How I start my day

Scott S NelsonLeave a comment

If you hate my habit of parenthetical asides in my writing, I think this entire post qualifies as one, so scroll on my friend, scroll on…

I find it hilarious that I have a reputation as a hard worker, because I was constantly told as a kid how lazy I was. I remember reading a “Humor in Uniform” story in Reader’s Digest about a lazy soldier that kept getting transferred to the most difficult assignments his commanding officer could find. Once the lazy soldier was in the new assignment he would find a way to make the job easier, a talent that was clearly a mixed blessing. In that soldier’s memory, I do things like write all of my posts in my (currently) longest-running blog so that when I create back ups I don’t have to go to all of my posting grounds, only two (https://money.theitsolutionist.com is deliberately separate, and only on the same root domain because I’m cheap)

Anyway, back to the actual subject (which is actually related to my seques), which is how I start my day every day…but first, one more aside: This will be my first post on my new Substack publication “My TBR List”. And, of course, it isn’t about something on my TBR list. (total non sequitur, I have been planning a post about how ADHD may be contagious if everyone you live with has it). It’s about something I read every day. Coming back to the lazy soldier thread, I had Perplexity.ai do the writing for me. Which started as an exercise in laziness except I was also a bit lazy with the first prompt, so the following is the result of four prompts and re-learning the trick of first giving a generative AI a writing sample and asking it to describe the voice and tone, then incorporating that description in the post. I still don’t think it got that right, but the sentiment is there, and I have already spent way more time on this post than if I had just written it straight up (but would have missed out on all of the fun of coaxing Perplexity to do my work for me bidding.)

How a 20-Year-Old Habit of Reading Non Sequitur Still Starts My Day Right

Some habits stick around longer than you expect. For me, one of those is reading the Non Sequitur comic strip every morning at https://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur. I started this ritual more than twenty years ago, and it’s still the first thing I read online each day. It’s a small ritual, but it sets a tone I appreciate: a little humor, a little reflection, and sometimes a nudge to think differently before diving into the day’s noise.

Why Non Sequitur Works as a Morning Habit

Non Sequitur isn’t your typical quick joke. The name itself means “it does not follow,” and that’s a perfect description. Wiley Miller’s comics often take unexpected turns, mixing absurdity with sharp social commentary. Sometimes the punchline hits immediately. Other times, it sneaks up on you-a joke that sticks around for a minute or two after you’ve read it. That’s part of the charm.
What I like about starting the day with this strip is that it’s both light and layered. It pokes fun at everything from bureaucracy and politics to everyday human quirks, but it never feels mean-spirited. Instead, it’s like a gentle reminder that the world is often ridiculous, and that’s okay. Humor can be a way to keep perspective.

Characters Who Feel Familiar

The recurring characters add another layer of connection. Danae, the skeptical kid, often voices the kind of dry, no-nonsense observations I find myself thinking but rarely say out loud. Then there’s Obviousman, a superhero whose power is simply pointing out the obvious-something we all wish for in frustrating moments. These characters aren’t just punchlines; they’re reflections of the parts of ourselves we recognize, especially on days when nothing seems to make sense.

Humor That Rewards a Second Look

One of the reasons I keep coming back after all these years is that the humor doesn’t always land on the first read. Sometimes I have to pause, reread, or think about the context to fully appreciate the joke. It’s a little like troubleshooting a problem-you don’t always get it right away, but when you do, it feels satisfying.

Why This Habit Still Matters

In a world that often feels overwhelming and repetitive, having a small, consistent way to start the day with a smile and a bit of insight is surprisingly valuable. Non Sequitur reminds me that it’s okay to question assumptions, to laugh at the absurd, and to keep a sense of humor-even when things don’t follow the script.
If you’re looking for a simple, daily habit that mixes humor with a little food for thought, I can’t recommend Non Sequitur enough. It’s been a quiet companion for me for over two decades, and I suspect it will be for a long time to come.
Would you like me to help you format this for your Substack or add any links or images?
If you found this interesting, please share.

© Scott S. Nelson

TIL a Cool PowerPoint Designer Hack

Scott S NelsonLeave a comment

I don’t consider myself creative or artistic. The artistic bias probably goes back to school, where the requirement of an art elective ruined my chances at a 4.0 grade average (and exemplified by my Featured Image attempts, which even AI can’t seem to help me with).

