
    4. Test updated
    Merge held for judgment
    DetailsClose: Test whether the test can fail.

    The replacement put contact-shaped text inside an otherwise allowed claim field. That isolated the privacy rule from earlier validation and made its removal observable.

    This was a targeted mutation check on the public résumé contract, not a production removal or a claim of complete mutation coverage.

  7. Validate even an approved plan.

    I endorsed a recovery runbook that would have disrupted registered worktrees. The executing agent found a checkout the plan had missed and stopped before the destructive step. We retracted the runbook.

    Scoped instructionInspect · prepare · verify
    ServerResult returned
    DetailsClose: Validate even an approved plan.

    The runbook’s own checks had passed; additional inspection caught the error. Separately, Atomic destructive migrations required authorization naming the migration and exact revision. Permission remained specific to the action.

    Authorization and enforcement varied by repository. At the audit cutoff, only one of nine repositories had a server-side required CI check.

  8. Turn missed interactions into requirements.

    A retrospective found that a legacy writer had retired at least 48 operator-activated editorials. Earlier reviews and tests had missed the interaction. I filed CONTROL-003 in the development queue; the correction was still open at the audit cutoff.

    Recorded failureTwo writers interfered.
    Next briefVerify both writers against the same state.
    Correction pending
    DetailsClose: Turn missed interactions into requirements.

    The September 8 retrospective used the August 26 database snapshot. It exposed two writers acting on the same state without that interaction appearing in prior tests or worklogs.

    The recorded outcome was a correction request. The source does not establish a shipped repair or an enforced prevention rule.

Usage recordsClose: Usage records

The operating cases cover March 12–September 8, 2026. These usage records have their own recording windows; the VPS worker totals do not measure continuous coding-agent execution.

Machine AOrchestrator and Coordinator Agents304M tokens per recorded day · 156 recorded days

Machine BAlways-On Worker Agents on Digital Ocean VPS220.5M tokens per active day · 117 active days

tokens per recorded dayPeak · Jul 18, 2026 · 1.34B tokens · $1,218.49 reported cost · 97% cache-read

Use Left and Right Arrow to explore recorded days. Home and End jump to the first and last records. Escape returns to the peak.

Recording windows differ. B’s dashed line is an active-day average, not a daily record. Tokens include input, output and cache; costs are tool-reported, not invoices.

524.5M tokens per day.73.2B tokens recorded across both machines.$52,656 in cumulative reported cost.

Read the source records (156 days)Close

Machine A: April 1–September 8, 2026. Machine B: approximately six months, reported September 3. The work and recording windows differ; the headline daily figure adds their two averages. Total tokens include input, output and cache; A is 96% cache-read. Earlier workstation history is unavailable after a laptop change; Cursor and other tools are excluded. Costs are tool-reported, not invoices.

A records 47.42B total tokens, including 156.6M output tokens, and $44,843.92 in reported cost across 156 days. B’s earlier aggregate records ≈25.8B tokens and $7,811.71 across 117 active days; it has no daily series or output-token breakdown. Missing dates are not counted as zero-use days. The September 8 capture may include a partial day. B’s dashed line shows its active-day average, not daily records; B is omitted from the daily cost view.

