Slices of #ITisLikePizza with Perlexity.ai

In early 2022, I had hoped to start a social media thread with the hashtag #ITisLikePizza, but it was clearly a half-baked idea since no one replied to the first four posts:

  • A good cook can make a better pizza with the same ingredients as a bad pizza.
  • All pizzas look good from a distance.
  • If you rush the cook, it will not be as good.
  • You always regret consuming too much too fast, no matter how good it is.

Had any engagement occurred, I was ready with nine more:

  • A great-looking pizza can still not taste good.
  • It’s rarely as good as it sounds in a commercial.
  • When it is as good as the commercial, the next time it isn’t.
  • The best pizzas are often found in small, little-known places.
  • When the small, little-known place gets popular, the quality goes down.
  • Some ugly-looking pizzas are the most satisfying.
  • The hungrier you are, the longer it takes to arrive.
  • If you forget about it in the oven, the result may not be salvageable.
  • If you don’t follow the recipe, your results will vary.

Here we are, three years later, and GenAI being all the rage, it occurred to me that maybe I could extend the list with AI. My cloud-based GenAI of choice is Perplexity, so that’s what I tried it with. I originally stuck with Perplexity because it hallucinated less than other options by default, mostly because it provides sources for its outputs, which I find handy when I rewrite those outputs for my various posts. Had this been a true experiment, I would have run the same prompts in ChatGPT and Copilot, but this is just me avoiding my ever-growing to-do list for a few minutes, so it’s going to be short and anecdotal.

So, my first prompt was ‘Expand on this following list of how “IT is Like Pizza”:’ followed by the original baker’s dozen list I had come up with so far. Instead of adding new pithy pizza ponderings, it gave explanations for each. They were actually really good explanations. And no citations were provided, so this was just the LLM responding. Kind of interesting in itself.

So then I tried the usual lame improvement of the prompt with “Don’t explain the lines. Generate new lines following the same concept.” The result this time was more what I was looking for, though it may just be writers’ ego that made me think they all need some improvement, except those that could just be tossed.

Then I did something I learned somewhere (I subscribe to half-a-dozen AI-specific newsletters, another dozen that cover AI frequently, plus follow a slew of companies and people on LinkedIn—not to mention that YouTube’s algorithm had caught on to my interest—so I can rarely attribute a particular concept because I either heard it multiple times or I forgot to include the attribution when making a note to cogitate on it more later): I asked Perplexity what the literary term was for the original dirty dozen dictums and it told me “analogical aphorisms” (actually, it told me more than that, but I cling to alliteration the way the one topping you don’t like on the family pizza does).

Armed with my fancy new GenAI-generated term, I demanded (in several of those newsletters and videos I have heard that asking with ‘please’ is just a waste of tokens…which I mostly agree with unless you think the best sources are places like Reddit, but more on that another time): “Create ten more analogical aphorisms with the same them of IT is like Pizza”.  It’s like more sunk-cost-fallacy than truth that this list seemed much more on target, though some were definite deletes, and some clearly needed editing, and…yeah,  it was definitely a case of time commitment bias.

For the curious, the full thread with all the responses can be found here for however long the link is good for (I expect only slightly longer than my Pro subscription):

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/expand-on-this-following-list-UdB7O3KzSxCkl.WTIKBy4A

Interesting side note: I find I sometimes have to remind Perplexity to follow the context instructions for a Space.

Interesting side note about that side note: I have to specify “Perplexity Space” or it will do all sorts of random stuff that has nothing to do with Perplexity Spaces.

One more interesting side note: The most annoying thing that Perplexity does is anticipate punctuation errors. I use it to check my spelling, grammar, and punctuation because I got tired of finding the mistakes after posting. Here is one of the suggestions (similar ones are common):

  • Add a comma after “Here we are, three years later”
    Original: Here we are, three years later, and GenAI being all the rage, it occurred to me…
    Correction: Here we are, three years later, and with GenAI being all the rage, it occurred to me…

OK, one more side note and that’s it: It’s interesting that Perplexity (and other GenAIs) will properly understand a mis-spelled prompt and not point it out, but in spell-checking content it does point it out, as in:

  • Change “theme” not “them”
    Original: …with the same them of IT is like Pizza…
    Correction: …with the same theme of IT is like Pizza…

Sorry, can’t resist: The side notes (originally spelled ‘side-note’) were written while editing, and when I ran them through the “Check the following for spelling, grammar, and punctuation…” prompt, it wanted to correct its own spelling, as in:

  1. In “as in: Change ‘theme’ not ‘them’,” add a comma after “theme” so it reads:
    • Correction: Change “theme,” not “them”
Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail
© Scott S. Nelson

Working the Plan is not Working for the Plan

This post started with an entirely different approach.