The creative bias is that I usually can’t do it on demand. I’ve also learned that if you get out of your own way, creativity happens fairly naturally. This is similar to how Douglas Adams describes how one learns to fly. Anyway, one way to get over a lack of creativity and artistic sense is to let AI tools do it for you, and one that I find really handy for my handicap is PowerPoint Designer. (For those who think Designer isn’t AI, marketing is clearly doing it’s job, and perhaps missing the point, and here is proof— as long as the link is valid).

Personally, I don’t mind boring slides. I actually like have really basic slides where the purpose of the slide is for people to remember what we’re talking about when their minds inevitably wander. But, sometimes I am creating slides for other people, or need to meet the expectations of people with different opinions on the matter, so I need to make them a bit less boring, and designer is a great way to do that. One frustration I have with designer is that it so often gives me this message: Microsoft PowerPoint Designer "Sorry" message.

Usually this can be fixed by simplifying the slide, i.e., remove the cool graphic you added and let it focus on the text. Or you can split the graphic and text into separate slides and then combine the results after the magic happens.

Oh, and one word of caution: Copy your original slide before letting Designer have its way with it, because sometimes the new formatting is no longer easy to copy and paste.

Back to the cool hack part. My second annoyance with Designer, after it apologizing for having no suggestion of how to improve my work that clearly needs improvement, is that it gives so few suggestions. This seems to have gotten worst, and I suspect it is because those data centers are saving cycles for the AI that the marketing folks are calling AI. Recently, it was only giving me four or five options, many of which were just minot variations on the themes, like this:

PowerPoint suggestions for a slide with plain bullets.
PowerPoint suggestions for a slide with plain bullets.

I wasn’t too thrilled with any of the options, but I picked one just to move on and make some progress. Maybe an AI image would spruce it up enough (in the end, it did). Being the paranoid person who has lost early versions that I wished I could go back to, I made a copy first. Usually, when I make a copy, I start working in the copy. But this time, for no particular reason, I went back to the original…where Designer was showing entirely new options based on it’s own modification:

PowerPoint Designer suggestions after accepting a suggestion.
PowerPoint Designer suggestions after accepting a suggestion.

It seemed I had accidently cracked the code to get more options, like in the good ole days before everyone was using these tools, too. Just to prove my theory, I tried repeating the process, and sure enough…

PowerPoint Designer Keeps on Designing
PowerPoint Designer Keeps on Designing

I didn’t really find  an end to variations, though I admit that the quality of options generally declined, with an occasional interesting one coming up here and there. Full disclosure: this may have just been the raw material I started with, but that is back to my bias against my own creativity.

So, that’s my big discovery for the day. Well, there were really more, but I have to get back to “real work”, until this writing stuff actually starts paying some bills. Forward this to your friends (or enemies) if you would like to contribute to this hobby.

If you found this interesting, please share.

© Scott S. Nelson
Software Time and Complexity

Is your CI/CD missing the third C?

Scott S NelsonLeave a comment

If you are reading this post you know that both C’s in CI/CD represent “Continuous” (and if you didn’t already know that, your curiosity is admirable…and, no, “curiosity” isn’t the third C).

Getting to CI/CD can be a challenge, especially if it isn’t set up as part of the first release. (Challenge is not our third C, either, though it is becoming apparent there are many words that start with C related to software systems, so we’ll ignore the false possibilities from here on out). Adding to the procedural challenge of timing, there is also the conceptual challenge of semantics. Some organizations define the continuous Cs as every time a commit is made to the repository; others say it begins with a merge after a review; some say that if it is done “correctly” (are you still counting the “C”s?) there is no need for a review; still others will say that hourly (or daily, or twice daily, etc.) counts; some say you only really need I or D continuously (and others will certainly debate that); and there are bound to be more that don’t come to mind at the moment. What those contiguous definitions of continuous have in common is that they are all correct, depending on the context.

The cruel thing about continuous is that, technically, if it ever isn’t, it never was and cannot be again. Which is not correct, because even when done perfectly, there will be the occasional hiccup and things will need to be re-calibrated to continue being continuous.

Except when they don’t.

