Wisdom was sealed, not because it was hidden— but because it was unwanted.

ISAIAH:

Woe to the showy crown of the drunkards of Eʹphra·im And the fading blossom of its glorious beauty, Which is on the head of the fertile valley of those overcome with wine!

Look! Jehovah has someone strong and mighty. Like a thundering hailstorm, a destructive windstorm, Like a thunderstorm of powerful floodwaters, He will forcefully hurl it down to the earth.

The showy crowns of the drunkards of Eʹphra·im Will be trampled underfoot.

And the fading flower of its glorious beauty, Which is on the head of the fertile valley, Will become like the early fig before summer. When someone sees it, he swallows it as soon as it is in his hand.

In that day Jehovah of armies will become a glorious crown and a beautiful garland to those left of his people.
And he will become a spirit of justice to the one who sits in judgment
And a source of mightiness to those who repel the attack at the gate.

And these also go astray because of wine; Their alcoholic beverages make them stagger. Priest and prophet go astray because of alcohol; The wine confuses them, And they stagger from their alcohol; Their vision makes them go astray, And they stumble in judgment.

For their tables are full of filthy vomit
—There is no place without it.

To whom will one impart knowledge, And to whom will one explain the message? To those who have just been weaned from milk, Those just taken away from the breasts?

For it is “command after command, command after command, Line by line, line by line,
A little here, a little there.”

So by means of those with stammering speech and a foreign language, he will speak to this people.

He once told them: “This is the resting-place.
Let the weary one rest; this is the place of refreshment,”
But they refused to listen.

So to them the word of Jehovah will be: “Command after command, command after command, Line by line, line by line,
A little here, a little there,”

So that when they walk, They will stumble and fall backward And be broken and ensnared and caught.

So hear the word of Jehovah, you boasters, You rulers of this people in Jerusalem:

RULERS (QUOTED):

“We have made a covenant with Death,
And with the Grave we have made an agreement.
When the raging flash flood passes through, It will not reach us, For we have made a lie our refuge And we have hidden ourselves in falsehood.”

JEHOVAH:

Here I am laying as a foundation in Zion a tested stone,
The precious cornerstone of a sure foundation.
No one exercising faith will panic.

And I will make justice the measuring line
And righteousness the leveling tool.
The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters will flood out the hiding place.

Your covenant with Death will be dissolved, And your agreement with the Grave will not stand.
When the raging flash flood passes through, You will be crushed by it.

As often as it passes through, It will sweep you away;
For it will pass through morning after morning, During the day and during the night. Only terror will make them understand what was heard.

For the bed is too short to stretch out on, And the woven sheet is too narrow to wrap up in.

For Jehovah will rise up as at Mount Pe·raʹzim; He will rouse himself as in the valley near Gibʹe·on, That he may do his deed—his strange deed— And that he may carry out his work—his unusual work.

Now do not scoff,
So that your bonds may not be further tightened,
For I have heard from the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, That an extermination has been determined for all the land.

Give ear and listen to my voice;
Pay attention and listen to what I say.

NARRATOR:

Does the plower keep plowing all day before he sows seed? Does he continually break up and harrow his ground?

When he has smoothed out its surface, Does he not then scatter black cumin and sow cumin, And does he not plant wheat, millet, and barley in their places And spelt around the edges?

For He teaches him the right way; His God instructs him.

For black cumin is not crushed with a threshing sledge,
And a wagon wheel is not driven over cumin. Rather, black cumin is beaten out with a rod, And cumin with a staff.

Does a person crush grain for bread? No, he does not thresh it incessantly;
And when he drives the roller of his wagon over it with his horses, He does not crush it.

This also comes from Jehovah of armies, Whose counsel is wonderful And whose achievements are great.

---

ISAIAH 29

ISAIAH:

“Woe to Arʹi·el, Arʹi·el, the city where David encamped!
Continue year after year;
Let the cycle of festivals continue.

But I will bring distress on Arʹi·el,
And there will be mourning and lamentation,
And she will become to me like an altar hearth of God.

I will encamp on all sides against you, And I will besiege you with a palisade And raise up siegeworks against you.

You will be brought low; From the ground you will speak, And what you say will be muffled by dust. Your voice will come from the ground
Like the voice of a spirit medium, And your words will chirp from the dust.

The crowd of your enemies will be like fine powder,
The crowd of the tyrants just like the blowing chaff.
And it will happen in an instant, suddenly.

Jehovah of armies will give you his attention
With thunder and earthquake and a great noise, With storm wind and tempest and the flames of a consuming fire.”

Then the crowd of all the nations waging war against Arʹi·el
—All those waging war against her, The siege towers against her, And those bringing distress on her— Will become like a dream, a vision of the night.

Yes, it will be just as when someone hungry dreams that he is eating,
But he wakes up hungry,
And as when someone thirsty dreams that he is drinking, But he wakes up tired and thirsty.
So it will happen with the crowd of all the nations
That wage war against Mount Zion.

Be stunned and amazed;
Blind yourselves and be blinded.
They are drunk, but not with wine; They are staggering, but not from alcohol.

For Jehovah has poured a spirit of deep sleep on you;
He has closed your eyes, the prophets,
And he has covered your heads, the visionaries.

Every vision becomes for you like the words of a sealed book.
When they give it to someone who can read, saying: “Read this out loud, please,”
He will say: “I cannot, for it is sealed up.”

And when they give the book to someone who cannot read, saying: “Read this, please,”
He will say: “I cannot read at all.”

JEHOVAH:

“This people approach me with their mouth
And they honor me with their lips,
But their heart is far removed from me;
And their fear of me is based on commands of men that they have been taught.

Therefore, I am the One who will again do wonderful things with this people,
With wonder upon wonder;
And the wisdom of their wise men will perish, And the understanding of their discreet men will be hidden.”

Woe to those who go to great lengths to conceal their plans from Jehovah.
Their deeds are done in a dark place, While they say: “Who sees us?
Who knows about us?”

How you twist things!
Should the potter be regarded the same as the clay?
Should what is made say about its maker:
“He did not make me”?
And does what is formed say about its former:
“He shows no understanding”?

In just a short time, Lebʹa·non will be turned into an orchard,
And the orchard will be regarded as a forest.

In that day the deaf will hear the words of the book,
And out of the gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind will see.

The meek will rejoice greatly in Jehovah,
And the poor among men will be joyful in the Holy One of Israel.

For the tyrant will be no more,
The boaster will come to his finish,
And all those keeping alert to do harm will be destroyed,

Those who with a false word make others guilty,
Who lay traps for the defender in the city gate,
And who with empty arguments deny justice to the righteous one.

So this is what Jehovah, who redeemed Abraham, says to the house of Jacob:

“Jacob will no longer be ashamed,
And no more will his face grow pale.

For when he sees his children,
Who are the work of my hands, in his midst,
They will sanctify my name;
Yes, they will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, And they will stand in awe of the God of Israel.

Those who are wayward in spirit will acquire understanding,
And those who complain will accept instruction.”

SSMS808 Bandar Slot Online RTP Tertinggi

Di era digital yang berkembang pesat, industri hiburan daring, khususnya perjudian slot, terus mengalami evolusi teknologi dan keamanan. Menatap masa depan, para pemain tidak hanya mencari kesenangan, tetapi juga kepastian, keamanan, dan keuntungan nyata. Inilah mengapa SMS808 hadir dan diproyeksikan menjadi pemimpin pasar sebagai platform resmi dan terpercaya menuju tahun 2026.

Artikel ini akan mengupas tuntas mengapa SMS808 menjadi destinasi utama bagi para penggemar slot, membahas pola RTP (Return to Player) tertinggi, serta membedah berbagai promo menggiurkan yang ditawarkan setiap harinya.

Evolusi Perjudian Daring dan Posisi SMS808 Dunia iGaming berubah dengan cepat. Pemain modern menuntut transparansi algoritma dan kecepatan transaksi. SMS808 telah merancang infrastrukturnya untuk memenuhi standar masa depan ini. Sebagai Bandar Slot Online, SMS808 tidak hanya sekadar situs bermain, melainkan sebuah ekosistem hiburan yang menjamin keadilan (fair play) dengan lisensi resmi.

Fokus utama SMS808 adalah memberikan pengalaman pengguna (User Experience) yang mulus, mulai dari pendaftaran hingga penarikan dana (withdraw), yang didukung oleh teknologi enkripsi terbaru untuk melindungi data pengguna di tahun-tahun mendatang.

Apa Itu SMS808? SMS808 adalah platform bandar slot online resmi yang beroperasi di pasar Asia. Situs ini dikenal karena integritasnya dalam menyediakan permainan slot dari berbagai provider kelas dunia. Berbeda dengan situs konvensional, SMS808 mengintegrasikan sistem real-time RTP yang memungkinkan pemain melihat persentase kemenangan sebuah game secara langsung.

Mengapa SMS808 Disebut “Resmi”? Kata “Resmi” yang melekat pada SMS808 bukan sekadar slogan. Ini menandakan bahwa situs ini beroperasi di bawah pengawasan lembaga perjudian internasional. Hal ini menjamin bahwa setiap putaran slot menggunakan RNG (Random Number Generator) yang murni, tanpa manipulasi admin atau bot.

Keunggulan Utama SMS808 di Tahun 2026 Mengapa Anda harus memilih SMS808 dibandingkan ribuan situs lain yang bertebaran di internet? Berikut adalah analisis mendalam mengenai keunggulan kompetitif SMS808 yang disiapkan untuk mendominasi pasar 2026.

1. Pola RTP Slot Gacor Tertinggi di Asia Salah satu fitur unggulan yang menjadi daya tarik utama SMS808 adalah transparansi RTP. Banyak situs menyembunyikan volatilitas permainan mereka, namun SMS808 justru membukanya.

Live RTP Update: Data persentase kemenangan diperbarui setiap menit. Pola Gacor: Memberikan bocoran pola spin (misalnya: 30x Turbo Spin, 20x Manual) yang terbukti meningkatkan peluang memicu fitur free spin. Analisis Volatilitas: Membantu pemain memilih game yang sesuai dengan gaya bermain mereka, apakah mencari jackpot besar (High Volatility) atau kemenangan kecil namun sering (Low Volatility). 2. Keamanan Siber Terdepan Menyongsong tahun 2026, ancaman siber semakin canggih. SMS808 mengimplementasikan protokol keamanan setara perbankan untuk menjaga saldo dan data privasi member. Enkripsi End-to-End memastikan tidak ada pihak ketiga yang bisa mengakses riwayat transaksi Anda.