Machine A · daily CLI usage record · captured September 8, 2026. Missing calendar days have no recorded entry; they do not establish zero use.
DateTotal tokensOutput tokensCache-read tokensReported cost (USD)
2026-04-016,398,40227,3766,226,838$5.24
2026-04-0297,391,852346,63595,043,308$66.50
2026-04-03118,120,870266,503114,319,718$92.44
2026-04-0481,748,12285,81177,643,056$81.16
2026-04-071,692,9318381,127,519$6.23
2026-04-0933,681,06717,62332,288,126$30.34
2026-04-1054,849,30524,93853,258,751$42.91
2026-04-1175,138,83819,54771,246,580$74.84
2026-04-12225,086,04365,018221,459,597$147.97
2026-04-13183,231,10831,937178,139,598$140.46
2026-04-14149,909,69395,898145,678,545$115.00
2026-04-1630,653,24799,95329,403,190$28.70
2026-04-171,440,8412,7241,147,143$3.55
2026-04-1849,332,709113,89647,646,695$42.39
2026-04-198,389,9379,0547,047,125$17.09
2026-04-2016,499,11428,83615,539,055$17.80
2026-04-2272,561,08190,41471,337,578$49.26
2026-04-23118,622,564147,822116,731,771$77.84
2026-04-24116,702,454191,023111,592,339$108.38
2026-04-2576,009,140232,19074,461,797$55.72
2026-04-2645,675,45090,26544,504,797$35.31
2026-04-27177,437,497248,276174,240,237$122.81
2026-04-28177,525,290493,822173,881,141$130.79
2026-04-29139,076,918312,609134,039,735$122.08
2026-04-30117,727,531291,582116,067,649$79.00
2026-05-0173,980,587207,41171,802,709$60.79
2026-05-0233,695,48150,11931,192,658$41.38
2026-05-0364,005,715112,22762,011,082$52.63
2026-05-0429,482,877167,81027,808,364$33.17
2026-05-05144,763,888496,913142,366,657$102.61
2026-05-0612,045,07447,33111,418,299$12.69
2026-05-07148,274,483364,020144,902,959$110.59
2026-05-0841,054,97174,35739,256,152$38.73
2026-05-0987,623,486225,14283,502,168$86.34
2026-05-1049,577,75448,70247,712,677$43.24
2026-05-1157,672,451105,02655,033,416$54.73
2026-05-12181,340,350515,993177,567,631$132.57
2026-05-13252,006,582493,004247,741,522$173.00
2026-05-14291,218,516400,584287,945,714$182.71
2026-05-15251,359,379386,896247,968,952$163.69
2026-05-16289,539,990547,028286,074,446$185.89
2026-05-17371,665,421556,415367,380,012$227.80
2026-05-18692,374,534969,866686,493,597$407.38
2026-05-19552,441,360705,069547,532,321$327.17
2026-05-20404,225,427520,983399,900,716$246.14
2026-05-21133,660,998268,055128,166,585$123.05
2026-05-2279,861,988340,24475,587,929$85.64
2026-05-23140,390,336472,418136,322,937$115.92
2026-05-24326,621,905616,463323,192,949$205.13
2026-05-25294,639,087337,433289,605,852$200.19
2026-05-26362,994,012809,187356,903,597$247.02
2026-05-27361,686,061648,774356,761,460$233.23
2026-05-2899,205,154582,79094,354,997$100.08
2026-05-29190,204,4671,470,589182,697,009$180.48
2026-05-30172,285,6991,180,281154,185,396$269.43
2026-05-31206,700,015801,757192,302,456$251.74
2026-06-01324,022,7011,409,278317,013,863$247.57
2026-06-02299,647,0801,312,782284,877,354$304.78
2026-06-03667,012,3552,997,363652,598,787$512.96
2026-06-04407,841,2041,411,637376,265,595$490.24
2026-06-05361,117,2801,082,894350,765,479$287.78
2026-06-06190,114,789802,753182,371,564$171.54
2026-06-0716,934,53541,20515,933,963$18.59
2026-06-08134,487,396894,127126,182,924$159.24
2026-06-09190,187,899427,504183,890,601$269.71
2026-06-10141,000,461522,264135,599,070$252.47
2026-06-11477,920,1623,171,260445,739,757$919.67
2026-06-12206,891,8951,216,765199,199,078$288.82
2026-06-13392,622,2901,316,067385,247,913$264.59
2026-06-14447,234,9631,009,332440,127,702$286.27
2026-06-15490,078,8621,384,521459,222,766$548.20
2026-06-16254,689,0541,581,794241,383,175$260.31
2026-06-17606,653,2751,938,027586,019,217$504.30
2026-06-18758,921,2063,013,974724,425,962$706.75
2026-06-19505,834,4711,904,338485,755,794$440.21
2026-06-20447,317,6261,920,738426,540,284$417.35
2026-06-21676,042,4222,268,179652,434,550$545.06