I wanted to rant about how some statements of work are written with absolute certainty based on assumptions, and when those assumptions are proven wrong the work still proceeds with the obligation of fulfilling the SOW, resulting in lot of wasted effort spent on things that do nothing to further the goals of the enterprise. These same SOWs are also written with the absolute certainty of how much time it will take to do the job, so the time spent on the useless parts robs from the time available to work on what will make everyone’s life easier for the next SOW…provided history doesn’t repeat itself.

Instead, I got caught up in mangling metaphors and exaggerating erroneous errors about plans that are too rigid and wound up writing the following. Somehow it still represents the point I was trying to make… at least to me. Apologies in advance if it’s not as good for you.


Waterfall methodologies like RUP ruled the enterprise IT landscape back when it was mostly green fields, and that made sense. Projects were funded based on clear goals where the ROI had already been calculated. That ROI was calculated based on a set of business goals that were frozen once the project got the green light (yes, I know that scope creep existed even back when dinosaurs roamed the server rooms, but stick with me and then tell me if it really matters for the purpose of illustration). These goals were numbered 1 to n, then a person or a team (project sizes and budgets varying) would write functional requirements (FR) that meet those business requirements, numbering them 1.1 to n.. And then there would be development tasks, and test cases, all of which must have a compatible numbering systems, and each must tie back to one (and only one) functional requirement. Life was simple, and project schedules were measured in years. For some, enough years to add up to more than a decade.

Even when Pmanagersaurous (the p is silent) ruled the cube halls, there were businesses (and even some rebellious departments within enterprises) that used a different approach. To those who kept getting their ties caught in printers spewing out detailed requirements to be bound, distributed, and shelved, this alternative method seemed like some cavemen cracking their knuckles and banging on keyboards, intent on creating fire or agriculture or quantum computers. Much of what they built has gone the way of GeoCities and MySpace, but some of it went the way of either owning or replacing the big companies with the big projects and the big budgets. And they taught others their secrets. So many that it stopped being secret.

Then the legacy companies decided they wanted some of this high-margin, low-cost, no-longer-secret sauce for themselves, so they hired agile coaches. Of course, the ones that were really good at doing agile were off doing agile and becoming rich and famous. So the coaches would sometimes wing it, or steal from other processes to differentiate themselves. The legacy companies, being legacy, would pay the coaches lots of money, and thank them profusely, and then start requiring a business case before green lighting an “agile” project. The business cases had numbered paragraphs, and the business leaders wanted to know how things were going every moment of the day, so they insisted that the paragraph numbers be included in the “stories”, and it was Epic.

The little agile companies merged with competitors and became big legacy companies. To compete with even bigger legacy companies, they hired their executives, who needed to know everything that was going on so they could “take it to the next level”. So all of the highly skilled, highly productive people began applying half of their skills and productivity in doing what they have always done best, and half matching numbers to lines of code. Working for the plan.

And then AI came along, but that is post of a different order.

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail
© Scott S. Nelson
Bone-in or Wild Caught Lobster Tails Hourglass

Thoughts on not enough time

Who said it best?

“If you don’t have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?” John Wooden

“There’s never enough time to do it right, but there’s always enough time to do it over.” John W Bergman

“I’m so busy doing what I must do that I don’t have time for what I ought to do…and I never get a chance to do what I want to do!” Every IT Person Ever… originally Robert A. Heinlein, Citizen of the Galaxy

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail
© Scott S. Nelson
Different Browsers for Different Profiles

Chrome Extensions on Edge

In a musing mood this morning, so tldr;

… so I took the 18 seconds to go research and found that all you gotta do is go to the chrome web store and installed it from there. [imagine forehead slap here].

As both a consultant and tech enthusiast, I have multiple profiles that would clash in a single browser. One solution to profile proliferation is using multiple browser, each dedicated the a particular profile (especially useful for profiles based on Microsoft authentication). All of the chrome-based browsers have made this easier as they function generally the same, making it seamless to switch back and forth with the style reminding which context I am in.

A key feature for any browser is tabs, and one behavior I have grown used to is that opening a new tab should switch to that tab immediately. Other than sketchy tracking pages and lazy session tracking I expect the reason for a tab to open is to view the contents. Doubly so when I purposely open to a new tab. To this end, I always install Tabs to the Front. When I started using Edge (v2, once they switched to being chrome-based and worked on the worst of the kinks) the chrome store is where it took you for extensions. At some point, it switched, and removed my extensions. Some I could find in the Edge Add-ons, but many were not there. This became extra annoying to me today when I was setting up a new laptop, so I took the 18 seconds to go research and found that all you gotta do is go to the chrome web store and installed it from there. [imagine forehead slap here].

 

Facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail
© Scott S. Nelson