1. Ekosistem Promo yang Menguntungkan SMS808 memahami bahwa pemain membutuhkan insentif lebih. Oleh karena itu, berbagai promo dirancang untuk memberikan modal tambahan bagi pemain, baik member baru maupun member setia.

Daftar Promo Menggiurkan di SMS808 Bagi pemburu bonus, SMS808 adalah surga. Berikut adalah rincian jenis promo yang bisa Anda klaim setelah mendaftar:

Bonus New Member: Tambahan saldo signifikan untuk deposit pertama, memberikan “napas” lebih panjang untuk mengejar jackpot. Bonus Deposit Harian: Setiap kali Anda melakukan top-up, ada persentase bonus yang ditambahkan secara otomatis. Cashback Kekalahan: SMS808 memberikan jaring pengaman berupa pengembalian sebagian dana dari kekalahan mingguan, sehingga Anda selalu memiliki kesempatan kedua. Event Petir & Bomb: Promo spesifik untuk game tertentu (seperti Gates of Olympus atau Starlight Princess) di mana perkalian besar akan mendapatkan hadiah uang tunai tambahan. Provider Slot Terbaik di SMS808 Sebagai Bandar Slot Online terlengkap, SMS808 bekerja sama dengan raksasa industri iGaming. Kerjasama ini memastikan variasi permainan yang tidak membosankan. Berikut adalah beberapa provider andalan yang tersedia:

Pragmatic Play Raja slot saat ini. Dikenal dengan game seperti Gates of Olympus dan Sweet Bonanza. Di SMS808, server Pragmatic Play dioptimalkan agar anti-lag.

PG Soft (Pocket Games Soft) Favorit pemain yang menggunakan ponsel. Grafis yang memukau dan alur cerita menarik pada game seperti Mahjong Ways 2 menjadikan provider ini sangat populer di SMS808.

Habanero Dikenal dengan Koi Gate-nya yang legendaris. Provider ini menawarkan RTP yang sangat stabil dan sering memberikan kemenangan beruntun.

Spadegaming Provider yang sangat kental dengan nuansa Asia. Game-gamenya dirancang agar sesuai dengan selera pasar lokal dan memiliki jackpot progresif yang besar.

I started with a ball of tangled chaos and out of it I made warmth

What wonders I can make from this countless ways to bring love to people

To other people it might look like nothing but to me it's the start of a memory

What a gift I have to bring others a little joy Reaching into the chaos and making love and warmth

#Poetry #Knitting

1. This is an example of writing something to send to anonymous, as opposed to the three blog options I have, on write.as

1. Now here is the link for an audio from mega MEGA as an app linking on my iPhone 16 that is

https://mega.nz/file/dEEyzC6Q#hdL6Al59oh8eIvHw1h3pP-ZsXpQHHhSllGsKI-vECIE

1. And here is how it would be displayed, a link to my Perryville video on Jumpshare:

https://jumpshare.com/share/RdhSoRYwrctGrI2tVUAu

1. And here’s an example of how you can insert a photo or even a screenshot:

2. 

The first half of today was so horribly bad I don’t even want to notarize it if I’m being honest. The second half was good though. I felt heard, and like there’s a change.

Trying out the max-length: 250 and 1 React component per file ESLint rules in a small project. Claude is now refactoring several files. One was at around 1000 LoC.

In my head, these 2 rules are making sense. The LLM has a smaller context to juggle with, and there is a better separation of concerns.

Meanwhile, I noticed that Claude has a new option after planning. Instead of just bypassing the permission to implement the feature, it also asks to clear the context and calls a new prompt with only the plan it created. This removes the need to create a plan file, like I always did before, and they are trying to reduce the need for the Ralph-Loop. Which I have not tried so far. This is also on my to-do list.

---

95 of #100DaysToOffload
#log #ai #claude
Thoughts?

Ambient music is not super mainstream so I dedicate it an award every year because I love that genre. It’s a bit demanding, you need to sit down, be quiet and maybe focused in order to enjoy it but it’s a good way to slow down, kind of like a meditation.

Since I enjoy my ambient wordless, I will not give further comments on those tracks.

Here are the 5 nominees.

Stretching Spirit by Daniel Bachman

Caelum, No. I by Zakè

Du vindem (3minTankestrek) by Karl Seglem & Alfe Magne Hillestad

Chronicle #3 by Rhubiqs

The Ship by Arthur Mine

The winner is Caelum, No. I by Zakè.

#JujuAwards2025 #AmbientActOfTheYear #JujuAwards #BestOf2025

Freundinnen & Freunde der Weisheit, willkommen zur mittlerweile vierten Ausgabe des wöchentlichen EpicMonday-Newsletters!

Musik ist mehr als Unterhaltung: Sie wirkt tief ins Gedächtnis hinein. Neurowissenschaftliche Studien zeigen, dass emotionale Musik Erinnerungen nicht nur wecken, sondern auch festigen kann – ein Effekt, der gezielt in der Demenztherapie genutzt wird. Entscheidend ist dabei nicht der Musikstil, sondern die persönliche emotionale Resonanz. Ob Händel oder Taylor Swift: Wenn ein Musikstück das Belohnungssystem im Gehirn aktiviert und Dopamin freisetzt, verstärkt es die Verbindung zwischen gehörter Melodie und erlebter Situation.

Doch Musik kann mehr als Gefühle hervorrufen. In einer aktuellen Studie zeigten Forscherinnen, dass Musik nach dem Erleben von Alltagsszenen auch die Erinnerung an Details verbessert – allerdings nur, wenn sie nicht zu stark emotional aufwühlt. Wer nach dem Betrachten eines Bildes eher neutrale Musik hört, erinnert sich später genauer an Einzelheiten wie Farben oder Preise. Die emotionale Intensität steuert also mit, ob wir das grosse Ganze oder feine Nuancen besser erinnern.

Diese Erkenntnisse haben praktische Folgen – etwa beim Lernen oder in der Pflege. Wer Lerninhalte langfristig verankern will, sollte Musik wählen, die persönlich berührt. Wer hingegen auf präzise Fakten abzielt, fährt mit weniger aufwühlender Begleitung besser. Die zentrale Einsicht: Musik wirkt – aber nur, wenn sie zur Person und zum Zweck passt.

Denkanstoss zum Wochenbeginn

„I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.“ – Douglas Adams (1952–2001)

ProductivityPorn-Tipp der Woche: Kurze Pausen einlegen

Regelmässige, kurze Pausen halten Dich konzentriert und produktiv. Methoden wie die Pomodoro-Technik (25 Minuten Arbeit, 5 Minuten Pause) helfen, Deine Energie über den Tag hinweg aufrechtzuerhalten.

Aus dem Archiv: Den Affen zähmen

Das Konzept des „Affens auf dem Podest“ bietet eine wertvolle Perspektive auf die Priorisierung von Aufgaben. Es fordert Dich auf, Dich zuerst den schwierigsten und wichtigsten Herausforderungen zu stellen, anstatt Deine Ressourcen auf einfache, aber letztlich unbedeutende Aufgaben zu verschwenden. Diese Priorisierung hilft Dir, echten Fortschritt zu erzielen und Deine Ziele effektiver zu erreichen.

weiterlesen …

Vielen Dank, dass Du Dir die Zeit genommen hast, diesen Newsletter zu lesen. Ich hoffe, die Inhalte konnten Dich inspirieren und Dir wertvolle Impulse für Dein (digitales) Leben geben. Bleib neugierig und hinterfrage, was Dir begegnet!

---

EpicMind – Weisheiten für das digitale Leben „EpicMind“ (kurz für „Epicurean Mindset“) ist mein Blog und Newsletter, der sich den Themen Lernen, Produktivität, Selbstmanagement und Technologie widmet – alles gewürzt mit einer Prise Philosophie.

---

Disclaimer Teile dieses Texts wurden mit Deepl Write (Korrektorat und Lektorat) überarbeitet. Für die Recherche in den erwähnten Werken/Quellen und in meinen Notizen wurde NotebookLM von Google verwendet. Das Artikel-Bild wurde mit ChatGPT erstellt und anschliessend nachbearbeitet.

Topic #Newsletter

De leukste persoon om in andermans leven te zijn, is de aanmoediger.

Als iemand je mening vraagt over een tekst, vertelt dat die is begonnen aan crossfit, zich inzet om insecten te redden, of vegetariër is geworden, beantwoord dat dan niet met cynisme.

Cynisme is te makkelijk.

Niemand wil je slimme, intelligente, weldoordachte mening horen.

Niemand.

Nee.

Mensen willen bevestigd worden, zodat ze zich even minder onzeker voelen.

• Moedig mensen aan.
• Bewonder ze.
• Reageer vol enthousiasme.
• Vraag naar de details.
• Support ze alsof je hun coach bent.

We zijn allemaal onzeker. We worstelen allemaal om goede gewoontes vol te houden. Enthousiasme geeft mensen net dat extra zetje motivatie.

Zoals ik altijd tijdens mijn studie en later ook op kantoor mijn best deed om feedbackformulieren positief in te vullen.

Ja, je kunt heel kritisch zijn onder de vlag van ‘daar leert iemand van’, maar dat doet iedereen.

Denk goed na over wat iemand echt goed kan, wat de impact is op de groep, op het werk. Wat iemands uitstekende kwaliteiten zijn. Dat vul je in op dat formulier.

En natuurlijk zijn er dingen die heel irritant zijn aan de ander, die de werkrelatie onder druk zetten. Maar heb je daar echt een feedbackformulier voor nodig, om dat kenbaar te maken? De juiste manier om ergernissen te bespreken, is in een-op-eengesprekken. Ja, doodeng soms, maar wel nodig.

Gebruik zo’n formulier om iemands dag te maken. Je maakt er echt vrienden voor het leven mee.

Liefs,

tomson

Er is iets in mijn leven geslopen wat weigert te vertrekken.

En dan kom je op een punt dat je niet meer weet of het altijd al, in een zekere vorm, aanwezig was of niet.

Anticipatieangst.

De angst dat je angst gaat hebben op de plek waar je naartoe gaat.

Het bederft een hoop, kan ik je vertellen.

Voorpret ken ik niet meer. Wel voor-angst.

Altijd scenario’s over hoe het gaat escaleren op de meest negatieve manier. Leuk is anders. Maar thuisblijven is stommer.

Want dat is toegeven aan je angst. En als je toegeeft aan je angst, bevestig je je angst. En als je het bevestigt, kom je er nooit meer vanaf en dan wordt het leven klein en ondraaglijk en saai.

Conclusie: gaan is belangrijker dan thuisblijven.

==

Het ding met anticipatieangst is dat je op het feestje bent en de angst zich verplaatst naar een ander scenario in de toekomst. Namelijk de terugreis.