2026-06-22613,044,9381,940,500588,000,821$525.76
2026-06-23591,048,6491,753,628568,682,581$504.06
2026-06-24446,780,2521,558,859421,560,789$481.72
2026-06-25505,200,0231,913,781489,294,320$417.73
2026-06-26518,746,0361,601,918494,850,339$492.52
2026-06-27282,562,2361,276,060264,333,360$308.54
2026-06-28104,330,692568,94394,044,057$129.30
2026-06-29552,574,1791,774,938526,706,139$523.18
2026-06-30283,347,966770,727272,445,001$243.15
2026-07-01253,175,8411,012,250241,382,675$340.97
2026-07-02504,130,0362,833,461456,642,841$1,088.32
2026-07-03152,344,523265,341142,402,339$202.56
2026-07-04315,253,4731,338,798302,146,728$273.46
2026-07-05216,625,600713,989203,779,582$216.78
2026-07-06505,472,0492,247,461475,993,817$708.58
2026-07-0742,564,86088,61437,467,917$66.79
2026-07-08491,944,6912,621,419460,488,437$726.63
2026-07-09561,315,5122,228,627538,003,082$666.34
2026-07-10869,124,6432,648,350840,184,381$777.97
2026-07-11367,295,076683,101356,458,330$469.73
2026-07-12566,172,8372,186,966547,909,077$437.69
2026-07-13384,892,2531,070,541371,171,224$303.02
2026-07-14532,793,7961,353,605515,224,518$525.75
2026-07-151,112,477,6135,360,2231,067,160,331$1,318.45
2026-07-161,131,000,2544,549,2761,091,169,212$870.36
2026-07-17985,062,7043,304,966951,330,662$790.14
2026-07-181,340,700,4934,095,5981,295,886,864$1,218.49
2026-07-19442,516,0461,210,289425,851,036$365.37
2026-07-20682,819,7591,734,541655,997,780$612.81
2026-07-21350,790,571896,245327,751,772$510.37
2026-07-22406,537,8461,016,254378,723,437$578.67
2026-07-23368,006,6621,133,601350,480,449$355.07
2026-07-24451,691,2252,008,508421,162,993$442.74
2026-07-25399,930,642956,515376,745,001$386.51
2026-07-26431,1891,070224,768$2.93
2026-07-277,055,31261,7895,769,284$19.54
2026-07-28262,580,897658,898253,782,571$255.10
2026-07-29567,267,9601,363,411554,071,140$546.86
2026-07-30514,806,4472,438,224493,213,317$524.74
2026-07-31406,091,5641,492,380393,179,419$425.49
2026-08-01959,866,8962,609,083938,091,922$866.39
2026-08-02183,185,105897,255173,253,241$172.95
2026-08-03280,960,081985,457265,749,453$266.99
2026-08-04257,184,585513,164249,600,373$158.86
2026-08-05328,195,3111,641,493309,448,639$327.89
2026-08-061,008,036,9512,296,867978,767,447$906.64
2026-08-07631,048,1691,670,803607,187,968$389.39
2026-08-08569,918,5281,428,232547,446,520$413.72
2026-08-09573,953,4081,981,507555,722,476$357.88
2026-08-10799,152,0462,922,469771,456,722$485.10
2026-08-111,088,307,9773,251,5401,058,186,696$769.75
2026-08-12535,629,7581,662,692518,578,703$418.28
2026-08-13250,600,234650,931244,130,281$153.03
2026-08-14275,085,242842,388269,540,949$338.83
2026-08-15151,656,687466,481147,538,609$239.42
2026-08-16296,347,3771,080,649288,555,482$438.55
2026-08-17511,424,1371,578,025497,543,822$645.29
2026-08-1815,227,81638,46214,419,784$31.73
2026-08-1979,658,127186,22978,366,307$51.21
2026-08-204,534,73228,5754,118,868$13.29
2026-08-2143,224,325726,76337,757,842$141.82
2026-08-225,000,609148,3633,502,404$30.11
2026-08-233,059,45557,0242,678,528$3.51
2026-08-24261,2529,102166,912$0.59
2026-08-25386,100,5172,134,391370,296,167$460.09
2026-08-26337,143,9261,059,012326,563,801$288.64
2026-08-27291,634,560744,559276,091,138$350.02
2026-08-2849,704,057271,23847,656,576$31.87
2026-08-299,263,78967,2858,689,664$6.85
2026-08-302,313,49623,4231,585,407$7.05
2026-08-3140,118,044217,83935,976,067$54.79
2026-09-01147,511,3921,103,520138,152,714$134.37
2026-09-02108,233,040525,555101,607,466$113.87
2026-09-03259,309,127782,131250,509,070$195.61
2026-09-04427,327,4092,201,798407,955,340$458.49
2026-09-05107,519,061468,053101,457,714$173.09
2026-09-06197,047,3441,084,928187,318,829$220.91
2026-09-07185,118,951696,871174,997,106$285.01
2026-09-08358,043,3341,306,657333,831,921$502.47

