Published 2025-01-20
tag(s): #random-thoughts #emacs #programming #replies
Manu Moreale posted
about the
importance of friction. Some of the things he said resonated so much with me that I
figured I would explore a few excerpts in relation to my site, my editor config, and my views
on tech (which, spoiler, are very similar to Manu's).
The post starts with:
The modern web—and society to a certain extent—is built on this idea that we should remove friction as much as possible. Everything has to be optimized, smoothed out, and made as easy and convenient as possible [...]
I, on the other hand, enjoy friction. I also enjoy limitations. When I set up my site, years ago, I made it insanely simple on purpose [...] I have to log in and manually copy-paste my content. I could improve that, I could set up a custom API and do all sorts of stuff but I decided not to because I enjoy the added friction.
This reminded me of the reasoning I followed
to remove automatic
completion from Emacs, or how I publish this website using just a few scripts and
hand-crafted HTML.
In the completion case, I had to re-wire myself to think ahead before I start typing,
rather than getting as quick as possible the list of items and visually scan for the one I
wanted. It makes me more engaged when coding, as I focus on writing naturally, and leave the
step of correcting function names for later.
The way I publish these posts, and how I write them, is more "good friction". Writing my own
mark up, pushing the content manually, gives me a bigger sense of ownership and agency over
the site.
Later, Manu says...
Friction, in the digital world, is important. Everything is already moving at a pace that’s not really compatible with the way humans work. We need a way to slow down, we need digital speed bumps to remind us that going slow sometimes is preferable.
In addition to the previous topics, this also reminded me of a philosophy at my current job
that some processing steps need to be something that is executed manually. The little
kind of thing that gets eyeballs on an output that needs review, or gives early alerts when
something fails.
More importantly, manual steps require attention and energy from a person, which means they
add a checkpoint in which we can ask ourselves if what we are doing is worth it. If everything
is 100% automated, and runs effortlessly, then there's no incentive to question a process
usefulness. Instead, "just in case" things are kept in place...except that eventually one of
these maybe unnecessary processes will break, require maintenance, etc.