Het is dodelijk vermoeiend.

Genieten is onmogelijk.

Iedereen heeft plezier (lijkt het). En ik sta daar met mijn plastic bekertje met lauwe witte wijn erin te glimlachen, terwijl het voelt alsof ik op een begrafenis ben.

Maar. Ik ben er. Ik heb mijn gezicht laten zien. Ik heb wat gesprekken aangeknoopt. Mijn lijf volledig blootgesteld aan angstprikkels. Mijn geest laten merken: zat je je hier druk om te maken?

==

Er is zo’n misvatting dat je altijd plezier moet hebben in het leven.

Want als je niet altijd plezier hebt, heb je er dan wel het maximale uitgehaald?

Ik heb het dus vaak achteraf.

Dan kom ik ’s avonds laat terug van een feestje. De ene schoen uitwippen met de neus van de andere schoen. Lampje aanklikken, glas met water vullen, op de punt van de bank zitten en me dan beseffen dat ik me weer te introvert heb gedragen.

Er viel zoveel meer uit de mensen te halen die er waren. Diepere gesprekken. Grappigere gesprekken. Maar nee. Ik knikte met een rood plastic bekertje witte wijn in mijn hand. Te luisteren naar een kennis die elke vrouw die in een jurk voorbij kwam van commentaar voorzag met: ‘als ik vrijgezel was geweest, dan…’

Heb ik wel genoeg genoten? Of me gewoon alleen vreselijk misdragen bij het schaaltje pinda’s? Niets overlaten voor anderen. Gewoon sneaky via de palm van mijn hand een voor een in mijn mond laten vallen. Elke keer een klein beetje meer uit het schaaltje schrapen. Tot het leeg is. Om de volgende dag nog steeds de kruiden van de pinda’s aan je vingertoppen te ruiken.

Een vriendin mailde me laatst:

‘Ik ben nooit bang geweest om dood te gaan, ik ben voortdurend bang niet mijn leven te hebben geleefd.’

Dat triggerde me uiteraard te heftig. Dus stuurde ik terug: ik snap nooit de angst om niet voldoende geleefd te hebben. Omdat je nooit genoeg kunt leven. Je zult altijd teleurgesteld zijn. Elke keuze die we maken, is het uitsluiten van andere ervaringen. Het is nooit genoeg, leven.’

Ze antwoordde met: ‘Let wel: ik heb geen angst om niet geleefd te hebben. Ik ben bang mijn eigen leven niet geleefd te hebben. Dat wat in mij huist niet tot uiting te hebben kunnen brengen. Te veel andere levens te leven die niet van mij zijn.’

Wat een nuance.

==

We weten dat veel dingen goed zijn om te doen, zonder dat we er per se van genieten.

Zoals naar een begrafenis gaan.

Een vriend zat te klagen over de begrafenis van een ver familielid dat hij nauwelijks kende. ‘Weer de zoveelste begrafenis dit jaar. Het trekt me leeg. Ik heb er geen zin meer in.’

Het ontstak bij mij ergernis: ‘je gaat er toch niet heen om het naar je zin te hebben? Je bent er om je ouders te steunen. Om samen te komen. Om bij een geleefd leven stil te staan. Om te rouwen. Om afscheid te nemen. Om verbinding te voelen met je familie. Het hele punt van een begrafenis is juist het tegenovergestelde van genieten.’

Hij keek me aan en knikte.

‘Fuck dat, tomson,’ zei hij, ‘op mijn begrafenis gaan de dopjes van de bierflesjes af en gaat de discobal schitteren.’

Ik keek hem sprakeloos aan. Om daarna in nog meer frustratie te zeggen: ‘ik ga echt niet het leven vieren als ik intens verdrietig ben dat ik jou ben verloren.’

‘Zuurpruim,’ antwoordde hij.

==

Ik denk dat de hedendaagse obsessie met genieten een manier is om onszelf te ontslaan van aanwezigheid.

• Als iets niet leuk is, blijven we weg.
• Als we ons vervelen, pakken we de telefoon erbij.
• Als het ook stomme gevoelens geeft, trekken we ons terug.
• Als het ons uitput, noemen we het ongezond.
• Als het pijn doet, zoeken we afleiding.
• Als we onszelf te veel tegenkomen, zeggen we dat het niet bij ons past.
• Als het te veel vraagt, noemen we het grenzen stellen.

Ik ben niet anti-plezier. Ik ben anti de verwachting dat je altijd plezier moet hebben.

Het leven vraagt om je aanwezigheid. Zoals op visite bij je schoonouders, naar een begrafenis, naar de sportschool, naar werk.

Genieten is een bijproduct.

Het overkomt je.

Het is geen maatstaf voor of je maximaal geleefd hebt.

De maatstaf moet zijn of je maximaal aanwezig was op de momenten dat het ertoe deed.

Zoals een oude vrouw die ik laatst in de supermarkt sprak, toen ze al zittend aan het uithijgen was op haar rollator. Het probleem was niet dat de kleinkinderen niet meer kwamen. Het probleem was dat ze allemaal op haar bank naar hun schermpjes zaten te kijken. Inclusief haar eigen kinderen.

Tja.

We zeggen dat we druk zijn en te weinig tijd hebben. Om te lezen, om te schrijven, om kleding te maken, om te genieten.

Maar laat me je schermtijd op je telefoon zien en ik geef je het antwoord waar je een uur op de dag mee kunt winnen.

Ga het als een spel zien.

Je hoeft niet altijd plezier te hebben op een feestje. Je aanwezigheid is voldoende. Sterker nog: aanwezig zijn is voldoende.

liefs,

tomson

Kunst geeft je toestemming om zelf iets te voelen.

Of het een boek, een schilderij of een film is. Een goed kunstwerk kenmerkt zich doordat het iets in jou raakt wat al voor een lange tijd verborgen was.

Dit kunnen herinneringen zijn. Of schaamte. Of schuld. Of het gevoel hoe het is om een mens te zijn.

Een paniekaanval is moeilijk te omschrijven aan iemand die het nooit heeft gevoeld. Het zijn niet alleen die lichamelijke signalen die anders voelen dan andere vormen van stress. Het is ook dat gevoel van opsluiting in je eigen lijf en hoofd. Dat je geen kant op kunt. Alleen: niemand ziet of hoort je innerlijke schreeuw…

Dat is wat De schreeuw van mijn favoriete Noorse schilder Edvard Munch (1863–1944) is. De uiting van een paniekaanval. Twee handen op de wangen.

Dit heeft hij opgetekend:

Ik liep met twee vrienden over de weg. De zon ging onder. Ik voelde iets als een vlaag van weemoed. De lucht werd plotseling bloedrood. Ik bleef staan en leunde doodmoe tegen het hek. Bezag de lucht, vurig als bloed en zwaarden. De blauwzwarte fjord en stad. Mijn vrienden liepen door. Ik stond daar te trillen van angst. En ik voelde iets als een grote, oneindige schreeuw door de natuur gaan.

Edvard twijfelde de eerste jaren na deze ervaring of hij dit gevoel wel onder woorden kon brengen. Of op het doek kon schilderen.

Zijn eerste versie van dit tafereel heette Wanhoop. Je ziet niet de bekende schreeuw, maar een man met een hoed, Munch zelf. Zijn twee vrienden kijken een stukje verder, op de pier, naar hem. De man zelf kijkt voor zich uit, weg van het doek. De lucht is al vuurrood.

Er is ook een andere versie, waar het personage geen hoed op heeft. De twee vrienden staan met de rug naar hem toegekeerd op de pier.

Dat is het ding met angstaanvallen. De buitenwereld kan het bijna niet aan je zien. Terwijl je van binnen in brand staat. Al je zintuigen staan open en je ervaart de wereld om je heen op een heel nare, onnatuurlijke manier. Geluiden komen anders binnen, zoals geluid binnenkomt als je net in slaap dommelt in de trein of in het vliegtuig. Onschuldige geuren brengen kotsneigingen naar boven. De lucht die je inademt lijkt besmet te zijn.

Munch maakte een derde versie van zijn schilderij. Het gezicht met de iconische schreeuw. Het gezicht dat we nu als emoji kennen met die twee handen op de wangen en de mond wagenwijd open. Het gezicht dat als inspiratie gold voor mijn favoriete horrorfilm Scream (1996).

Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat het een schreeuw van binnenuit is. Een overval van angst, somberheid en paniek. Een gevoel van totaal controleverlies.

Het geeft me rust om mijn gevoelens terug te zien op een doek. Dat ik niet alleen ben.

Ook een goede tv-serie wekt gevoelens uit het verleden op.

==

Ken je The Bear (2022 )? Over een sterrenkok die een cafetaria van zijn overleden broer overneemt en terugkeert in de ingewikkelde familiedynamieken en zijn eigen psychologische blokkades?

Wat een show…

Toen ik voor de eerste keer naar de tv-serie The Bear keek, had ik last van heftige flashbacks aan mijn horecaverleden.

Die serie filmt zo intensief de grillen (pun intended) in de keuken, dat ik alleen maar kon denken aan al die walgelijke middagen en avonden in de spoelkeuken als 15-jarige.

Ik was een dromer in de keuken.

• Veel te traag.
• Veel te passief.
• Veel te zacht.

Liep ik weer eens achter een kok langs zonder ‘rug’ of ‘achter’ te roepen, dan draaide die man zich om en daar ging mijn stapel met borden.

Scherven van schaamte op de grond.

Of dan pakte ik een hete pan op met een natte vaatdoek en schreeuwde de kok: ‘Heb je dan niks geleerd op school? Water geleidt hitte!’

Of ze vroegen me of ik de vieze schorten van het personeel in de wasmachine wilde doen, en ik zei: ‘Ja tuurlijk, geen enkel probleem.’

Maar ik snapte helemaal niets van die wasmachine. Echt niets. En hulp vragen?

Ha. Hulp vragen.

Echt niet.

Dan vonden ze me een nog grotere oen.

Of die keer dat, toen de koks al waren vertrokken, een serveerster vroeg of ik een bittergarnituur wilde frituren.

Ik stopte vijf bitterballen in de frituurpan en legde ze op een bord toen ze begonnen te drijven.

Dat was dus niet goed. Een bittergarnituur bevat er een stuk of tien, met van die verschillende frituurhapjes.

Maar niemand legde het me uit.
(En ik vroeg ook niet om hulp, dat ook.)

Wat een leven.

Het was een vreemde plek.

De chef-kok zong graag heel hard ‘Ze hebben een clubje opgericht voor mensen met een lelijk gezicht’ en dan net op het moment dat iemand langs het open raam van de keuken liep, schreeuwde hij: ‘En jij hoort erbij!’