How work movesClose

Give work a boundary

Parallel sessions work in separate Git worktrees. OpenAPI contracts are pinned by SHA-256 hash, so a change to a shared boundary fails a contract test until it is reviewed.

Independent progress without silently changing another product’s assumptions.

Shared development practice · contract pinning in JournalKit

Leave evidence behind

Each implementation slice ends in a branch and pull request. The pull request is the durable review object, with command output attached to show which checks actually ran.

Work remains reviewable after a session ends or context is lost.

Documented operating model · Yeah

Change the reviewer

In Atomic, Gemini reviews Swift changes on non-draft pull requests, independently of whether Claude Code or Codex wrote them. A different model family supplies another perspective on the change.

Review challenges the implementation from outside the model that produced it.

Atomic only · non-draft pull requests with Swift changes

Make the human step explicit

Decisions that require a person go into an operator queue. The autonomous run continues with other available work, while the blocked decision remains recorded for the next human handoff.

A visible decision boundary, with useful work continuing around it.

Documented operator queue · Atomic

Zero to One: Product Development

Glow

Inventor, Founder + CEO · Quantum Bakery · 2016–2018

World’s First Laser Headphones

YouTube

Can advances in light-diffusing optical fibers, embedded electronics, and mobile software turn passive headphones into a responsive wearable?

Can I make a wearable people want to wear?

InsideClose

I wanted to bring intelligence into an everyday object without treating appearance as an afterthought. The opportunity was to make technology part of someone’s style: useful, expressive, and a little unexpected.

  1. Take the design through the factory.

    I led industrial design, engineering, and factory validation in Dongguan, then carried the design into manufacturing.

    30K
    units before acquisition
    $1M
    sales before acquisition
  2. Build the community alongside it.

    We developed the product and its community together.

    $530K
    Kickstarter · first seven days
    550K
    community

ACME Lab

Co-founder + Head of Product · Google X · 2014–2015

Ambient computing. The space is the interface.

2 LiDARs · 4 laser projectors
Dot-matrix wall · 2 KUKA arms

Sensing, display and assembly.

In a hangar-sized lab on Villa Street, we brought sensing, room-scale displays and robotic assembly into one physical environment.

Location and context.

Two LiDARs were part of the deployed sensing system. The design asked how location, context and human intent could inform the space around a person.

Architectural-scale displays.

A giant dot-matrix wall and four laser projectors made the environment a display. The projection screen was roughly the size of a basketball court.

Robotic assembly.

Two large KUKA robotic arms helped assemble consumer products. This part of the lab moved beyond displaying information into making things in the world.

Can research-grade sensing, real-time sensor fusion, and multimodal interfaces become an always-on, spatially aware environment shared by multiple people?

Would we feel at home inside a computer, the way we imagined life aboard the Enterprise-D?

InsideClose

An always-on, spatially aware environment has to coordinate multiple people, inputs, and outputs. But technical responsiveness is only part of the problem. Inspired by the Enterprise in Star Trek, I wanted to explore when ambient computing feels natural, when it feels intrusive, and whether people can feel at home within it.

  1. Build at the scale of a room.

    The work began after a gaze-based Glass prototype reached Google’s L-Team. Far-field microphones, BLE beacons, and LiDAR became inputs to the lab’s sensor-fusion approach.

    $20M
    internal funding
    4
    pilot retail stores
    DetailsClose: Build at the scale of a room.
    Interfaces at room scale.
    Pixel Path · AutofussOpen film

    People move between dot walls and their silhouettes and trails appear in the dots. A technician adjusts equipment. The film includes the title Pixel Path and an end credit to Autofuss.

    Movement across the dot wall.
    Movement across the dot wall.
    An interface anchored to a person.
    An interface anchored to a person.
    Information across a shared wall.
    Information across a shared wall.
    Two people stand at separate floor markers in front of one wall projection, with different information panels beside each person.
    Two people, two points of view.View image
    Two people in front of a wall-sized aquarium projection, with individual information panels layered over the shared scene.
    A shared scene with individual information.View image
  2. Give applications a shared foundation.

    The plan separated hardware access from Rex applications through ACME OS. Infrastructure and sensor integration came before application integration in the proposed sequence.