When they don’t, there can be several symptoms that are confused with causes. At some point, commits became synonymous with the cards on the Kanban. Sometimes it’s because management thought it would be useful to automate tracking with branches, or people used build failures as a measurement of skill rather than assignment of bug fixes, or PRs are preferred over testing—despite the fact that this approach often leads to more production issues and longer MTTR.

So what prevents those problems (and others) from discontinuing (or preventing the adoption of) CI/CD? It’s the third C, and…

The third C is Culture.

CI/CD requires the adoption of a “shift left” mentality, which in turn requires a culture of fearless experimentation where testing before committing is done as a point of pride, and every time the tests pass is a reason to commit (or “another test passes”, if you are following TDD). This also requires using feature flags that are either centrally managed (which supports runtime management in production) or developer managed, which requires automated testing of the flag.

A successful CI/CD culture depends on the team’s attitude—an attitude built on one part pride, one part professionalism, one part discipline (maybe two parts), and is most easily maintained when it includes the participation of leadership (perhaps the next post will be about the missing “P’s” in technology).

So, after that long walk through what was really a short concept, the key takeaway is that if your team is struggling with starting or sustaining a true (because there are many that are in name only, and you know which ones) continuous pipeline, focus on fostering a cultural shift within your team before investing in tools.

If you found this interesting, please share.

© Scott S. Nelson

Why People Never Listen (to Me)

Scott S NelsonLeave a comment

I received my weekly James Clear newsletter today. I almost filed with all the other newsletters I subscribe to and just never seem to have time to read. But then I remembered that I’m on PTO, and Clear lives up to his name, so I jumped in. Then stopped in my tracks when I got to:

“You have to work hard to discover how to work smart. You won’t know the best solutions until you’ve made nearly all the mistakes.”

My first thought was “Hmm”, followed by “that makes sense”, and then “but what is the point of trying to teach people how to do things?”.

I mentally spun on this for a while. I know that I learn from others (directly or indirectly via person, print, or video) faster if I have had some experience with the topic and struggled with doing or understanding, or at least dissatisfied with the results. I’m also familiar with constructivism and similar concepts where some level familiarity, even if only having heard the term in passing, makes it easier for the mind to grasp and incorporate details when they are presented.

Then I realized that what I struggle with is some of the qualitative terms in the statement, i.e.,

“You have to work hard to discover how to work smart. You won’t know the best solutions until you’ve made nearly all the mistakes.”

Is it impossible to learn how to work smart without having worked hard? If a student, mentee, trainee, etc. trusts the person teaching them and is highly and intrinsically motivated to learn, I think they can do so without the prior high level of effort. That said, I think that the skill of teachers (generically rather than academically, and based on skill of transferring knowledge as well as knowledge of skill) and the motivation of learners have been steadily declining and that this circumstance as an exception has become fairly rare.

As to the second of Mr. Clear’s sentences, I might be putting too fine of a point on my umbrage. I believe that one will appreciate how much better a solution is than alternatives if they have witnessed the outcomes of the others, and that appreciation will increase with experience over mere observation. I do, however, take issue with “nearly all” at several levels. The first is the fuzziness of it. Is it all but 1? Is it 99%? And I really truly believe that some, with that fuzzy level being at least less than half, of the mistakes is more than adequate for some people, especially those that are either impatient (while motivated) or highly self critical (a motivation that tries the patience).

My  protests aside, I think James Clear’s statement is accurate often enough to be accepted as a general (if not a hard and fast) rule. I am positive in my belief that his experience with people in this context is much broader than my own.

I do tend to wander in my writing, so let’s wrap up the thought on why people never listen. They do, but the absorption, retention, and results of that listening vary between individuals and over time. Some folks will get it right away because they are motivated and trust the source (and sometimes that motivation is just lack of self trust); some will have to prove it right before they believe it, and then they may experience the source has their own actions (not all, but some); some will filter it through their own thinking until they reach a threshold where they will try anything, even something that is presented as proven already to be effective; and some will just never get it, for a variety of reasons that could be it’s own book, let alone blog post.

No matter the motivation or outcome, if you are trying to share wisdom, be wise enough to know that you may need to both vary and repeat your message to eventually be heard. If you are trying to learn something, you may want to apply what you know earlier and more often so that you are well prepared to know more.

If you found this interesting, please share.

© Scott S. Nelson