Dat was zijn humor.

Het is nog steeds niet grappig. Maar ik lachte wel mee, want wat moet je anders als gastje in de spoelkeuken?

Ik ben eens een keer gevallen bij het schoonmaken. ’s Avonds laat. De gehele vloer in de keuken was gedweild en ik liep naar twee collega’s toe. Een serveerster en iemand van de spoelkeuken.

Hup.

Daar gingen mijn benen onder mijn lijf vandaan. Precies voor hun voeten. Keihard op mijn billen, rug en armen.

De blauwe plekken verdwenen pas na drie weken. Ik kon pas na vijf dagen weer normaal zitten.

Maar wat denk je? Staken ze een hand uit om me op te tillen? Vroegen ze hoe het ging?

Nee.

Ze lachten allebei heel hard.

Daarna hoorde ik de rest van de avond en de week erop de zin dat ik voor de knappe serveerster was gevallen.

Met buldergelach uit al hun monden.

Zo vreemd.

Dat is wat kunst doet.

Het geeft je flashbacks. Maar The Bear raakte ook iets dieper in me.

Het moment dat stress je leven overneemt en je gedachten naar een doem-denk-niveau gaan.

==

Je komt er in de serie achter dat Carmen vroeger heel graag samen met zijn oudere broer een horecazaak wilde beginnen, maar Mikey hield hem er altijd buiten.

Het gaf Carmen zoveel frustratie dat hij voor een topcarrière in de kookwereld ging om respect te krijgen van zijn broer. Die hij toen nog steeds niet kreeg. Ze maakten hem thuis met z’n allen juist nog meer belachelijk dat ’ie zo hautain in de kokswereld zat.

En dan opeens legt Mikey de hand aan zichzelf door verslaving, schulden en zelfdestructie en laat ’ie zijn levenswerk aan Carmen achter.

Carmen neemt het over en het is echt een puinzooi.

• Administratie.
• De keukenprocessen.
• De mensen die ervoor werken.
• Het geld is op.
• Weinig perspectief op winst.

Je ziet hoe hard Carmen zijn best doet om de zaak naar zijn niveau te brengen, terwijl al het personeel gewoon bestaat uit simpele mensen die niet per se die koksambitie hebben.

Maar het is niet je klassieke Hollywoodverhaaltje waar aan het eind iedereen inziet dat je het met elkaar moet doen.

Nee.

Deze serie gaat over hoe we vluchten in ons werk om onze emoties te onderdrukken.

Het gaat erover dat iedereen in die keuken worstelt met de dood van Mikey. Dat Carmen zijn jeugdtrauma probeert op te lossen door iets van die zaak te maken.

Dat iedereen zo opgezogen wordt door zijn eigen pijn, dat niemand de ander echt ziet.

Elk keukenlid draagt een bijna ondraaglijke last uit het verleden met zich mee en vindt iets in die zaak wat ze nergens anders vinden. Maar ze zijn allemaal niet bij machte om gevoelens op een normale manier te uiten.

Het is chaos. Elke aflevering weer. Gescheld. Ruzie. Kinderachtig gedoe. Misverstanden.

In de loop van de seizoenen komen de mensen gelukkig hun eigen tekortkomingen onder ogen.

• Dat ze niet zo waardeloos zijn als ze dachten (Richie).
• Dat het goed is om je eigen plek aan tafel op te eisen, ook al ben je jong (Sydney).
• Dat je niet altijd ieders gebreken hoeft te verzachten (Natalie).
• Dat je jezelf ook de liefde mag gunnen om je eigen gebreken te vergeven (Carmen).

Alleen in films helen mensen meteen. Niet in deze serie. Dat maakt het zo menselijk en hartverwarmend en ook zo frustrerend.

Carmen denkt regelmatig dat als deze horecatent gewoon in de fik vliegt, ben ik eindelijk al mijn stress en angst kwijt.

You’re watching the fire and you’re thinking, if I don’t do anything. This place will burn down and all my anxiety will go away with it

Dat is een gedachte die ik herken.

En dat is een pijnlijk besef. Ook omdat je weet dat dan een stressfactor gaat stoppen. Maar je krijgt er tig nieuwe bij.

Als de kruik van Pandora.

Maar zo makkelijk komt Carmen er niet vanaf.

Nee.

Niets gaat volledig in de fik.

Als je elke dag alles geeft aan je verslaving, kan je die energie dan ook niet gebruiken om jezelf een beter mens te maken?

Dat is de vraag.

Niet alleen op het scherm.

Maar ook in jouw leven.

Dat is wat kunst doet.

Het troost.

Maar stelt ook hele ongemakkelijke vragen.

En dan besef je opeens dat waar je naar kijkt, dat het volledig over jezelf gaat.

liefs,

tomson

This review originally appeared at Grimdark Magazine on January 11, 2026.

Conan the Barbarian #25

By Jim Zub (Writer) and Alex Horley (Artist) – Titan Comics – October 8, 2025

Review by Robin Marx

In Conan the Barbarian #25, after untold leagues of single-minded solitary travel, a cloaked stranger presents himself at the city gates of Tarantia, capital of Aquilonia, demanding to speak to King Conan. Initially rebuffed as a vagrant by the city guards, the anonymous visitor simply sits in the dust and waits patiently outside the gate until Conan finally gives in to curiosity and grants him an audience. Revealing himself to possess bone-white hair and the pallor of a corpse, the stranger claims to bear a great gift for Conan, but one that will only be bestowed after receiving three days of the king’s hospitality. In the days to follow, Conan’s queen and closest allies each approach him with their misgivings, but the king remains determined to stay the course even despite the visitor’s unsettling demeanor. At the close of the third day, the so-called “nomad” springs his trap, drawing Conan into a phantasmagorical realm where the barbarian-turned-king must survive a series of life-threatening ordeals to win “a prize akin to immortality.”

Entitled “The Nomad,” this special extra-long one-shot issue commemorates two full years of Conan the Barbarian at Titan Comics. While the barbarian has appeared as ruler of Aquilonia before in the ongoing The Savage Sword of Conan title, this issue marks the first King Conan story in Titan’s main Conan the Barbarian title and the first one penned by Jim Zub himself. But what makes this issue so remarkable is the artwork by Alex Horley. Over the course of a year, Horley rendered every page of the artwork as oil paintings. Horley has consistently delivered some of the most eye-catching covers for Titan’s The Savage Sword of Conan, so seeing an entire issue of the main comic receive such deluxe treatment is impressive.

Appropriately for an anniversary issue, with Conan the Barbarian #25 writer Jim Zub delivers a retrospective of Conan’s career that simultaneously does double duty as an approachable introduction to the character. Through flashback-like visions the reader is treated to a series of pivotal scenes in Conan’s adventures, some of which have been covered in the Titan comic run (Conan’s encounter with Atali’s frost giant brothers), and others which have as yet only appeared in the original Robert E. Howard fiction or previous comic adaptations (e.g., we see the ape-like Thak, from “Rogues in the House,” and Conan’s crucifixion in “A Witch Shall be Born”). Conan’s opponents are mocking, talkative specters, and through the dialogue Zub demonstrates both the aging Conan’s philosophy and his indomitable spirit. In the end, Zub brings it home by neatly tying the story in with one of the most recognized and quoted passages in the Conan literary canon.

Alex Horley’s artwork is truly gorgeous throughout. Horley offers up dynamic combat, excellent depictions of favorite Conan the Barbarian monsters, and the most alluring portrayal of pirate queen Bêlit seen in the Titan Comics titles so far. While never obtrusive, the texture of the canvas is occasionally visible through the artwork, a pleasing reminder of the care and workmanship that went into this issue. Even in a series blessed with talented artists, the work here is something special.

Conan the Barbarian issue 25 is perhaps the best single issue of the Titan Comics incarnation to date. Not only is it visually gorgeous, but the story is also an eloquent summation of the appeal of both the character of Conan and Sword & Sorcery fiction in general. If I knew a comic reader who wanted to know what this whole Conan business was about and why people are still excited about this nearly century-old character, this is the issue I would hand them.

#ReviewArchive #ComicReview #Fantasy #SwordAndSorcery #JimZub #AlexHorley #TitanComics #ConanTheBarbarian #GrimdarkMagazine #GdM

Mark 8 is one of those chapters that feels like three stories stitched together, but when you sit with it long enough, you realize it is really one long conversation about sight. Not eyesight alone, but perception. Not what the eyes register, but what the soul recognizes. The chapter opens with hungry crowds and ends with a suffering Messiah, and in between stands a blind man who is healed in stages and disciples who can see miracles but still cannot see meaning. This chapter is not about Jesus proving who He is. It is about exposing what kind of vision His followers actually have.

The chapter begins with a familiar miracle, but it carries a strange emotional tone. Jesus looks at the crowd and says He has compassion on them because they have been with Him three days and have nothing to eat. That detail matters. These are not casual listeners who wandered over for an afternoon sermon. These are people who stayed. They lingered. They gave time, energy, and hunger to hear Him. Jesus does not simply notice their physical need; He connects it to their spiritual persistence. They have stayed long enough to forget themselves. Their bodies are empty, but their attention has been full. This is a quiet indictment of how we often measure devotion. We imagine faith as something that fits neatly between meals and appointments. These people let faith interrupt their routine. They stayed until hunger forced a reckoning.

The disciples respond the way practical people always do. They point out the impossibility of feeding so many in such a desolate place. Their question is not hostile; it is logical. Where could anyone get enough bread to feed them here? The miracle that follows feels almost understated compared to the feeding of the five thousand earlier in Mark’s Gospel. This time it is four thousand. This time there are seven loaves instead of five. This time there are baskets left over again, but a different number. The repetition itself becomes part of the message. Jesus is not running out of power. The miracle is not diminishing. The issue is not supply. The issue is memory. The disciples have already seen this happen once, and yet they react as if they have learned nothing.

This is one of the most uncomfortable truths about discipleship. Exposure to miracles does not automatically create understanding. You can watch God provide and still panic the next time provision is needed. You can see Him rescue and still doubt the next rescue. The human heart does not store faith the way it stores information. It has to be re-learned, re-trusted, and re-claimed again and again. Mark 8 is brutally honest about that. The disciples are not villains here. They are us. They are people who have evidence but still struggle with expectation.

After the crowd is fed and sent away, Jesus immediately encounters the Pharisees. They demand a sign from heaven. This is one of the most revealing moments in the chapter because it shows two kinds of blindness side by side. The crowd saw bread multiply. The Pharisees see nothing but a debate opportunity. They are not asking for a sign because they lack evidence. They are asking because no evidence will ever be enough for a heart that has already decided. Jesus sighs deeply in His spirit. That sigh is not frustration at ignorance. It is grief over stubbornness. There is a difference between not knowing and not wanting to know. The Pharisees want a spectacle that fits their expectations. Jesus refuses because signs do not heal pride. They only entertain it.