    DetailsClose: Give applications a shared foundation.
    Original ACME OS concept diagram: a central kernel and admin terminal connect to a sensor network, Rex interface and multiple applications.
    ACME OS / Rex concept architecture; development plan on p. 27. PDF p. 29. View original page

    The June 2014 drawings describe the proposal; the dot exhibit shows my account of the deployed lab.

  3. Keep personal information personal.

    The proposal reserved personal displays for private information, while walls and other shared surfaces supported collective experiences.

    DetailsClose: Keep personal information personal.
    Original Wonderwall design drawing showing people beside architectural-scale projected information across a wall and floor.
    Wonderwall concept; personal and shared display requirements on p. 28. PDF p. 62. View original page
    Original preliminary architectural plan of Hangars 3 and 4, marking workspace, lab equipment, mezzanine, courtyard access and shared areas.

What Matters to People

Fear Less

Head of Design + Creative · Google · 2013

Find your voice

YouTube

What can an integrated platform of search, video, and touch computing make possible before someone stands up to speak?

Can a child find the courage to stand up and be heard?

InsideClose
  1. Let the human moment carry the story.

    The tablet helps him prepare. The moment that matters comes when he faces the room.

    Fear Less remains one of my favorite pieces of work at Google.

OK Google

Head of Design + Creative · Google · 2013

Just say the word

YouTube

Can a single voice interaction reveal what speech recognition, language understanding, and contextual search can do together?

When does asking a machine for help begin to feel natural?

InsideClose
  1. Show people how to begin.

    Speaking the phrase is both the product demonstration and the invitation to try it.

SCALE GLOBAL PLATFORM

Android & Nexus

Head of Design + Creative · Google · 2009–2014

Run Open, Run Free, Run Android

1B+ cumulative device activations

Can OEMs, carriers, and developers build a compatible platform together when their incentives pull them apart?

Can we give people something they’re proud to build on and make their own?

InsideClose

Manufacturers, carriers, and developers each wanted different things from Android. My work was to help make openness and choice a shared proposition while leaving room for their differences. For the people using and building on Android, the ambition was belonging: pride in what they could create, customize, and contribute.

  1. Keep the boundaries clear.

    I co-architected Android’s brand doctrine around openness and choice: different devices, price points and routes to market within a recognizable platform.

    Open-source software, compatibility requirements, separately licensed Google services and brand identity did different jobs. Compatibility depended on engineering requirements and testing. Marketing had to explain that promise.

    Different devices, price points and routes to market.One compatibility baseline · requirements and testing
    DetailsClose: Keep the boundaries clear.

    Using Android did not automatically mean using Google’s apps or distribution. The robot could be adapted under CC BY 3.0; the Android wordmark and Google trademarks followed separate rules. A common symbol did not require identical campaigns.

    A shared symbol, made their own.

    Bugdroid · CC BY 3.0 · adapted

    WordmarkTrademarksSeparate rules
    Source
    Source licenses
    Compatibility
    CDD + CTS
    Services
    Separate license
    Identity
    Robot / wordmark rules

    Platform. Shared source leaves room for manufacturers, developers and carriers to shape different implementations.

    Nexus S · custom operating systems · 2010

    Dots trace shared foundations into different expressions. Connections show ecosystem roles, not individual agreements or universal access to Google services.
    Platform

    Android source gave manufacturers a shared starting point, with room for different devices and interfaces.

    Shared source leaves room for manufacturers, developers and carriers to shape different implementations. Diagram roles: Manufacturers, Developers, Carriers.

    Nexus S was designed to let enthusiasts install custom operating systems. Google documented that choice in December 2010.

    Compatibility

    The Compatibility Definition Document and Compatibility Test Suite set expectations for devices running Android SDK applications.

    A common application contract connects different devices and the people building software for them. Diagram roles: Manufacturers, Developers, Carriers.

    Google’s 2010 explanation allowed different hardware while requiring the platform’s application APIs to remain compatible.

    Services

    Google Play licensing was separate from compatibility. A compatible device did not automatically receive a license.

    Manufacturers seeking to preinstall Google Play needed a separate license; device compatibility did not grant it automatically. Diagram roles: Manufacturers.

    The compatibility documentation in the late-2012 source tree explicitly identifies legal and business conditions for Google Play licensing.

