Summer is here.

Emotionally, this means nothing to me.

I am more of a fall person. I do not appreciate heat. Which is controversial for a sauna fan, but this is not the only contradiction in my life.

Non-emotionally, summer means more outside maintenance.

Small evergreen projects like lawn mowing and weed killing are already rooted in the routine.

The larger projects are underway too. Remember my personal curbing hell from previous editions? That one is still alive, unfortunately. I’ve got to deprioritize it for another few weeks (at least) due to unforeseen circumstances.

But there another task:

The lawn.

The HOA demands a nice lawn in our neighborhood.

Surprisingly to many of you, my lawn is weak and vulnerable.

I blame global warming. The time between rains gets longer and longer, and my grass apparently refuses to catch up.

So I considered my options and did the math.

Replacing the lawn would cost at least a few thousand dollars. More than $5,000 for sure.

Insane.

I did not even know lawn replacement was a real thing until I saw my neighbors kill their entire yard and replace it with new grass that came in rolls.

Grass.

Like flooring.

But in rolls.

That option was ruled out immediately. Also, it would not solve global warming for the rest of us, so why bother.

Now I am extremely motivated to keep my existing lawn alive.

Luckily, I have Bermuda grass, which is technically a weed. With enough water and soil nutrition, it can spread and repair itself.

Even if “enough water” means an extra $15 on the water bill from May through September.

That’s about $75/year. Fine. I am in.

My current setup is very advanced.

I carry a sprinkler around the yard, set timers so I remember to move it, then forget anyway because I am busy preparing this newsletter.

It works.

Until it doesn’t.

Most often because I tell myself: “Meh, I’ll do it tomorrow.”

Or: “Maybe it will rain. I hope!”

This is not irrigation. This is joke - I saw some birds were laughing at me.

The dream setup is simple: one permanent sprinkler in the middle of the lawn. There is already a tree there, so the location makes sense.

One sprinkler.

Full 360-degree coverage.

On a schedule.

With remote control.

Yes, they exist!

Instead of installing a full conventional sprinkler system from different corners of the yard, which would cost around $3,000 to $4,000 (I did research), I could solve most of the problem with one smart sprinkler for a few hundred dollars.

Oh yeah, baby.

Now we are talking.

This is the kind of math that makes a man feel dangerous.

There is only one small “opportunity”. And by opportunity, I mean problem, but repurposed for this newsletter.

I need to get water and a little bit of power to the sprinkler underground.

On a budget. Meaning purely DIY.

So I have been chewing on this dilemma for a couple of months with no idea where to start.

How do I make a narrow pipe-wide trench without destroying the remaining lawn?

What pipe should I use?

How do I provide power? Where from?

How deep does everything need to go?

Then it clicked.

Usual Frame: This project is too overwhelming to start.

Reframe: I do not need to start the whole thing. I just need one tiny next move.

The next move was a trip to Home Depot.

My life motto is simple:

When I have no idea what I am doing, I go to Home Depot.

And even when I do know what I am doing, I still go to Home Depot. (It is cheaper than therapy, but only if you do not buy new tools.)

Did you know they have dedicated narrow shovels for trenches?

Did you know they have wide spike tools that let you open a thin slit in the ground and tuck in a cable?

Did you know they have tarps so you can keep excavated soil separate from the grass?

Did you know there are 3/4-inch pipes, 5/8-inch garden hoses, adapters, couplers, and elbows that are basically LEGO but for real?

I went in with one vague problem.

I came back with options.

Not answers.

Options.

But options are better than a project sitting idle in your head.

So I started planning.

Which brings me to the useful part.

Question: How far and how deep do I really need to go with planning?

Simple answer: Far enough to get the project out of my head.

If the project still keeps bothering me, I have not planned enough yet.

Just enough to turn the fog into something concrete on a paper with numbers.

Number of shovels (one! seriously?), length of a pipe, type of connectors, possible obstacles, two possible setups, a rough cost.

I compared the cost of my two finalist options and I am happy to report the total should be under $100, including the shovel itself.

Suddenly it becomes: a shopping list with a to-do list.

Estimated time: 3 hours start to finish.

Which means, in real life, probably 6 hours and one emergency return to Home Depot.

Still acceptable.

The bonus part: this reframe is scalable.

I am leading a heavy cross-department project at work right now too.

Different trench, same problem.

But with a deadline now.

The usual frame is: “I want to quit this job now.”

The better frame is: “What is the smallest next move that would keep me in the game?”

Step 1: delete from draft email to my manager “Please accept my discharge”

That’s it.

Deep planning works.

Reframing works.

And I get to keep the shovel.

Till next time.

Nietzsche: Zero Suffering is the Wrong Goal; Suffering is Necessary for Greatness - 4 mins read.

This is not the usual “how to be happier in 7 steps” advice, thank God. Nietzsche goes in the opposite direction: maybe the hard parts of life are not just something to delete…

The End of the Office - 8 min read.

If your job is mostly sitting at a computer and moving information around, Andrew Yang has bad news about AI: some “safe” jobs may not be safe for long. The useful part is that he explains who gets exposed first, and why.

My two-part desk setup - 4 min read.

This guy split his desk into two zones: computer stuff on one side, notebook/book/LEGO stuff on the other. I hate how reasonable this is.

Read this if you are very good at saying yes and then quietly hate yourself. Nedra explains boundaries as practical tools for work, family, friendships, romance, and even your phone, with clear language for saying what you need or don’t.

Nothing says inner peace like a golden rural view and a combat shooter running in the foreground.

Monthly Budget Check: Goodnight used a monthly budget meeting to review expenses, income, and hiring pace. His rule #1: revenue growth had to stay ahead of expense growth.

Programming Time: Goodnight reportedly spent almost 50% of his time programming while running SAS. His view was that CEOs often waste time interfering in areas where other people should be trusted to work.

Meeting Avoidance: He said, “I hate meetings. I think most of them are a waste of time.” Some direct reports went two or three weeks without talking to him because he expected leaders to run their own areas.

Leave Bad Meetings: Goodnight was known to stand up and leave when a meeting stopped being useful. That sent a clear message: the meeting had to earn the time.

Input Before Decisions: For major decisions, Goodnight asked direct reports for input, listened, then made the final call himself. He wanted information, not consensus.

Two-Year Planning Window: Goodnight usually looked two to three years ahead because technology changed too quickly for longer plans to stay realistic. He preferred watching where the market was moving and adjusting as evidence came in. Reminded me about “Where do you see yourself in 5 years?” stupid question at most of the job interviews. Good luck.

Multiple Technology Bets: SAS managers described his approach as making several technology bets instead of relying on one perfect prediction. The company could explore different paths, then put more weight behind what worked.

Tools Must Fit Work: SAS built and updated its own productivity tools, defect tracking, and source control. But if a tool made employees change their natural workflow too much, the company dropped it.

Thirty-Five-Hour Standard: SAS had a 35-hour workweek, and Goodnight argued that better technology should reduce time at work. The company also believed that after about eight hours, programmers were more likely to add bugs.

Private Offices: SAS gave employees offices instead of cubicles because the company believed quiet space improved productivity. Goodnight’s test was practical: what would he want if he were an employee doing the work?

SASware Ballot: SAS used the annual SASware Ballot to collect customer feature requests and feed them into product planning. For many years, SAS implemented the top ten requests and acted on about 80% of all requests.

Crazy constraints unleash crazy creativity. For the last week, I’ve rewatched the full version of this “short” at least a dozen times.

Enjoying the newsletter? Please forward this issue to a friend who might enjoy it too 😊🙏🏻

It only takes 10 seconds. Making this one took us 9 hours…