Then comes one of the most puzzling conversations in the chapter. Jesus warns His disciples to beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod. The disciples immediately assume He is talking about literal bread because they forgot to bring enough. This moment feels almost comical, but it is deeply tragic. Jesus is speaking about influence, about corruption, about a mindset that spreads quietly and changes everything from the inside. They are worried about lunch. He asks them a series of questions that sound like an interrogation, but they are really diagnostic. Do you still not understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? Do you not remember when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand? How many baskets did you pick up? When I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many baskets did you pick up? And still you do not understand.

This is one of the few moments in the Gospels where Jesus seems almost incredulous with His own disciples. Not angry, but astonished that repetition has not yet produced recognition. They know the numbers. They remember the leftovers. But they have not connected the dots. They have data without insight. This is the danger of religious familiarity. You can know the story and miss the point. You can quote the miracle and ignore the meaning. Jesus is not rebuking them for forgetting bread. He is rebuking them for forgetting what the bread revealed about Him.

Immediately after this conversation comes the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida. Jesus leads him outside the village, spits on his eyes, and lays hands on him. When asked if he sees anything, the man says he sees people, but they look like trees walking around. Jesus then lays hands on him again, and his sight is fully restored. This is the only miracle in the Gospels that happens in stages. It is impossible to read this in isolation from the conversation that just happened. The disciples see, but not clearly. They perceive Jesus, but their vision is blurry. They recognize power, but not purpose. The man’s partial healing becomes a living parable of the disciples’ partial understanding.

The miracle says something profound about how spiritual vision often develops. We want instant clarity. We want complete understanding in one touch. But God often heals perception the way He heals this man’s sight: progressively. First comes awareness, then comes accuracy. First comes recognition, then comes depth. The disciples are in the “trees walking” stage. They know Jesus is extraordinary, but they do not yet grasp the cost of following Him.

This sets the stage for the most famous exchange in the chapter. Jesus asks His disciples who people say He is. They give safe answers. John the Baptist. Elijah. One of the prophets. Then He asks them directly who they say He is. Peter answers, “You are the Christ.” This is a turning point in Mark’s Gospel. For the first time, a disciple publicly names Jesus as the Messiah. But the moment is immediately complicated. Jesus begins to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer, be rejected, be killed, and after three days rise again. Peter takes Him aside and rebukes Him. The same mouth that confessed Christ now corrects Him. The same insight that recognized His identity rejects His mission.

Jesus’ response is sharp and unforgettable. “Get behind me, Satan. You are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” This is not an insult as much as it is a diagnosis. Peter’s problem is not lack of loyalty. It is misplaced focus. He wants a Messiah without a cross. He wants victory without suffering. He wants glory without sacrifice. And Jesus names that mindset as adversarial to God’s purposes. Not because Peter is evil, but because he is still seeing like a man who measures success by comfort and control.

This is where Mark 8 becomes intensely personal. Jesus does not stop with correcting Peter. He turns to the crowd and explains what following Him actually means. “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” This is not poetic language in this context. The cross is not a metaphor yet. It is an instrument of execution. Jesus is saying that following Him will involve a willingness to lose control over one’s own life story. He continues by explaining the paradox that whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for His sake and the gospel’s will save it.

This teaching dismantles the idea that faith is meant to secure personal advantage. Jesus frames discipleship as an exchange of narratives. You can write your own story and protect it at all costs, or you can surrender it and receive a better one. He asks what it profits a person to gain the whole world and lose their soul. That is not a warning about material success alone. It is a warning about distorted priorities. You can achieve everything you aimed for and still miss the reason you exist.

He ends the chapter with a statement about being ashamed of Him and His words in a generation that is adulterous and sinful. The language is relational. Adultery is betrayal, not ignorance. Jesus is saying that allegiance matters. Identity matters. What you confess publicly shapes what you become privately.

Taken together, Mark 8 reads like a journey from hunger to sight to surrender. It starts with bread and ends with a cross. It begins with compassion and ends with confrontation. It shows us people who stay with Jesus for food, religious leaders who demand proof, disciples who misunderstand, a blind man who gradually sees, and a follower who correctly names Jesus but wrongly resists His mission. Every scene is about perception. Who sees clearly. Who does not. Who thinks they understand. Who admits they do not.

This chapter exposes a hard truth: it is possible to be near Jesus and still miss Him. You can be fed by Him and still misunderstand Him. You can confess Him and still resist His way. Spiritual blindness is not always total darkness. Sometimes it is blurry vision that thinks it is clear.

The feeding miracle reminds us that Jesus meets physical need with spiritual purpose. The Pharisees remind us that pride can reject truth even when it is visible. The disciples remind us that experience does not equal understanding. The blind man reminds us that healing can be progressive. Peter reminds us that confession without comprehension leads to conflict. And Jesus reminds us that following Him means redefining what it means to win.

Mark 8 is not a chapter about miracles as much as it is about meaning. The bread is not just bread. The blindness is not just blindness. The cross is not just tragedy. Everything points toward the question Jesus asks every reader: do you see what I am really doing, or only what you want me to be doing?

In this chapter, Jesus refuses to be a miracle dispenser, a sign performer, or a political Messiah. He chooses to be a suffering Savior. That choice offends expectations. It confuses followers. It threatens power. But it reveals God. The compassion that feeds crowds becomes the compassion that carries a cross. The same hands that break bread will soon be nailed. The same disciples who collect baskets will scatter in fear. And yet, the story does not end in loss. It ends in promise. Losing life for His sake leads to saving it. Seeing clearly comes after surrender.

Mark 8 invites every believer to examine what kind of sight they have. Are we like the crowd, drawn to what Jesus can give? Are we like the Pharisees, demanding proof on our terms? Are we like the disciples, remembering facts but missing meaning? Are we like the blind man, seeing partially and needing another touch? Or are we willing to become people who see the cross not as failure but as fulfillment?

This chapter does not flatter faith. It refines it. It does not simplify discipleship. It deepens it. And it does not offer an easy Jesus. It reveals a costly one. The question that lingers after reading Mark 8 is not whether Jesus is powerful. It is whether we are willing to follow Him when power looks like sacrifice and vision looks like surrender.

And that is where the chapter quietly leaves us. With bread in our hands, a cross on the horizon, and a question in our hearts about what it really means to see.

What makes Mark 8 so unsettling is that no one in the chapter is openly hostile to Jesus except the Pharisees, and yet almost everyone misunderstands Him in some way. The crowd stays, but they stay for bread. The disciples follow, but they follow with assumptions. Peter believes, but he believes with conditions. The blind man sees, but only after a process. This is not a story about enemies of faith. It is a story about the limits of human perception even when God is standing right in front of us.

There is something quietly revolutionary about the way Jesus refuses to give the Pharisees a sign. They are asking for proof that conforms to their system. They want heaven to perform on command. Jesus will not participate in that kind of relationship. Faith, in this chapter, is not a contract where God must meet demands. It is a posture of recognition. The irony is that the people demanding a sign are surrounded by them. Bread has multiplied. Sick people have been healed. Crowds have been changed. But the Pharisees want a sign that protects their authority rather than challenges it. They want confirmation without conversion.

This moment forces a hard question on the reader. Are we looking for God to prove Himself, or are we willing to be transformed by Him? The difference is subtle but massive. Proof leaves the observer unchanged. Transformation requires surrender. Jesus refuses the sign because He knows it would feed curiosity without changing loyalty. He will not reinforce a kind of faith that wants power without repentance.

The warning about yeast follows naturally. Yeast is small. It works invisibly. It spreads quietly. Jesus is not warning about public enemies. He is warning about internal contamination. The yeast of the Pharisees is pride disguised as righteousness. The yeast of Herod is power disguised as security. Both promise control. Both distort vision. And both operate slowly enough that people rarely notice until the whole loaf has changed. This is why Jesus connects the warning to memory. He asks about the baskets left over because memory is supposed to guard perception. When you forget what God has done, you become vulnerable to false explanations of reality. When you forget provision, fear becomes logical. When you forget power, compromise becomes attractive.

The disciples’ confusion about bread reveals how fear shrinks understanding. They reduce a spiritual warning to a logistical problem. They assume Jesus is upset about groceries instead of influence. This is not because they are stupid. It is because anxiety narrows focus. When survival feels threatened, meaning disappears. This is one of the hidden lessons of the chapter. Spiritual blindness often comes from emotional pressure, not intellectual failure. The disciples are not failing a theology exam. They are revealing a stress response. They are worried about running out, so they cannot hear about corruption.

The healing of the blind man in stages becomes even more powerful when seen in this light. Jesus does not fail the first time. He is not struggling. He is illustrating something. Partial sight is still sight, but it is not enough for navigation. Seeing people as trees is better than seeing nothing, but it is not yet accurate. The miracle mirrors the disciples’ journey. They can see Jesus as a prophet, a teacher, a miracle worker. But they cannot yet see Him as a suffering Messiah. Their vision is real but incomplete.

This is deeply encouraging for anyone who feels stuck between belief and understanding. Mark 8 does not shame partial sight. It acknowledges it. Jesus does not abandon the blind man when his vision is blurry. He touches him again. He does not abandon the disciples when their understanding is shallow. He keeps teaching them. This reveals a God who is patient with process. Clarity is not demanded instantly. It is cultivated through continued contact.

Peter’s confession is often celebrated, but Mark 8 refuses to let it stand alone. Naming Jesus as the Christ is only half the revelation. Understanding what kind of Christ He is becomes the real challenge. Peter’s rebuke shows how easy it is to project our values onto God. Peter wants a victorious Messiah because that is what makes sense to him. A suffering Messiah feels wrong. It feels like a mistake. It feels like failure. But Jesus identifies this instinct as opposition to God’s purposes. Not because suffering is good in itself, but because love requires it.

This moment reshapes what it means to be “for” Jesus. Peter thinks he is protecting Him. He thinks he is being loyal. But loyalty that resists God’s plan becomes sabotage without realizing it. This is one of the most uncomfortable truths in the chapter. You can oppose God while thinking you are defending Him. You can rebuke the cross because you want the crown too soon. Jesus’ words to Peter are not a personal attack. They are a spiritual correction. He exposes the difference between human-centered thinking and God-centered purpose.