    Identity

    The green robot could be modified with CC BY 3.0 attribution. Google’s public app-promotion guidance separately restricted Android name and wordmark uses.

    A shared character supports partner and personal expression, with separate rules for robot reuse and wordmark use. Diagram roles: Manufacturers, Developers, Carriers, People.

    Androidify’s 2011 accessory updates made the shared character personal. The 2013 guidelines document different permissions for the robot and the wordmark.

  2. Give partners a framework they can use.

    I led development of brand guidance, co-marketing assets and retail materials that country teams could adapt. With agency partners, we made the shared identity practical for local launches.

    A common framework for different campaigns.Brand guidance · co-marketing assets · retail materials
    DetailsClose: Give partners a framework they can use.

    Manufacturers wanted differentiation. Carriers wanted their own customer relationships. Developers needed applications to work across devices. Making everything look like Google would have missed what partners valued about Android.

    DROID and Galaxy could retain distinct identities. At Mobile World Congress in 2012, more than 100 devices appeared on a conveyor-belt display alongside developer app pods. The breadth of the ecosystem became something people could see.

    Six public expressions of a shared ecosystem
    ExpressionShared connectionRoom for difference
    HT-03A DOCOMO · HTC · Japan · 2009Android, Google services, Android MarketA Japanese carrier’s product family and service proposition.
    myTouch 3G T-Mobile · HTC · US · 2009Google services and Android MarketPersonalization, interchangeable looks, and help choosing in-store.
    DROID Verizon · Motorola · US · 2009Android 2.0, apps, Google Maps NavigationA carrier sub-brand with a machine-and-performance voice.
    Nexus S Google · Samsung · US / UK · 2010Gingerbread’s lead device; Google experienceSamsung hardware in a product co-developed with Google.
    Androidify Google Creative Lab · Larva Labs · 2011The Android characterPeople change the figure to resemble themselves.
    Androidland Telstra · Google · Melbourne · 2011One Android retail experienceSamsung, HTC, Sony Ericsson, Motorola and LG products together.
    Interpretive comparisons of the linked launch records. Androidify creator credit: Larva Labs ↗. These are public ecosystem examples, not a list of campaigns individually attributed to Zi.
  3. Help developers build, then be seen.

    I directed design and delivery work on the Android Developer portal, SDK documentation and technical videos. We paired those resources with device distribution and co-marketing; through Studio G, we helped developers make launch films.

    1. BuildPortal · SDK documentation · technical films
    2. ReachCo-marketing · launch films
    DetailsClose: Help developers build, then be seen.

    My Google I/O work translated platform changes into developer messaging. A public example of the underlying change came in December 2012: the new Maps API reached compatible devices running Android 2.2 and newer through Google Play services.

    Google for Developers · keynote archive.YouTube
  4. Make a reference. Learn how people buy it.

    I led global brand and creative for Nexus, including “Pure Google” positioning. It gave hardware, Android and Google services a reference experience without asking every manufacturer to copy it.

    The first web store exposed a different problem. People wanted to try a phone and choose a service plan. A reference product still had to fit how people wanted to buy it.

    1. Nexus One web store
    2. Broader retail model announced
    DetailsClose: Make a reference. Learn how people buy it.

    Google introduced the Nexus One web store in January 2010. In May, it announced a broader retail model after the online channel remained niche. The distribution decision belongs to Google’s public account; my remit was Nexus brand and creative.

What the ecosystem reached.

The logic was reciprocal: partner investment could expand device reach; useful applications could make those devices more valuable. Shared identity and reusable materials helped participants explain what they were building.

  1. Partner investment
  2. Device reach
  3. Useful applications
  4. More valuable devices
Shared identity · reusable materials
81.2%
of worldwide smartphone shipments in 2014

Strategy Analytics · calendar-year estimate, published January 2015

These were shared ecosystem outcomes. My contribution was the brand doctrine and repeatable programs behind Nexus, partner marketing and developer communication.

DetailsClose: ecosystem milestones

The activation history counts cumulative devices. The 2014 share estimates a year’s smartphone shipments. They describe different measures of the ecosystem, not one continuous series.

