feb 2026
there’s a version of building that starts with a clear problem statement, a defined solution, a spec. it’s satisfying. it’s also, in my experience, rarely where the most interesting things come from.
the things i’m most glad i built usually started with something vaguer — a low-level discomfort with how something worked, a sense that a task was harder than it needed to be, or just curiosity about whether something was possible. not a problem statement. more of an itch.
the frustrating thing about that kind of starting point is that it’s hard to explain to other people, and even harder to stay committed to when the going gets slow. ‘i have a feeling this is worth exploring’ is a weak pitch. you sound uncertain because you are uncertain.
but i’ve noticed something: projects where i had a clear articulation from the start often ended up less interesting than the ones where i was still figuring out what i was making halfway through. the clarity came later. the building was partly the process of finding it.
i’m trying to get better at trusting that earlier. not waiting until i can explain the project before starting it. not treating the inability to describe it clearly as evidence that it’s not worth doing.
sometimes you have to build the thing to know what the thing is.