When Jesus calls the crowd to Himself and speaks about taking up the cross, He is not speaking only to His inner circle. He is redefining discipleship for everyone. This is not elite language for spiritual professionals. It is a public invitation with a public cost. The cross is not presented as a tragedy to avoid but as a path to follow. This would have been shocking. Crosses were symbols of humiliation and control. They were warnings along Roman roads. To say “take up your cross” was to say “accept a future that is not safe, not prestigious, and not controlled by you.”

Yet Jesus pairs this with a promise about life. Losing life for His sake leads to saving it. This is not poetic contradiction. It is a redefinition of what life is. Life is not defined as survival or comfort. It is defined as alignment with God’s purpose. The chapter challenges the assumption that success equals preservation. According to Jesus, preservation can lead to loss if it becomes the highest goal. The soul is not preserved by avoiding sacrifice. It is preserved by participating in truth.

The question about gaining the whole world exposes how easily values can be inverted. The world represents achievement, recognition, power, and security. Jesus does not say these things are meaningless. He says they are insufficient. They cannot replace the soul. They cannot heal identity. They cannot substitute for purpose. You can gain everything visible and still lose what is invisible but essential. This is not a threat. It is a diagnosis of misplaced trade-offs.

The final warning about being ashamed of Him frames faith as relational loyalty rather than private opinion. Shame is about distance. It is about hiding association. Jesus places His own identity and His words together. To reject His teaching is to reject Him. To accept Him while hiding His words is still rejection. In a generation described as adulterous and sinful, faith is not just belief. It is alignment. It is visible association with a different story.

When all these pieces are held together, Mark 8 becomes a map of spiritual perception. It shows how hunger can lead to compassion, how pride can block evidence, how fear can distort meaning, how partial healing can reflect partial understanding, how confession can coexist with resistance, and how following Jesus means redefining what life itself means.

This chapter also reveals something crucial about Jesus’ identity. He is not only the one who multiplies bread. He is the one who interprets it. He does not only heal blindness. He exposes it. He does not only accept confession. He corrects misunderstanding. He does not only invite followers. He explains the cost. The Messiah revealed in Mark 8 is not a convenience. He is a transformation.

There is a quiet progression in the chapter from physical to spiritual, from external to internal. It begins with bodies that need food. It ends with souls that must choose. It begins with crowds who stay. It ends with individuals who must decide. The miracles become fewer, but the demands become deeper. Jesus feeds many, but He confronts each.

One of the most haunting questions in the chapter is Jesus’ repeated “Do you still not understand?” It is not asked once. It is layered. It is persistent. It is not because He expects instant mastery. It is because understanding is the point of proximity. Being near Jesus is meant to change how we see everything else. If proximity does not lead to transformation, something is blocking vision.

This makes Mark 8 a chapter of mirrors. It does not allow the reader to stand outside the story. Every character represents a possible posture. The crowd reflects our desire for provision. The Pharisees reflect our demand for control. The disciples reflect our confusion. The blind man reflects our process. Peter reflects our mixture of faith and fear. And Jesus stands in the center, not only performing acts but interpreting reality.

The chapter also reframes what it means to be chosen. The disciples are chosen, but they are not immune to misunderstanding. Peter is chosen, but he still resists the cross. Chosenness does not eliminate struggle. It deepens responsibility. The closer one is to Jesus, the more necessary it becomes to see clearly.

In this way, Mark 8 refuses to romanticize discipleship. It shows its cost before it shows its glory. It speaks of death before resurrection. It names loss before life. This is not pessimism. It is honesty. The Gospel does not promise ease. It promises meaning. And meaning often requires letting go of stories we would rather keep.

The compassion at the beginning of the chapter and the call to the cross at the end are not opposites. They are connected. The same heart that feeds the hungry is the heart that embraces sacrifice. Compassion without surrender becomes sentiment. Surrender without compassion becomes cruelty. Jesus embodies both. He feeds because He cares. He suffers because He loves. The cross is not a contradiction of compassion. It is its fullest expression.

Mark 8 also reveals something about memory as a spiritual discipline. Jesus keeps pointing back to what has already happened. How many baskets? How many loaves? Memory is not nostalgia here. It is instruction. Forgetting is dangerous not because it erases the past, but because it distorts the present. When the disciples forget what Jesus has done, they misinterpret what He says. This shows how theology is shaped by remembrance. What you remember about God influences what you expect from Him.

The blind man’s healing outside the village is also significant. Jesus leads him away from familiar surroundings before restoring sight. This suggests that vision sometimes requires separation. Old environments can reinforce old perceptions. Seeing clearly may require distance from what once defined you. This is not rejection of community. It is reorientation of identity.

Peter’s resistance to the suffering Messiah reveals how deeply we prefer narratives of triumph. We want God to fix problems without transforming values. We want solutions without surrender. But Jesus insists that the kingdom does not arrive through domination but through love. The cross is not an accident in the story. It is the story. Mark 8 places this truth at the center of the Gospel, not at the end. Before Jerusalem. Before betrayal. Before the final miracles. The meaning of the cross is introduced early so that everything after it can be interpreted correctly.

The invitation to deny oneself is often misunderstood as self-hatred. In Mark 8, it is not about despising identity. It is about releasing ownership. It is the difference between saying “this is my life” and saying “this is God’s life in me.” The denial is not of worth but of control. Taking up the cross is not seeking pain. It is accepting purpose.

The paradox of losing life to save it also reveals something about fear. Fear tells us that letting go will destroy us. Jesus tells us that clinging will. The chapter places these voices in contrast. Fear speaks through the disciples’ worry about bread. Fear speaks through Peter’s rebuke. Jesus answers fear with memory, meaning, and mission.

Mark 8 does not end with resolution. It ends with tension. The disciples still do not fully understand. The cross is still ahead. The crowd is still deciding. The reader is still invited. This is intentional. The chapter does not close a story. It opens a question. Who do you say that I am, and what will that mean for how you live?

In this way, Mark 8 becomes less about events and more about vision. It is a chapter about learning to see God differently, life differently, and oneself differently. It is about moving from consumption to commitment, from admiration to allegiance, from partial sight to costly clarity.

The bread reminds us that God cares about our needs. The blindness reminds us that we do not always see His ways. The cross reminds us that love will not avoid sacrifice. And the invitation reminds us that discipleship is not about adding Jesus to our story but about letting Him rewrite it.

Mark 8 is not meant to be comfortable. It is meant to be honest. It shows us that faith grows through misunderstanding, that vision sharpens through surrender, and that life is found through loss. It asks us to examine what kind of Messiah we want and what kind of followers we are willing to be.

In the end, the chapter leaves us with a strange but powerful image. Hands that once broke bread will one day be pierced. Eyes that once saw trees walking will one day see clearly. Disciples who once argued about loaves will one day proclaim resurrection. And a question that once echoed in Caesarea Philippi will echo through history: who do you say that I am?

The answer is not just a confession. It is a direction. And Mark 8 makes clear that the direction leads not only to glory, but through a cross first.

Your friend, Douglas Vandergraph

Watch Douglas Vandergraph’s inspiring faith-based videos on YouTube

Support the ministry by buying Douglas a coffee

#Mark8 #BibleReflection #GospelOfMark #FaithAndDiscipleship #ChristianWriting #SeeingClearly #TheCrossAndTheCrown #SpiritualGrowth #FollowingJesus

Des fées sur la grève ou des anges mâles aux cheveux bouclés, le train qui passe entre les nuages, Pygas se baignant, que l'on n'a jamais vue, en somme tout ce qui dure sans durée, l'ennui, les êtres désirés par l'esprit du regard, le train revenu qui pénètre en gare, le parler muet d'une chose, la scène des absentés qui rejouent leur départ, les villes où l'on va sans aller, la liste sans fin que l'on se dresse, avant la mort, dans le cerveau.

Nombre d’occurrences : 14

#VoyageauLexique

Dans ce deuxième Voyage au Lexique, je continue d’explorer, en me gardant de les exploiter, les mots de Ma vie au village (in Journal de la brousse endormie) dont le nombre d’occurrences est significatif.

Something peculiar happened when software development teams started delegating code generation to AI assistants. The traditional burden of implementation, that painstaking process of translating designs into working software, began shifting elsewhere. But it did not disappear. Instead, it transformed into something altogether different: an intensified requirement for architectural rigour that many teams were unprepared to provide.

In early 2025, a randomised controlled trial conducted by METR examined how AI tools affect the productivity of experienced open-source developers. Sixteen developers with moderate AI experience completed 246 tasks in mature projects on which they had an average of five years of prior experience. Each task was randomly assigned to allow or disallow usage of early 2025 AI tools. The finding shocked the industry: developers using AI tools took 19% longer to complete tasks than those working without them. Before starting, developers had forecast that AI would reduce their completion time by 24%. Even after finishing the study, participants still believed AI had made them faster, despite the data proving otherwise.

This perception gap reveals something fundamental about the current state of AI-assisted development. The tools are genuinely powerful, but their power comes with hidden costs that manifest as architectural drift, context exhaustion, and what practitioners have come to call the “zig-zag problem”: the iterative back-and-forth that emerges when teams dive into implementation without sufficient upfront specification.

The Great Delegation

The scale of AI adoption in software development has been nothing short of revolutionary. By March 2025, Y Combinator reported that 25% of startups in its Winter 2025 batch had codebases that were 95% AI-generated. These were not weekend projects built by hobbyists. These were venture-backed companies building production systems, with the cohort growing 10% per week in aggregate, making it the fastest-growing batch in YC history.

As CEO Garry Tan explained, the implications were profound: teams no longer needed fifty or a hundred engineers. They did not have to raise as much capital. The money went further. Companies like Red Barn Robotics developed AI-driven agricultural robots securing millions in contracts. Deepnight built military-grade night vision software for the US Army. Delve launched with over 100 customers and a multi-million pound run rate, all with remarkably lean teams.

Jared Friedman, YC's managing partner, emphasised a crucial point about these companies: “It's not like we funded a bunch of non-technical founders. Every one of these people is highly technical, completely capable of building their own products from scratch. A year ago, they would have built their product from scratch, but now 95% of it is built by an AI.”

Yet beneath these success stories lurked a more complicated reality. Pete Hodgson, writing about AI coding assistants in May 2025, captured the core problem with devastating clarity: “The state of the art with coding agents in 2025 is that every time you start a new chat session, your agent is reset to the same knowledge as a brand new hire, one who has carefully read through all the onboarding material and is good at searching through the codebase for context.”

This “brand new hire” phenomenon explains why architectural planning has become so critical. Traditional developers build mental models of codebases over months and years. They internalise team conventions, understand why certain patterns exist, and recognise the historical context behind architectural decisions. AI assistants possess none of this institutional memory. They approach each session with technical competence but zero contextual awareness.