Cumulative Android device activations1 dot = 10 million
100MMay 2011300M+February 2012400M+June 2012750M+March 2013900MMay 20131B+September 2013
100M
300M+
400M+
750M+
900M
1B+
Six reported milestones, not evenly spaced observations. A + marks a lower bound; the dots show that threshold, not an exact total. Activations count devices, not people.
Announcement dates and sources
DateCumulative activationsSource
100 millionGoogle
More than 300 millionGoogle
More than 400 millionGoogle
More than 750 millionGoogle
900 millionLos Angeles Times · secondary report
More than 1 billionEngadget · secondary report
  1. Nexus One web store
  2. Broader retail model announced
  3. Mobile World Congress
  4. Maps API in Play services
  5. 1B+ device activations
  6. Be together. Not the same.

By October 2014, the wider Android brand expressed the principle as “Be together. Not the same.” Participation did not require uniformity.

The question I bring to AI platforms now is where shared guarantees should end and builder freedom should begin.

SourcesClose
Explore the public launch archive

A Little Further Out

Rocket

Google Team Lead · 2012

100,000 feet closer to the Kármán line

YouTube

What does being a rocket scientist really demand, from solid-propellant combustion to aerodynamics and flight stability?

If we stay curious and do the work, is it ever too late to become something new?

InsideClose
  1. Carry curiosity through the launch.

    104,659 ft
    altitude reached
    John Carmack Prize
    awarded to the rocket project

NASA

Google · Android + Nexus aboard Space Shuttle Atlantis · 2011

Space, the final frontier…

YouTube

Can consumer-grade inertial sensors and onboard computing support a robot’s navigation and control in microgravity?

What does “Houston, we have liftoff” feel like when something you helped build is leaving Earth?

InsideClose

The engineering question was concrete: could everyday technology work somewhere it had never been designed to go? The personal question was about curiosity, and whether something familiar could help people look a little further beyond their own world.

  1. Extend the robot with the phone.

    1. Nexus SCameras, sensors, computing power
    2. MIT SPHERESAn existing free-flying robot
    3. New capabilitiesA familiar device working in orbit
  2. Take the experiment into its environment.

    I worked on Android in Space during my 20% time at Google.

    1. Two Nexus S phonesAtlantis · STS-135 · 2011
    2. International Space StationThe phone-and-robot experiment in orbit

Still tinkering

Always up to no Good · Since 2005

Some things you never outgrow

As perception, reasoning, and motor control come together in physical AI, what still distinguishes a machine from a human?

What does it feel like to find someone who shares the wonder you never grew out of?

InsideClose
  1. Keep the workbench record.

    DetailsClose: Keep the workbench record.
    Engineering drawings and workshop archive.
    An exploded CAD assembly separates the Android shell, internal carrier, head and arms. From the supplied toy-design archive.
    Inside the AndroidOpen original drawing (PDF)
    The internal mechanism with its carrier opened out, showing how the components fit inside the Android body.
    Making room for movementOpen original drawing (PDF)
    An Android robot prototype beside a docked Nexus phone, with its wiring still exposed.
    A phone meets a robot
    A transparent-shell CAD view shows the internal assembly in place beneath the Android character’s familiar exterior.
    The assembled robotOpen original drawing (PDF)
    The stand’s exploded assembly identifies the micro-USB connector, power port, end caps, rubber strip and foot guide. Sheet Metal Stand V4A, page 3.
    Connecting the physical piecesOpen original drawing (PDF)
    Two stand variants shown as shaded CAD views and flat patterns. Sheet Metal Stand V4A, page 4.
    From a flat sheet to a standOpen original drawing (PDF)
    An articulated device mount moving in front of a projection screen in a workshop.Play film
    Giving a device movement
    A personal photograph with a full-size robot. An encounter along the way.
    Never quite outgrowing it
    A personal photograph beside an industrial robot at Google.
    Robots around the corner
    A tabletop prototype and projection setup during testing.Play film
    Testing on the table
    An exposed humanoid robot on a support rig at a robotics event. From the personal archive.
    Meeting other machines

    Drawings archived in 2012. Android robot adapted from work created and shared by Google, used under CC BY 3.0.

  2. Let people make the character their own.

    I led the marketing team behind Androidify and continued the Dead Zebra collaboration, developing creative and working with partners on merchandising.

  3. Physical AI

    An amber-lit mechanical t inside thick black glass, with a blue energy core and a miniature hangar.Explore in 3D
    Open full view
    DetailsClose: Physical AI
    From imagining machines to working beside them.
    A robot people could make their own.