The burden that has shifted is not the mechanical act of writing code. It is the responsibility for ensuring that generated code fits coherently within existing systems, adheres to established patterns, and serves long-term maintainability rather than short-term convenience.

Context Windows and the Memory Problem

To understand why architectural planning matters more with AI assistants, you must first understand how these systems process information. Every AI model operates within what engineers call a context window: the total amount of text it can consider simultaneously. By late 2025, leading models routinely supported 200,000 tokens or more, with some reaching one million tokens. Google's Gemini models offered input windows of over a million tokens, enough to analyse entire books or multi-file repositories in a single session.

But raw capacity tells only part of the story. Timothy Biondollo, writing about the fundamental limitations of AI coding assistants, articulated what he calls the Principle of Compounding Contextual Error: “If an AI interaction does not resolve the problem quickly, the likelihood of successful resolution drops with each additional interaction.”

The mechanics are straightforward but devastating. As you pile on error messages, stack traces, and correction prompts, you fill the context window with what amounts to garbage data. The model is reading a history full of its own mistakes, which biases it toward repeating them. A long, winding debugging session is often counterproductive. Instead of fixing the bug, you are frequently better off resetting the context and starting fresh with a refined prompt.

This dynamic fundamentally changes how teams must approach complex development tasks. With human developers, extended debugging sessions can be productive because humans learn from their mistakes within a session. They build understanding incrementally. AI assistants do the opposite: their performance degrades as sessions extend because their context becomes polluted with failed attempts.

The practical implication is that teams cannot rely on AI assistants to self-correct through iteration. The tools lack the metacognitive capacity to recognise when they are heading down unproductive paths. They will cheerfully continue generating variations of flawed solutions until the context window fills with a history of failures, at which point the quality of suggestions deteriorates further.

Predictions from industry analysts suggest that one million or more tokens will become standard for flagship models in 2025 and 2026, with ten million token contexts emerging in specialised models by 2027. True “infinite context” solutions may arrive in production by 2028. Yet even with these expansions, the fundamental challenge remains: more tokens do not eliminate the problem of context pollution. They merely delay its onset.

The Specification Renaissance

This context limitation has driven a renaissance in software specification practices. What the industry has come to call spec-driven development represents one of 2025's most significant methodological shifts, though it lacks the visibility of trendier terms like vibe coding.

Thoughtworks describes spec-driven development as a paradigm that uses well-crafted software requirement specifications as prompts for AI coding agents to generate executable code. The approach explicitly separates requirements analysis from implementation, formalising requirements into structured documents before any code generation begins.

GitHub released Spec Kit, an open-source toolkit that provides templates and workflows for this approach. The framework structures development through four distinct phases: Specify, Plan, Tasks, and Implement. Each phase produces specific artifacts that carry forward to subsequent stages.

In the Specify phase, developers capture user journeys and desired outcomes. As the Spec Kit documentation emphasises, this is not about technical stacks or application design. It focuses on experiences and what success looks like: who will use the system, what problem it solves, how users will interact with it, and what outcomes matter. This specification becomes a living artifact that evolves as teams learn more about users and their needs.

The Plan phase gets technical. Developers encode their desired stack, architecture, and constraints. If an organisation standardises on certain technologies, this is where those requirements become explicit. The plan captures compliance requirements, performance targets, and security policies that will guide implementation.

The Tasks phase breaks specifications into focused, reviewable work units. Each task solves a specific piece of the puzzle and enables isolated testing and validation. Rather than asking an AI to generate an entire feature, developers decompose work into atomic units that can be independently verified.

Only in the Implement phase do AI agents begin generating code, now guided by clear specifications and plans rather than vague prompts. The approach transforms fuzzy intent into unambiguous instructions that language models can reliably execute.

Planning Artifacts That Actually Work

Not all specification documents prove equally effective at guiding AI assistants. Through extensive experimentation, the industry has converged on several artifact types that demonstrably reduce architectural drift.

The spec.md file has emerged as foundational. Addy Osmani, Chrome engineering lead at Google, recommends creating a comprehensive specification document containing requirements, architecture decisions, data models, and testing strategy. This document forms the basis for development, providing complete context before any code generation begins. Osmani describes the approach as doing “waterfall in fifteen minutes” through collaborative specification refinement with the AI before any code generation occurs.

Tasks.md serves a complementary function, breaking work into incremental, testable steps with validation criteria. Rather than jumping straight into code, this process establishes intent first. The AI assistant then uses these documents as context for generation, ensuring each piece of work connects coherently to the larger whole.

Plan.md captures the technical approach: a short overview of the goal, the main steps or phases required to achieve it, and any dependencies, risks, or considerations to keep in mind. This document bridges the gap between what the system should do and how it should be built.

Perhaps most critically, the CLAUDE.md file (or equivalent for other AI tools) has become what practitioners call the agent's constitution, its primary source of truth for how a specific repository works. HumanLayer, a company building tooling for AI development workflows, recommends keeping this file under sixty lines. The general consensus is that less than three hundred lines works best, with shorter being even better.

The rationale for brevity is counterintuitive but essential. Since CLAUDE.md content gets injected into every single session, bloated files consume precious context window space that should be reserved for task-specific information. The document should contain universally applicable information: core application features, technology stacks, and project notes that should never be forgotten. Anthropic's own guidance emphasises preferring pointers to copies: rather than including code snippets that will become outdated, include file and line references that point the assistant to authoritative context.

Architecture Decision Records in the AI Era

A particularly interesting development involves the application of Architecture Decision Records to AI-assisted development. Doug Todd has demonstrated transformative results using ADRs with Claude and Claude Code, showing how these documents provide exactly the kind of structured context that AI assistants need.

ADRs provide enough structure to ensure key points are addressed, but express that structure in natural language, which is perfect for large language model consumption. They capture not just what was decided, but why, recording the context, options considered, and reasoning behind architectural choices.

Chris Swan, writing about this approach, notes that ADRs might currently be an elite team practice, but they are becoming part of a boilerplate approach to working with AI coding assistants. This becomes increasingly important as teams shift to agent swarm approaches, where they are effectively managing teams of AI workers, exactly the sort of environment that ADRs were originally created for.

The transformation begins when teams stop thinking of ADRs as documentation and start treating them as executable specifications for both human and AI behaviour. Every ADR includes structured metadata and clear instructions that AI assistants can parse and apply immediately. Accepted decisions become mandatory requirements. Proposed decisions become considerations. Deprecated and superseded decisions trigger active avoidance patterns.

Dave Patten describes using AI agents to enforce architectural standards, noting that LLMs and autonomous agents are being embedded in modern pipelines to enforce architectural principles. The goal is not perfection but catching drift early before it becomes systemic.

ADR rot poses a continuing challenge. It does not happen overnight. At first, everything looks healthy: the repository is clean, decisions feel current, and engineers actually reference ADRs. Then reality sets in. Teams ship features, refactor services, migrate infrastructure, and retire old systems. If no one tends the ADR log, it quietly drifts out of sync with the system. Once that happens, engineers stop trusting it. The AI assistant, fed outdated context, produces code that reflects decisions the team has already moved past.

The Zig-Zag Problem

Without these planning artifacts, teams inevitably encounter what practitioners call the zig-zag problem: iterative back-and-forth that wastes cycles and produces inconsistent results. One developer who leaned heavily on AI generation for a rushed project described the outcome as “an inconsistent mess, duplicate logic, mismatched method names, no coherent architecture.” He realised he had been “building, building, building” without stepping back to see what the AI had woven together. The fix required painful refactoring.

The zig-zag emerges from a fundamental mismatch between how humans and AI assistants approach problem-solving. Human developers naturally maintain mental models that constrain their solutions. They remember what they tried before, understand why certain approaches failed, and build incrementally toward coherent systems.

AI assistants lack this continuity. Each response optimises for the immediate prompt without consideration of the larger trajectory. Ask for a feature and you will get a feature, but that feature may duplicate existing functionality, violate established patterns, or introduce dependencies that conflict with architectural principles.

Qodo's research on AI code quality found that about a third of developers verify AI code more quickly than writing it from scratch, whilst the remaining two-thirds require more time for verification. Roughly a fifth face heavy overruns of 50 to 100 percent or more, making verification the bottleneck. Approximately 11 percent of developers reported code verification taking much longer, with many code mismatches requiring deep rework.

The solution lies in constraining the problem space before engaging AI assistance. Hodgson identifies three key strategies: constrain the problem by being more directive in prompts and specifying exact approaches; provide missing context by expanding prompts with specific details about team conventions and technical choices; and enable tool-based context discovery through integrations that give AI access to schemas, documentation, and requirements.

Structuring Handoffs Between Planning and Implementation

The transition from planning to implementation represents a critical handoff that many teams execute poorly. GitHub's Spec Kit documentation emphasises that specifications should include everything a developer, or an AI agent, needs to know to start building: the problem, the approach, required components, validation criteria, and a checklist for handoff. By following a standard, the transition from planning to doing becomes clear and predictable.

This handoff structure differs fundamentally from traditional agile workflows. In conventional development, a user story might contain just enough information for a human developer to ask clarifying questions and fill in gaps through conversation. AI assistants cannot engage in this kind of collaborative refinement. They interpret prompts literally and generate solutions based on whatever context they possess.

The Thoughtworks analysis of spec-driven development emphasises that AI coding agents receive finalised specifications along with predefined constraints via rules files or agent configuration documents. The workflow emphasises context engineering: carefully curating information for agent-LLM interaction, including real-time documentation integration through protocols that give assistants access to external knowledge sources.

Critically, this approach does not represent a return to waterfall methodology. Spec-driven development creates shorter feedback cycles than traditional waterfall's excessively long ones. The specification phase might take minutes rather than weeks. The key difference is that it happens before implementation rather than alongside it.

Microsoft's approach to agentic AI explicitly addresses handoff friction. Their tools bridge the gap between design and development, eliminating time-consuming handoff processes. Designers iterate in their preferred tools whilst developers focus on business logic and functionality, with the agent handling implementation details. Teams now receive notifications that issues are detected, analysed, fixed, and documented, all without human intervention. The agent creates issues with complete details so teams can review what happened and consider longer-term solutions during regular working hours.

The practical workflow involves marking progress and requiring the AI agent to update task tracking documents with checkmarks or completion notes. This gives visibility into what is done and what remains. Reviews happen after each phase: before moving to the next set of tasks, teams review code changes, run tests, and confirm correctness.

The Self-Correction Illusion

Perhaps the most dangerous misconception about AI coding assistants is that they can self-correct through iteration. The METR study's finding that developers take 19% longer with AI tools, despite perceiving themselves as faster, points to a fundamental misunderstanding of how these tools operate.

The problem intensifies in extended sessions. When you see auto-compacting messages during a long coding session, quality drops. Responses become vaguer. What was once a capable coding partner becomes noticeably less effective. This degradation occurs because compaction loses information. The more compaction happens, the vaguer everything becomes. Long coding sessions feel like they degrade over time because you are literally watching the AI forget.

Instead of attempting marathon sessions where you expect the AI to learn and improve, effective workflows embrace a different approach: stop trying to do everything in one session. For projects spanning multiple sessions, implementing comprehensive logging and documentation serves as external memory. Documentation becomes the only bridge between sessions, requiring teams to write down everything needed to resume work effectively whilst minimising prose to conserve context window space.

Anthropic's September 2025 announcement of new context management capabilities represented a systematic approach to this problem. The introduction of context editing and memory tools enabled agents to complete workflows that would otherwise fail due to context exhaustion, whilst reducing token consumption by 84 percent in testing. In a 100-turn web search evaluation, context editing enabled agents to complete workflows that would otherwise fail due to context exhaustion.

The recommended practice involves dividing and conquering with sub-agents: modularising large objectives and delegating API research, security review, or feature planning to specialised sub-agents. Each sub-agent gets its own context window, preventing any single session from approaching limits. Telling the assistant to use sub-agents to verify details or investigate particular questions, especially early in a conversation or task, tends to preserve context availability without much downside in terms of lost efficiency.

Extended thinking modes also help. Anthropic recommends using specific phrases to trigger additional computation time: “think” triggers basic extended thinking, whilst “think hard,” “think harder,” and “ultrathink” map to increasing levels of thinking budget. These modes give the model additional time to evaluate alternatives more thoroughly, reducing the need for iterative correction.

Practical Limits of AI Self-Correction

Understanding the practical boundaries of AI self-correction helps teams design appropriate workflows. Several patterns consistently cause problems.

Open solution spaces present the first major limitation. When problems have multiple valid solutions, it is extremely unlikely that an AI will choose the right one without explicit guidance. The AI assistant makes design decisions at the level of a fairly junior engineer and lacks the experience to challenge requirements or suggest alternatives.

Implicit knowledge creates another barrier. The AI has no awareness of your team's conventions, preferred libraries, business context, or historical decisions. Every session starts fresh, requiring explicit provision of context that human team members carry implicitly. Anthropic's own research emphasises that Claude is already smart enough. Intelligence is not the bottleneck; context is. Every organisation has its own workflows, standards, and knowledge systems, and the assistant does not inherently know any of these.

Compound errors represent a third limitation. Once an AI starts down a wrong path, subsequent suggestions build on that flawed foundation. Without human intervention to recognise and redirect, entire implementation approaches can go astray.

The solution is not more iteration but better specification. Teams seeing meaningful results treat context as an engineering surface, determining what should be visible to the agent, when, and in what form. More information is not always better. AI can be more effective when further abstracted from the underlying system because the solution space becomes wider, allowing better leverage of generative and creative capabilities.

The Rules File Ecosystem

The tooling ecosystem has evolved to support these context management requirements. Cursor, one of the most popular AI coding environments, has developed an elaborate rules system. Large language models do not retain memory between completions, so rules provide persistent, reusable context at the prompt level. When applied, rule contents are included at the start of the model context, giving the AI consistent guidance for generating code.

The system distinguishes between project rules, stored in the .cursor/rules directory and version-controlled with the codebase, and global rules that apply across all projects. Project rules encode domain-specific knowledge, standardise patterns, and automate project workflows. They can be scoped using path patterns, invoked manually, or included based on relevance.

The legacy .cursorrules file has been deprecated in favour of individual .mdc files inside the .cursor/rules/ directory. This change provides better organisation, easier updates, and more focused rule management. Each rule lives in its own file with the .mdc (Markdown Components) extension, allowing for both metadata in frontmatter and rule content in the body.

The critical insight for 2025 is setting up what practitioners call the quartet: Model Context Protocol servers, rules files, memories, and auto-run configurations at the start of projects. This reduces token usage by only activating relevant rules when needed, giving the language model more mental space to focus on specific tasks rather than remembering irrelevant guidelines.

Skills represent another evolution: organised folders of instructions, scripts, and resources that AI assistants can dynamically discover and load. These function as professional knowledge packs that raise the quality and consistency of outputs across entire organisations.

Code Quality and the Verification Burden

The shift in architectural burden comes with significant implications for code quality. A landmark Veracode study in 2025 analysed over 100 large language models across 80 coding tasks and found that 45 percent of AI-generated code introduces security vulnerabilities. These were not minor bugs but critical flaws, including those in the OWASP Top 10.

In March 2025, a vibe-coded payment gateway approved over 1.5 million pounds in fraudulent transactions due to inadequate input validation. The AI had copied insecure patterns from its training data, creating a vulnerability that human developers would have caught during review.

Technical debt compounds the problem. Over 40 percent of junior developers admitted to deploying AI-generated code they did not fully understand. AI-generated code tends to include 2.4 times more abstraction layers than human developers would implement for equivalent tasks, leading to unnecessary complexity. Forrester forecast an incoming technical debt tsunami over the following two years due to advanced AI coding agents.

The verification burden has shifted substantially. Where implementation was once the bottleneck, review now consumes disproportionate resources. Code review times ballooned by approximately 91 percent in teams with high AI usage. The human approval loop became the chokepoint.

Teams with strong code review processes experience quality improvements when using AI tools, whilst those without see quality decline. This amplification effect makes thoughtful implementation essential. The solution involves treating AI-generated code as untrusted by default. Every piece of generated code should pass through the same quality gates as human-written code: automated testing, security scanning, code review, and architectural assessment.

The Team Structure Question

These dynamics have implications for how development teams should be structured. The concern that senior developers will spend their time training AI instead of training junior developers is real and significant. Some organisations report that senior developers became more adept at leveraging AI whilst spending less time mentoring, potentially creating future talent gaps.

Effective teams structure practices to preserve learning opportunities. Pair programming sessions include AI as a third participant rather than a replacement for human pairing. Code review processes use AI-generated code as teaching opportunities. Architectural discussions explicitly evaluate AI suggestions against alternatives.

Research on pair programming shows that two sets of eyes catch mistakes early, with studies finding pair-programmed code has up to 15 percent fewer defects. A meta-analysis found pairs typically consider more design alternatives than programmers working alone, arrive at simpler and more maintainable designs, and catch design defects earlier. Teams are adapting this practice: one developer interacts with the AI whilst another reviews the generated code and guides the conversation, creating three-way collaboration that preserves learning benefits.

The skill set required for effective AI collaboration differs from traditional development. Where implementation expertise once dominated, context engineering has become equally important. The most effective developers of 2025 are still those who write great code, but they increasingly augment that skill by mastering the art of providing persistent, high-quality context.

Surveying the Transformed Landscape

The architectural planning burden that has shifted to human developers represents a permanent change in how software gets built. AI assistants will continue improving, context windows will expand, and tooling will mature. But the fundamental requirement for clear specifications, structured context, and human oversight will remain.

Microsoft's chief product officer for AI, Aparna Chennapragada, sees 2026 as a new era for alliances between technology and people. If recent years were about AI answering questions and reasoning through problems, the next wave will be about true collaboration. The future is not about replacing humans but about amplifying them. GitHub's chief product officer, Mario Rodriguez, predicts repository intelligence: AI that understands not just lines of code but the relationships and history behind them.

By 2030, all IT work is forecast to involve AI, with CIOs predicting 75 percent will be human-AI collaboration and 25 percent fully autonomous AI tasks. A survey of over 700 CIOs indicates that by 2030, none of the IT workload will be performed solely by humans. Software engineering will be less about writing code and more about orchestrating intelligent systems. Engineers who adapt to these changes, embracing AI collaboration, focusing on design thinking, and staying curious about emerging technologies, will thrive.

The teams succeeding at this transition share common characteristics. They invest in planning artifacts before implementation begins. They maintain clear specifications that constrain AI behaviour. They structure reviews and handoffs deliberately. They recognise that AI assistants are powerful but require constant guidance.

The zig-zagging that emerges from insufficient upfront specification is not a bug in the AI but a feature of how these tools operate. They excel at generating solutions within well-defined problem spaces. They struggle when asked to infer constraints that have not been made explicit.

The architecture tax is real, and teams that refuse to pay it will find themselves trapped in cycles of generation and revision that consume more time than traditional development ever did. But teams that embrace the new planning requirements, that treat specification as engineering rather than documentation, will discover capabilities that fundamentally change what small groups of developers can accomplish.

The future of software development is not about choosing between human expertise and AI capability. It is about recognising that AI amplifies whatever approach teams bring to it. Disciplined teams with clear architectures get better results. Teams that rely on iteration and improvisation get the zig-zag.

The planning burden has shifted. The question is whether teams will rise to meet it.

---

References and Sources

1. METR, “Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity” (July 2025)
2. Y Combinator, reported in TechCrunch, “A Quarter of Startups in YC's Current Cohort Have Codebases That Are Almost Entirely AI-Generated” (March 2025)
3. Pete Hodgson, “Why Your AI Coding Assistant Keeps Doing It Wrong, and How To Fix It” (May 2025)
4. Thoughtworks, “Spec-driven development: Unpacking one of 2025's key new AI-assisted engineering practices” (2025)
5. GitHub Blog, “Spec-driven development with AI: Get started with a new open source toolkit” (2025)
6. Addy Osmani, “My LLM coding workflow going into 2026” (December 2025)
7. Timothy Biondollo, “How I Solved the Biggest Problem with AI Coding Assistants” (Medium, 2025)
8. HumanLayer Blog, “Writing a good CLAUDE.md” (2025)
9. Chris Swan's Weblog, “Using Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) with AI coding assistants” (July 2025)
10. Dave Patten, “Using AI Agents to Enforce Architectural Standards” (Medium, 2025)
11. Qodo, “State of AI code quality in 2025” (2025)
12. Veracode, AI Code Security Study (2025)
13. Anthropic, “Claude Code: Best practices for agentic coding” (2025)
14. Anthropic, “Effective context engineering for AI agents” (2025)
15. Cursor Documentation, “Rules for AI” (2025)
16. MIT Technology Review, “From vibe coding to context engineering: 2025 in software development” (November 2025)
17. Microsoft, “What's next in AI: 7 trends to watch in 2026” (2025)
18. IT Brief, “CIOs forecast all IT work will involve AI-human collaboration by 2030” (2025)
19. Stack Overflow, “2025 Developer Survey” (2025)
20. Red Hat Developer, “How spec-driven development improves AI coding quality” (October 2025)

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk