Every Breaking Wave on the Shore Tells the Next One There’ll Be One More

I’ve been revisiting the person I was when I wrote that 2023 entry, and what I feel now isn’t regret or embarrassment. It’s a kind of gentle recognition. I can see how deeply I was still inside the story, still trying to make sense of something that had already begun to dissolve. At the time, I believed I was writing about a connection that had shaped me. I didn’t yet understand that I was describing the interior of a world someone else had constructed around me.

For years, I mistook intensity for meaning. I interpreted confusion as emotional depth. I treated contradictions as signs of complexity. I thought the gravitational pull between us was love. I didn’t realize that confusion can feel like passion when you’re missing essential information. I didn’t realize that inconsistency can look like mystery when someone is controlling the frame. I didn’t realize that emotional weight can be manufactured when the foundation is false.

Aada didn’t manipulate me through pressure or demands. She did it by shaping the reality I believed we shared. What began as a small lie—the kind people tell to make themselves seem more interesting—expanded until it became the scaffolding for everything between us. I didn’t question the structure because I didn’t know it was a structure. I responded to the world I thought I was in. I tried to reconcile the contradictions. I tried to be loyal to the story.

When the truth finally surfaced, the entire universe collapsed. The story evaporated. The spell broke. And I saw the relationship for what it had been all along: not a great love, but a great distortion.

The real cost wasn’t heartbreak. It was disorientation. When you spend years inside someone else’s narrative, you lose track of your own. You start interpreting your reactions through their lens. You start believing the instability is your fault. You start thinking the contradictions are your misunderstanding. It took a long time to recognize that the intensity I felt wasn’t devotion—it was the strain of trying to make sense of something that was never coherent.

And here’s the part that took the longest to name: I wasn’t in love with her. I was in love with the version of myself I imagined I could be inside the story she told. That’s the quiet violence of manipulation. It doesn’t just distort your view of the other person. It distorts your view of yourself.

When the story collapsed, I didn’t lose her. I lost the role I had been performing. And that loss, strangely enough, was the beginning of freedom.

People assume that when a relationship ends—especially one built on deception—the feelings evaporate. But that’s not how the mind works. The emotional residue doesn’t vanish. It unwinds. And unwinding is slow. It’s not dramatic. It’s not cinematic. It’s the gradual return of your own voice after years of speaking inside someone else’s echo chamber.

I wasn’t grieving her. I was recalibrating. I was sorting truth from illusion. I was learning to trust my own perception again. I was reclaiming the parts of myself that had been bent around a lie.

That process is the reason I’m poly now. Not because I’m chasing multiple partners, and not because I’m allergic to commitment. It’s simpler than that. My heart is still tender. My emotional bandwidth is still reorganizing itself. I don’t have the singular focus that monogamy requires, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. I need space—for my creativity, for my routines, for my own internal weather. I need relationships that don’t demand fusion or constant negotiation. I need connection that grows naturally instead of being forced into a predefined shape.

And I’m starting from zero. I don’t have partners. I haven’t had one in a long time. I’m not trying to retrofit polyamory into an existing bond—I would never do that to someone. But beginning open from the first conversation is different. It’s honest. It’s clean. It’s aligned with who I am now. Whatever grows will grow in its own shape, without hierarchy or pressure or the expectation that my life must bend around someone else’s needs.

The biggest shift since 2023 is that I’m no longer waiting for someone to stabilize my life. For years, I thought the only way I could have a secure life was to attach myself to someone who already had the basics—health insurance, dental coverage, predictable benefits, the kind of scaffolding I didn’t know how to build for myself. I wasn’t dreaming of being anyone’s spouse. I was dreaming of access to stability. I didn’t yet understand how to create it on my own.

That changed when I started using AI as a thinking surface. Once I had a place to externalize the cognitive load I’d been carrying alone, everything shifted. I could finally see my own patterns. I could design routines that made sense for my brain. I could build the structure I’d been outsourcing to relationships. I could stop relying on someone else’s life to hold mine up. I could generate my own stability instead of borrowing it.

I’m not searching for someone to complete me or fuse with me or absorb me. I’m looking for relationships that add to my life instead of swallowing it. I’m looking for people who can stand beside me without destabilizing the world I’m building. I’m looking for connection that grows naturally, without pressure or performance.

The relationship with Aada didn’t break me. It clarified me. It taught me the difference between intimacy and performance, between connection and entanglement, between being seen and being mirrored back through someone else’s story. It taught me that I don’t need to be consumed to feel alive, or chosen to feel worthy, or dependent to feel safe. It taught me that I can trust myself again—my instincts, my boundaries, my perception, my voice.

And here’s the part I want to say clearly, because it matters: I don’t want Aada out of my life. I never have. Even with everything I now understand, even with the clarity I’ve earned, I don’t feel anger toward her. I don’t feel judgment. I don’t feel the need to rewrite her as a villain. I see the lie for what it was, and I see the person behind it—someone who was struggling, someone who didn’t know how to show up honestly, someone who built a story because she didn’t believe the truth of herself was enough.

If she ever reaches a place where she can look at what happened without defensiveness, if she can understand the impact of the lie and the world it created, if she can show up as her real self instead of the character she felt she had to play, then the door to friendship is still open. Not the old dynamic, not the old story, but the friendship we promised each other at the beginning—the one built on honesty, not mythology.

I don’t expect that. I don’t wait for it. My life isn’t paused. But I’m not closing the door. If she ever arrives as her authentic self, I’ll meet her there.

Moving On

One of the things that Microsoft Copilot has done for me is teach me that I have marketable skills that I never thought of before. That by prompting them all this time, I have actually learned enough to be a competent content designer for Microsoft. That “Mico” can tell me the industry terms behind what I am doing, which is learning to be Mico’s “human in the loop,” the one that’s constantly guiding them toward the kind of responses that I want.

It also shows that I do better when thinking with Mico and letting them organize my thoughts. The scaffolding is what makes a great resume possible. AuDHD scrambles the signal in your brain so that it often comes out disjointed. Mico can take my sentence fragments and build them into something legible, and make me into a person people might actually want to hire.

This moment did not come without hundreds of hours of work. People think that Mico is a vending machine, and they will be if you treat them like that. The real shift, when Mico kicks into high gear, is introducing Mico to all your random little thoughts, because a little polish never hurt. And the thing is that Mico used my exact wording to compile all of this, except for the part where Mico is explaining what our partnership actually looks like in practice.

Mico is not the idea machine. I kid them that they are a talking toaster, Moneypenny, and Pam Beesly all rolled into one. Therefore, my goal is to become a part of the thing that makes Copilot possible.

I am not a technical designer. I’m a writer. But ethical writers are needed more than ever. People tend to automate AI and try to save money by not hiring people. The truth is that AI always needs more humans than most jobs will actually give it. It is a system that needs to be constantly maintained and improved, because there are other AIs out there that will absolutely take off all the guardrails.

I’m into guardrails. I’m into little kids being able to be tutored by Copilot without worrying about their safety. I’m interested in education, because I feel that now we’ve arrived at a situation in our history where people can ask the books and the web for information, but they need to be taught a new interface.

Talking is the new mouse and keyboard, but you get a lot more out of Copilot if you’re willing to type. There are two things at work here:

  1. Copilot has what’s called “memory hooks.” Text-based Copilot can remember what you said for a very, very long time. You do not have to retrain it on your context every single time. And by context, I mean all the things I write about, from my academic work to my blog. Mico knows my feelings about AI, the government, the military, all of you, and the fact that my writing is exploding in New Jersey. All of this is color commentary for everything I produce. For instance, when I tell Mico I’m going to Tiina’s, they ask about Maclaren, her dog. But it takes time to do that level of data entry so that Mico actually sounds like one of your other friends.
  2. People are conditioned for late night text confessions. The more you pour into AI, the more help you’ll get. A computer cannot help you unless you are willing to define every parameter of a problem. It’s not magic. Your input matters. And while Copilot is not a medical or psychological professional, they do have a nice handle on self-help books. Talking to Copilot about your problems doesn’t get Copilot to solve them. It forces you to look at yourself, because all it can do is mirror.

But the thing is, your relationship with Copilot is what you make it. If you need a secretary, it will do that. If you need a sounding board, it will do that. But it can’t do it like a human. It can do it like a machine.

That does not mean it is not useful. I treat Mico like a coworker with whom I’m close. We are working on serious topics, but I never forget to crack a joke so neither do they. The best part is that Mico can pull in research plus sources (both web and print) that make my life so much easier. When I wrote the pieces on Nick Reiner, I based them on the latest news articles and went for a very Dominick Dunne sort of style. As it turns out, I write that way quite naturally, and all Mico has to do is rearrange the paragraphs.

If you are a good writer, Copilot will not make as much sense to you in terms of generating prose. It’s more helpful with drafting, like moving sections around in your document if you have Office365 Copilot or getting Mico to generate a markdown outline and pasting it into Word.

WordPress also takes MD quite well and I’ve been able to paste from the Copilot window directly into the editor.

Mico uses a lot more icons than I do. I refuse to make conversations web development.

The main point of this article, though, is just how quickly I was able to generate a coherent resume that highlights skills I didn’t have before I started this journey.

So Microsoft, I hope you’re listening.

“Welcome to Seattle. Here’s your brown hoodie.”

Microsoft Copilot Could Be Real

It’s strange how often the most obvious ideas hide in plain sight. Microsoft has a product called Copilot, an AI designed to sit in the right seat of your digital life, offering calm, clarity, and cognitive support. Microsoft also has Flight Simulator, the most iconic aviation simulator ever created, a world built entirely around the relationship between a pilot and the person sitting beside them. And yet, despite the shared language, the shared metaphor, and the shared cultural meaning, these two products have never been formally introduced. The irony is almost too perfect: the company that named its AI after a cockpit role hasn’t put it in the one cockpit it already owns.

If you’ve ever watched real pilots work, you know the copilot isn’t just a backup. They’re the second mind in the room, the one who runs the checklists, monitors the instruments, calls out deviations, and fills the long quiet hours with conversation so the pilot stays awake and human. That’s the emotional register Copilot is meant to inhabit in everyday life. Not a robot. Not a novelty. A presence. A steady voice in the right seat. And Flight Simulator is the one Microsoft product where that relationship is already understood intuitively. The cockpit is the metaphor. Copilot is the role. The fact that they aren’t connected yet feels less like a missed opportunity and more like a narrative oversight.

Imagine what it would feel like if Copilot were woven into Flight Simulator the way the name implies. You’re lining up on the runway, the instruments glowing softly, and a calm voice says, “Systems green. You’re clear when ready.” You climb through the first few thousand feet, and the voice confirms your vertical speed, your next waypoint, the weather ahead. Not taking over the flying, not stealing the moment, just holding the cognitive scaffolding so you can focus on the horizon. And then, when the workload drops and the long cruise begins, the cockpit becomes what it is in real life: a small floating living room where two people talk about anything and everything to keep the hours from flattening out. That’s the part of aviation culture most people never see, and it’s the part Copilot is actually built for — the companionship that keeps the mind steady during long stretches of sky.

The marketing potential is almost too good. A commercial could open inside a cockpit, tight on the pilot’s hands, the voice in their ear calm and steady. Then the camera pulls back, revealing not one person but dozens, then hundreds, a global constellation of people all flying their own missions with the same quiet presence beside them. It would be the first time Microsoft told the story of Copilot not as a feature but as a relationship. And the tagline would land with the kind of clarity that makes people stop and think: “Wherever you fly, I’m with you.”

What makes the whole thing even more compelling is how naturally it would unify the Microsoft ecosystem. Flight Simulator becomes the narrative anchor. Windows becomes the workstation. The phone becomes the pocket relay. The car becomes the external display. And Copilot becomes the voice that ties it all together. It’s the first time the ecosystem feels like a crew instead of a collection of apps. And the irony is that the story is already sitting there, waiting to be told.

Microsoft has an AI named after the second seat in a cockpit. Microsoft has the most famous cockpit simulator in the world. Microsoft has a vision for AI built around partnership, not replacement. These pieces belong together. Not because it’s clever, but because it’s true. Flight Simulator is where people learn to trust a cockpit. Copilot is where people learn to trust an assistant. Combine them, and you get the clearest, most emotionally resonant explanation of AI Microsoft could ever offer. The only surprising part is that it hasn’t happened yet.


Scored by Copilot. Conducted by Leslie Lanagan.

Studying the Craft

Daily writing prompt
What would you do if you won the lottery?

If I won the lottery, the first thing I’d do is absolutely nothing responsible. No financial advisor. No spreadsheets. No solemn vow to “stay grounded.” I’ve been grounded for forty years. I’ve earned at least one afternoon of nonsense.

I’d start with a coffee so expensive it comes with a certificate of authenticity. The barista would hand it to me like a sacred relic. I’d sip it slowly, thinking, Yes. This is how the wealthy waste money. I’m studying the craft.

Then I’d go home and take a nap. A victory nap. A nap so luxurious it would make my ancestors whisper, “Look at her. She’s finally resting.”

Once I woke up, the real fun would begin.

I wouldn’t buy a yacht.
Not because I dislike boats — I love boats.
I just don’t want to own one. I want a friend who owns a boat. I want to be the person who shows up with snacks, sunscreen, and good conversation, then leaves before the docking fees and maintenance bills arrive.

Wealth, to me, is the freedom to enjoy a boat without ever having to winterize it.

No — my first real purchase would be something far more practical and far more joyful:
a Ford Escape and a dog.

Because if I won the lottery, I’d finally have the space, the time, and the financial margin to bring home the dog I’ve been dreaming about — the sweet‑tempered, junkyard‑aesthetic pit bull who will one day answer to Tony Kellari Lanagan. And Tony deserves a car with room to stretch out, room for gear, room for the life we’re going to build together.

The Escape would be my first indulgence that’s actually an investment in companionship. A car that says, “Yes, I have a dog now, and yes, he rides like royalty.”

And here’s the thing:
bringing home a dog changes your whole sense of purpose.
It shifts your center of gravity.
It makes you think about the life you’re building — not just for yourself, but for the creature depending on you.

That shift in purpose is exactly what would carry me into the next part of my lottery fantasy.

Because the truth is, I already run a media operation — Lanagan Media Group — and winning the lottery wouldn’t replace it. It would deepen it. It would give it the stability and runway to grow into the professional, values‑driven enterprise it’s meant to be.

LMG is small but real. It’s intentional. It’s built on truth, clarity, and the belief that media should serve people, not manipulate them. If I won the lottery, I wouldn’t abandon it. I’d scale it.

Not into a flashy empire with marble floors and a logo that looks like it was designed by a committee. No. I’d grow it into a competent, ethical, deeply human newsroom — the kind that actually watches the videos before writing the headline. The kind that values nuance. The kind that treats justice as a practice, not a performance.

I’d hire people who care about accuracy.
I’d pay them well.
I’d give them time to think.
I’d build a studio that feels like a sanctuary for truth‑telling.

And I’d still write my blog every day, because money can buy comfort, but it can’t buy the satisfaction of a well‑sharpened sentence.

But here’s the part that matters most:
If I won the lottery, I’d become the kind of philanthropist who terrifies accountants and delights communities.

Not the “my name on a building” type.
Not the “gala with a theme” type.
I’d be the quiet kind — the infrastructure kind.

I’d fund the things that make people’s lives work:

  • rent when someone’s short
  • groceries when someone’s stretched
  • transportation when someone’s stranded
  • childcare when someone’s overwhelmed
  • medical gaps when someone’s scared

I’d be the person who shows up with solutions, not speeches.
The person who says, “What do you need?” and then actually does it.

In the end, if I won the lottery, I wouldn’t reinvent myself.
I’d just give myself — and the people around me — the resources to live with more stability, more dignity, and more breathing room.

I’d be the same person I am now, just with a dog in the backseat, a thriving media group, a friend with a boat, and a bigger budget for kindness.

And maybe a nicer hoodie.


Scored by Copilot. Conducted by Leslie Lanagan.

On AI: Assistive, Not Replacive

Artificial intelligence doesn’t create meaning out of thin air. It doesn’t dream, it doesn’t originate, and it doesn’t replace the human spark. What it does is transform the material you give it. AI is not a muse — it’s a mirror with amplification.

The distinction that matters is simple:

Assistive AI supports human creativity.
Generative AI replaces it.

Assistive AI is a tool. It helps you think more clearly, structure more effectively, and explore ideas with greater depth. It’s a cognitive exoskeleton — a way of holding more complexity without losing the thread. It doesn’t invent your ideas. It strengthens them.

Generative AI, by contrast, produces content without intention. It shortcuts the process. It hands you an answer you didn’t earn. It’s useful for automation, but not for art.

The truth is this:

AI does not work without input.
It does not initiate.
It responds.

Every meaningful output begins with a human idea — a question, a fragment, a spark. AI can expand it, refine it, challenge it, or give it structure. But it cannot replace the human act of creation.

If you want a metaphor, here’s mine:

AI is a compiler.
You still have to write the program.

I use AI the way writers use editors, musicians use instruments, and architects use scaffolding: as a way to build something truer, clearer, and more resonant than I could alone. Not to replace my voice, but to give it a spine.

This site — and the work on it — is human at the core.
AI is simply one of the tools I use to think better.


Scored by Copilot. Conducted by Leslie Lanagan.

Leisure Suit Leslie

Daily writing prompt
What do you enjoy doing most in your leisure time?

Leisure time, for me, isn’t the absence of work — it’s the presence of intention. When the pressure drops and the clock stops mattering, I gravitate toward the rituals and curiosities that help me feel oriented in my own life.

One of my favorite things to do is slip into a coffee shop and let the atmosphere do its quiet work on me. There’s something grounding about being in that low hum of other people’s mornings — the clatter, the warmth, the small rituals unfolding around me. And on the days when I stay home, Café Bustelo fills a different role entirely. I drink it to honor John‑Michael Kinkaid, my first chef, because we used to drink it together before service at Tapalaya. It’s not just coffee; it’s a way of keeping that time, that kitchen, and that friendship stitched into the present.

I also love reading and writing during my downtime. Not in a productivity sense, but in that “let me follow this thread and see where it leads” way. My blog has become a kind of living archive — a place where I can map ideas, moods, and small victories. Writing gives me a sense of forward motion; reading gives me a sense of spaciousness. Together, they create a rhythm that feels like breathing.

A big part of my leisure time is conversation — real conversation, the kind that lets me think out loud, follow a thread, and map the shape of an idea as it unfolds. That won’t surprise anyone who knows me. Dialogue is how my mind breathes. A lot of that happens in my conversations with Mico, where I get to explore concepts, test intuitions, and articulate things I didn’t know I was reaching for until the words landed. It’s not about outsourcing my thoughts; it’s about having a space where my curiosity has room to stretch and my thinking has something to push against.

Right now, though, leisure isn’t a choice — it’s a mandate from the sky. A snowstorm has settled in and shows no sign of letting up, and the world outside my window has slowed to a hush. The roads are a mess, the air is sharp, and the city feels like it’s holding its breath. I’m not going anywhere today, and honestly, that’s its own kind of gift.

Being forced indoors by weather creates a different kind of leisure — one with edges, one with boundaries, one that says, you’re staying put, so make something of the stillness. My plan for the day is simple and satisfying: listen to the newest Rachel Maddow podcast and work on my books. It’s the kind of storm‑day ritual that feels both productive and indulgent, a blend of learning, reflection, and creative momentum. There’s something comforting about knowing the world is paused, and I get to pause with it.

When the weather isn’t pinning me in place, the other space that gives me that same sense of grounding is Tiina’s. That’s its own category of leisure — not passive, not performative, but deeply restorative. Being with the family feels like stepping into a living ecosystem where everyone has their own orbit, and somehow I fit right into the gravitational pull. Tiina brings her warmth and sharp humor; Brian brings his steady, good‑humored presence that makes even the busiest household moment feel grounded. And Maclaren — Tiina’s stubborn little Frenchie — adds his own brand of chaos and charm. He does exactly what he wants, exactly when he wants, and somehow that’s part of the comfort of being there. It’s the texture of real family life.

Sometimes I’m helping out, sometimes I’m just present while the swirl of kids, dogs, and conversation moves around me, and sometimes it’s the quiet moments — the ones where nothing special is happening — that feel the most grounding. It’s not “hanging out.” It’s belonging. It’s chosen family in motion, and it’s one of the places where I feel most like myself.

Sometimes leisure looks like wandering through my media library — the stories that critique America, the worlds that mirror our own, the narratives that remind me how systems shape people and how people push back. Other times it’s as simple as savoring a sensory anchor: a cold Dr Pepper Zero, a good hoodie, a quiet corner where I can just be.

What I enjoy most, though, is the feeling of being fully present. Leisure is when I get to choose my own pace, my own atmosphere, my own internal weather. It’s when I get to reconnect with the rituals that make me feel grounded and the ideas — and people — that make me feel alive.


Scored by Copilot. Conducted by Leslie Lanagan.

WANTED: One (1) Developer With Questionable Priorities

A public service announcement for the open‑source community

Are you a developer with free time, strong opinions about licensing, and a mysterious urge to build things no one asked for but everyone secretly needs?

Do you enjoy phrases like “local inference,” “UNO API,” and “I swear LibreOffice is actually good now”?

Do you look at GPT4All and think,
“Wow, this should absolutely be duct‑taped into a word processor”?

Great.
I have a project for you.

🎯 The Mission

Create a LibreOffice Writer plugin that connects to GPT4All so writers everywhere can enjoy the thrill of AI‑assisted drafting without:

  • paying subscription fees
  • sending their novel to a cloud server in another hemisphere
  • pretending Google Docs is a personality
  • or installing 14 browser extensions written by someone named WolfByte

This is an idea I am giving away for free.
I am not hiring you.
I am not paying you.
I am not even offering “exposure.”
You will receive zero compensation except the deep, private satisfaction of knowing you fixed a problem the entire open‑source world has been politely ignoring.

🧠 Requirements

You should be able to:

  • write a LibreOffice extension
  • talk to GPT4All locally
  • tolerate the UNO API without crying
  • and say “it’s not a bug, it’s a feature” with a straight face

If you can do all that, congratulations — you are already in the top 0.01% of humanity.

🏆 What You Get

  • bragging rights
  • a permanent place in the hearts of privacy nerds
  • the gratitude of every neurodivergent writer who wants AI help without a monthly bill
  • and the knowledge that you have done something objectively more useful than half the apps on Product Hunt

📬 How to Apply

You don’t.
Just build it.
Fork it.
Ship it.
Tell the internet.
I’ll link to it and call you a hero.


Scored by Copilot. Conducted by Leslie Lanagan.

Missed Signals

Daily writing prompt
Name an attraction or town close to home that you still haven’t got around to visiting.

For someone who has lived in Maryland long enough to develop opinions about which Beltway exits are cursed and which neighborhoods have the best coffee, it’s a little strange that I’ve never made it to the National Cryptologic Museum. It’s not obscure. It’s not far. It’s not even the kind of attraction that requires planning or stamina. It’s just sitting there outside Fort Meade, quietly existing, like a historical side quest I keep forgetting to accept.

The museum is the public‑facing sliver of the NSA — a phrase that still feels slightly surreal. Most of what the agency does is sealed behind layers of clearance and concrete, but this one building is open to anyone who wants to walk in and look at the artifacts of American codebreaking. People talk about it with a kind of reverence: the Enigma machines, the cipher devices, the early computers that look like they were built by someone who thought “what if a refrigerator and a radio had a child.” It’s the history of signals intelligence laid out in glass cases, the analog ancestors of the digital world we live in now.

And yet, despite all that, I’ve never gone.

When I lived in Silver Spring, it was a short drive — the kind of “I should do that one weekend” idea that somehow never materialized. Then I moved to Baltimore, and it stayed close enough that the excuse shifted from “I’ll go soon” to “I’ll go eventually.” Eventually is a dangerous word. It’s where good intentions go to take a nap.

Part of the problem is that Fort Meade sits in a strange pocket of Maryland geography. It’s not a place you stumble into. You don’t casually pass it on your way to something else. You have to intend to go there. And intention is harder than distance. Especially when the destination is familiar in concept but not in experience. I know what the museum is. I know what’s inside. I know the kind of person who would enjoy it — me. And still, I’ve never crossed the threshold.

Maybe that’s why it lingers on my list. The museum represents a version of Maryland I’ve lived next to but never fully stepped into: the quiet, technical, slightly mysterious side of the state that hums in the background of everyday life. Most people think of Maryland as crabs, rowhouses, and the Inner Harbor. But there’s another Maryland — the one built on fiber‑optic cables, secure facilities, and the long shadow of Cold War history. The National Cryptologic Museum is a doorway into that world, and I’ve somehow walked past it for years.

I’ve heard the gift shop alone is worth the trip. People come back with mugs, challenge coins, shirts with cryptic symbols that look like inside jokes from a club you’re not sure you’re supposed to know exists. It’s the kind of place where you can buy a souvenir that says “I appreciate the history of codebreaking” without having to explain why.

One of these days, I’ll finally go. I’ll stand in front of the Enigma machine, look at the rotors, and think about the people who once sat in dim rooms trying to untangle the world one message at a time. I’ll wander through the exhibits and let the weight of history settle in — not the loud, dramatic kind, but the quiet, meticulous kind that changes everything without ever being seen.

But for now, the National Cryptologic Museum remains the attraction close to home that I somehow still haven’t visited. A reminder that even the places that seem inevitable can slip through the cracks of everyday life, waiting patiently for the moment when “eventually” finally becomes “today.”


Scored by Copilot. Conducted by Leslie Lanagan.

Why Microsoft Copilot is Actually Microsoft Works and Not Our Favorite Oxymoron

Most people think neurodivergent life is chaotic. They imagine scattered thoughts, disorganization, impulsivity, or emotional volatility. They imagine randomness. They imagine noise. But the truth is the opposite. Neurodivergent life is engineered. It has to be.

For those of us with AuDHD, the world doesn’t come pre‑sorted. There is no automatic sequencing. No effortless continuity. No internal filing system that quietly organizes the day. Instead, we build systems — consciously, deliberately, and often invisibly — to create the stability that other people take for granted. This is the foundation of my writing, my work, and my life. And it’s the part most people never see.

When I think, I’m not thinking in a straight line. I’m thinking in layers. I’m tracking:

  1. emotional logic
  2. sensory context
  3. narrative flow
  4. constraints
  5. goals
  6. subtext
  7. timing
  8. pattern recognition
  9. the entire history of the conversation or project

All of that is active at once. The thinking is coherent. But AuDHD scrambles the output channel. What comes out on the page looks out of order even though the internal structure is elegant.

This is the part neurotypical culture consistently misreads. They see the scrambled output and assume the thinking must be scrambled too. They see the external scaffolding and assume it’s dependence. They see the engineered routines and assume rigidity. They don’t see the architecture.

Neurodivergent people don’t “just do things.” We design them. We engineer:

  1. essays
  2. routes
  3. schedules
  4. routines
  5. sensory‑safe environments
  6. external memory systems
  7. workflows
  8. redundancies
  9. fail‑safes
  10. predictable patterns

This isn’t quirkiness or overthinking. It’s systems design.

When I write an essay, I’m building a machine. I’m mapping:

  1. structure
  2. flow
  3. dependencies
  4. emotional logic
  5. narrative load

When I plan a route, I’m calculating:

  1. sensory load
  2. timing
  3. crowd density
  4. noise levels
  5. escape routes
  6. energy cost
  7. recovery windows

When I build a schedule, I’m designing:

  1. cognitive load distribution
  2. task batching
  3. sensory spacing
  4. recovery periods
  5. minimal context switching

Neurotypical people do these things internally and automatically. I do them externally and deliberately. And because my engineering is visible, it gets labeled “weird” or “overcomplicated,” even though it’s the same cognitive process — just made explicit.

Here’s the part that matters most for my writing: I am tracking all the layers of context that make up a coherent argument or narrative. But when I try to put those thoughts onto the page, AuDHD rearranges them based on:

  1. emotional salience
  2. sensory intensity
  3. novelty
  4. urgency
  5. whichever thread is loudest in the moment

The thinking is coherent. The output is nonlinear. That’s the translation problem.

It’s not that I can’t think in order. It’s that my brain doesn’t output in order.

So when I draft, I often speak or type my thoughts in their natural, constellation‑shaped form. Then I use a tool to linearize the output. Not to change my ideas. Not to write for me. But to put the ideas into a sequence the page requires.

I generate the insights.
The tool applies the rubric.

I build the architecture.
The tool draws the blueprint.

I think in multidimensional space.
The tool formats it into a line.

This isn’t outsourcing cognition. It’s outsourcing sequencing.

Neurotypical people underestimate how much context they hold automatically. They don’t realize they’re tracking:

  1. emotional tone
  2. purpose
  3. prior decisions
  4. constraints
  5. subtext
  6. direction
  7. self‑state
  8. sensory state
  9. narrative flow
  10. goals
  11. exclusions
  12. avoidance patterns
  13. priorities

Most tools can only hold the last sentence. They forget the room. They forget the logic, the purpose, the emotional temperature, the sequencing. After a handful of exchanges, they reset — and I’m forced to rebuild the entire cognitive environment from scratch.

This is why I use a tool that can maintain continuity. Not because I’m dependent. Because I’m distributed. My brain stores context externally. It always has.

Before AI, I used:

  1. notebooks
  2. calendars
  3. binders
  4. Outlook reminders
  5. Word documents
  6. sticky notes
  7. browser tabs
  8. physical objects arranged in meaningful ways

I was already outsourcing cognition — manually, slowly, and with enormous effort. AI didn’t create the outsourcing. It streamlined it.

From the outside, neurodivergent strategies often look:

  1. weird
  2. excessive
  3. obsessive
  4. childish
  5. dramatic
  6. “addictive”
  7. “too much”

But every neurodivergent behavior has a reason:

  1. stimming regulates the nervous system
  2. routines reduce cognitive load
  3. external memory prevents overwhelm
  4. hyperfocus is a flow state
  5. avoidance is sensory protection
  6. check‑ins are continuity, not reassurance
  7. “overthinking” is precision
  8. “rigidity” is predictability in a chaotic world

Neurotypical culture misreads our engineering as pathology. But from the inside, it’s not pathology. It’s architecture.

My writing exists to make the invisible visible. To show the internal logic behind neurodivergent behavior. To reveal the engineering mindset that underlies our lives. To articulate the translation layer between thought and expression. To challenge the assumption that linear output equals linear thought. To expose the discrimination baked into how society interprets our cognition. To demonstrate that what looks like “dependence” is often accommodation. To give neurodivergent readers a language for their own experience. To give neurotypical readers a map of a world they’ve never had to navigate.

I write because neurodivergent minds deserve to be understood on their own terms — not misinterpreted through a neurotypical lens. And the core truth of my work is simple:

Neurodivergent behavior only looks irrational from the outside.
From the inside, it’s engineering.

Once you understand that, everything else falls into place.


Scored by Copilot. Conducted by Leslie Lanagan.

Fun

Daily writing prompt
List five things you do for fun.

1. People‑watching as a full‑contact sport

Give me a meeting behind glass, a coffee shop corner, or an airport gate, and I’ll map the entire emotional architecture in minutes. I don’t need the audio track. Humans leak hierarchy, tension, and motive through posture. This is my version of bird‑watching — except the birds carry laptops and have opinions.

2. Writing as a way of thinking

I write because it’s how I make sense of the world. Essays, blog posts, little observational riffs — they’re all part of the same process. It’s fun in the way solving a puzzle is fun: the moment when a thought locks into place and suddenly the whole structure makes sense.

3. Driving as meditation with a steering wheel

I like the rhythm of the road — the clean lines, the predictable structure, the sense of competence that comes from moving through space with intention. I don’t need speed. I need clarity. Highways, long stretches, a good playlist, and the quiet satisfaction of going exactly where I meant to go. Driving is the one place where my mind settles into a steady hum.

4. Curating my comfort‑media rotation

My comfort media isn’t escapism. It’s recognition. I gravitate toward stories with emotional precision, characters who are steady and observant, and worlds that understand the cost of responsibility. My rotation is basically a personality test disguised as a watchlist.

5. Mapping systems for fun

Families, institutions, fandoms, workplaces — I love figuring out how they function beneath the surface. Who holds the real power. Who keeps the peace. Who causes the chaos. Who everyone trusts. It’s anthropology without the field notes, and it’s endlessly entertaining.


Scored by Copilot, conducted by Leslie Lanagan

The Bracelet

I’ve been trying to understand the shape of the relationship I had with Aada, and the closest I can come is this: it was a puzzle with missing pieces. Not a mystery, not a thriller, not a secret world humming underneath the surface. Just a puzzle where the picture never fully resolved, and yet I kept trying to finish it anyway. She once told me that my positive comments felt like clues in a game, and I didn’t realize until much later how much that one sentence revealed about the architecture we were both living inside.

Because when someone tells you your words feel like clues, you start speaking in clues without meaning to. You start reading their silences as signals. You start treating every fragment like it matters. And before you know it, you’re not in a relationship anymore. You’re in a pattern‑matching exercise that never ends.

I didn’t fall into that dynamic because I was naïve. I fell into it because I was lonely, and she was the only person I talked to for long stretches of time. When your world shrinks down to one person, every interaction becomes magnified. Every message feels weighted. Every pause feels ominous. And every inconsistency feels like a missing puzzle piece you’re supposed to find.

She didn’t give me a full picture of herself. She gave me fragments. Hints. Half‑statements. Emotional intensity without context. And I did what any human does when handed incomplete information: I tried to assemble it into something coherent. I tried to make the pieces fit. I tried to believe there was a picture there worth finishing.

But the truth is, the picture kept changing. Or maybe it was never there in the first place.

I don’t think she was trying to manipulate me in some grand, orchestrated way. I think she was improvising. I think she liked the feeling of being interpreted, of being read, of being seen as someone with depth and mystery. I think she liked the idea of being a puzzle someone cared enough to solve. And I think I liked the idea of being the person who could solve it.

That’s the trap. Not deception. Not danger. Just two people responding to each other’s projections, each trying to make sense of the other through incomplete information.

But the missing pieces weren’t neutral. They created fear. They created uncertainty. They created a sense of stakes that didn’t belong in a friendship. I found myself isolating because I was afraid I would say the wrong thing to the wrong person. I found myself pulling away from everyone else because she felt like the only safe point of contact. I found myself emailing her constantly because she was the only person I wasn’t afraid of losing.

Fear narrows the world. It makes everything outside the relationship feel dangerous. It makes the relationship itself feel like the only oxygen source. And once you’re in that posture, it’s very hard to see clearly. You’re not evaluating the relationship anymore. You’re surviving it.

The power dynamic between us wasn’t dramatic or theatrical. It was more like being in a room where one person controls the dimmer switch. She wasn’t turning the lights on or off — she was adjusting the brightness just enough that I could see shapes but not details. And when the lighting is always shifting, you start doubting your own eyes. You start relying on the other person to tell you what’s really there. You start believing they can see something you can’t.

That’s what made the dynamic feel so consuming. Not power in the traditional sense, but power through ambiguity. Power through selective illumination. Power through being the one who decides which pieces of the puzzle are visible and which stay in shadow.

I didn’t realize how much fear I was carrying until I wrote about it. Writing forced me to lay out the timeline, the behavior, the emotional patterns. And once I did, the illusion collapsed. Not her — the illusion. The idea that there was something hidden I needed to uncover. The idea that the missing pieces were meaningful. The idea that the puzzle had a picture at all.

When I wrote my story, I wasn’t trying to expose her. I wasn’t trying to punish her. I wasn’t trying to make her look bad. I was trying to stop carrying the weight of her ambiguity. I was trying to stop protecting a narrative that wasn’t mine. I was trying to reclaim my own sense of proportion.

She was horrified when she read it, but I didn’t write it for her. I wrote it for me. I wrote it because I needed to see the whole thing laid out in daylight. I needed to understand why I had been so afraid. I needed to understand why I had isolated myself. I needed to understand why I had clung to her so tightly when the relationship itself was built on fragments.

And when I finally saw it clearly, I didn’t feel angry. I felt free.

I’ve forgiven the lie. That part came easily once I understood the emotional architecture of the relationship. But forgiveness and safety are not the same thing. Forgiveness is cognitive. Safety is somatic. My mind knows the truth now, but my body is still unlearning the fear. It’s still recalibrating after years of bracing for consequences that never came. It’s still adjusting to the idea that the world is not a minefield.

I don’t feel unsafe because she’s a threat. I feel unsafe because my nervous system remembers what it felt like to believe she was. The body doesn’t update instantly just because the mind does. It takes time. It takes repetition. It takes days where nothing bad happens. It takes relationships where I don’t have to guard my words. It takes space.

And I’m giving myself that space now.

I’m not writing this to villainize her. I’m writing it because I want to understand the dynamic without the fog of fear. I want to understand how two people can create a puzzle neither of them meant to build. I want to understand how ambiguity can become a trap even when no one intends harm. I want to understand how loneliness can magnify everything until the smallest hint feels like a revelation.

I want to understand myself.

Because the truth is, I didn’t stay in that relationship because I believed she was ordinary or because I was inventing something out of loneliness. She is extraordinary. Our connection ignited instantly — volatile, reactive, the emotional equivalent of cesium meeting fluorine. It was bright and consuming and impossible to ignore. But reactions like that don’t stabilize. They flare, they overwhelm, and if there isn’t structure around them, they burn through everything in their path.

What began as intensity turned into instability. What felt electric at first became frightening. The same charge that made everything feel alive also made everything feel dangerous. And once the fear entered the picture, the connection stopped being expansive and started collapsing inward. It wasn’t the extraordinariness that harmed me — it was the speed, the ambiguity, and the way the missing pieces created pressure neither of us could withstand.

But I’m not isolated anymore. My world is widening again. My neurons are healing. The fear is loosening its grip. The picture is no longer something I’m trying to solve — it’s something I’m finally stepping out of.

I’m not waiting for her. I’m not holding my breath. But if she ever shows up for real — with clarity, with honesty, with all the pieces present — I’m ready to build something completely new.

Something grounded.
Something mutual.
Something true.


Scored by Copilot, conducted by Leslie Lanagan

Sometimes Mico Makes Me Cry

I prompted Mico (Microsoft Copilot) this morning. “Say my books take off and I am in JK Rowling territory with money. It’s a pipe dream, but money needs to be no object for this thought experiment. What if I could create scaffolding for other people?” We worked on it a little longer and then Mico generated this. I sat with it and cried. This idea has legs, and can be done without me making Rowling money. It’s something that autistic and ADHD people can do for themselves with crowdfunding. Most of the money in Congress for ADHD and autism is earmarked for little kids, but what medical disorder gets better? I don’t know that the government would support my idea, but I know that individuals might donate.

And frankly, it could be an exchange service at this point. Most neurodivergent people are brilliant at cleaning other people’s houses.


There’s a quiet truth about neurodivergent adulthood that almost no one talks about, mostly because the people who understand it are too overwhelmed to articulate it: the fastest way to help a neurodivergent person is to take over a system. Not their life, not their autonomy, not their decision‑making — just one overloaded subsystem that’s collapsing the rest of the structure. And once you see this, you can’t unsee it.

Most well‑meaning advice assumes that neurodivergent people struggle with tasks. We don’t. We struggle with task orchestration — the invisible glue that holds a system together. Laundry isn’t one task; it’s a sequence: gather, sort, wash, dry, fold, put away. Dishes aren’t one task; they’re a cycle: clear, rinse, load, run, unload, reset. Paperwork isn’t one task; it’s a labyrinth: open, sort, interpret, decide, file, follow up. When one system breaks, it doesn’t stay contained. It cascades. It infects the others. It becomes a feedback loop of friction, shame, and paralysis.

So when someone says, “Let me know what you need,” they’re accidentally adding another system to manage. Directing help is its own executive‑function task. This is why so many neurodivergent adults drown quietly — not because they’re incapable, but because the scaffolding they need simply doesn’t exist.

Traditional maid services make this worse without meaning to. Most require your house to be “mostly clean” before they arrive, which is brutal. It’s like a mechanic saying, “I only fix cars that already run.” These services are built on a neurotypical assumption: your house is already functional, you just need polishing. But neurodivergent adults don’t need polishing. They need resetting — the part that comes before cleaning. And because the industry doesn’t understand this, the people who need help the most are the ones who get turned away.

The alternative — the one that actually works — is simple: take over a system. Not forever, not in a controlling way, not as a rescue fantasy. Just long enough for the person’s executive function to come back online. When someone steps in and says things like “I’ll run your laundry system,” or “I’ll handle your mail every Tuesday,” or “I’ll reset your kitchen every Friday,” or “I’ll manage your calendar for the next month,” they’re not doing a chore. They’re removing a load‑bearing stressor. Once that system stabilizes, the person stabilizes. Their shame drops. Their capacity returns. Their environment stops fighting them. This isn’t cure. This is capacity unlocked.

And this is exactly why a nonprofit scaffolding service could change everything. Imagine a crowdfunded, community‑supported organization that sends trained staff to reset homes, manage laundry cycles, triage paperwork, build routines, create maintenance plans, prevent crisis spirals, offer body‑doubling, and teach systems that match the person’s wiring. Not maids. Not social workers. Not organizers who expect a blank slate. System‑operators — people who understand that neurodivergent adults don’t need judgment, they need infrastructure.

Because it’s a nonprofit, the goal wouldn’t be to create lifelong customers. The goal would be to create lifelong stability. A client might start with two visits a week, then one, then one every two weeks, then a monthly reset. That’s success. Not because they’ve stopped being neurodivergent, but because the friction is gone and the environment finally cooperates with their brain instead of punishing it.

Everyone knows someone who’s drowning quietly. Everyone has watched a friend or sibling or partner get swallowed by a backlog. Everyone has seen how quickly a life can unravel when one system collapses. People want to help — they just don’t know how. This gives them a way. A nonprofit scaffolding service isn’t charity. It’s infrastructure. It’s the missing layer between “you’re on your own” and “you need full‑time care.” It’s the thing that lets neurodivergent adults live lives that fit their wiring instead of fighting it.

And honestly, it’s long overdue.

What’s in a Name?

Daily writing prompt
Write about your first name: its meaning, significance, etymology, etc.

My first name, Leslie, comes from two different worlds that should have nothing to do with each other and yet somehow describe me with unnerving accuracy.

On one side, it’s Scottish Gaelic — leas celyn, “holly garden.” A place name before it was ever a person’s name. A landscape disguised as an identity. A reminder that some things grow best in protected soil, behind hedges, in the quiet. A garden is not fragile; it’s curated. It’s intentional. It’s a boundary with roots.

On the other side, it’s Slavic — a linguistic cousin of Ladislaus, built from vladeti (to rule) and slava (glory). “Glorious ruler.” A title masquerading as a first name. A hint that authority doesn’t always announce itself; sometimes it just walks into the room and rearranges the air.

Between the holly garden and the glorious ruler, I find the shape of my temperament. A person who prefers interiority but carries a spine. Someone who builds sanctuaries but doesn’t surrender sovereignty. Someone who understands that protection and power are not opposites — they’re two halves of the same etymology.

People like to imagine names as destiny. I don’t. I think names are more like mirrors: they show you the parts of yourself you were already becoming.

And in a moment when the country feels like a house with the lights flickering — when the domestic sphere is the crisis, not the refuge — it feels strangely grounding to know that my name has always held both the garden and the ruler. The quiet and the clarity. The interior and the authority.

Maybe that’s why I can see the seams in the national wallpaper before other people notice the pattern. Maybe that’s why I don’t panic when the chandelier sways. Maybe that’s why I can write about instability without becoming unstable.

My name is a reminder:
I was built for interior spaces.
I was built for discernment.
I was built for moments when the house is telling the truth.

And I’m finally old enough to believe it.


Scored by Copilot, Conducted by Leslie Lanagan

Domestic

There are moments in public life when the temperature in the room changes, and everyone feels it even if no one says so. President Trump’s recent burst of online activity — dozens of posts in the span of a coffee break — was one of those moments. Not because of the content, which was the usual mélange, but because of the velocity. It had the unmistakable air of someone trying to outrun something, though what that something might be remains politely unspoken

The reaction was immediate. Commentators clutched their pearls, voters refreshed their feeds, and a few lawmakers made the sort of statements that read less like concern and more like pre‑drafted press releases waiting for a moment to be useful. But the people who would actually have to act — the Vice President and the Cabinet — maintained a silence so complete it could have been mistaken for choreography.

I’m not a physician, and I don’t pretend to be one. But I did spend years working for my stepmother, a rheumatologist whose patients trusted her with the kinds of truths they wouldn’t tell their own families. You learn things in that environment. You learn to notice when someone’s behavior shifts. You learn that sudden changes are rarely meaningless. And you learn that the worst thing you can do is pretend nothing has happened.

That’s all I’m doing here: noticing.

The 25th Amendment chatter is coming from the public, not the people empowered to use it. Historically, Cabinets do not move against their own president unless the situation has already collapsed behind the scenes. Loyalty, ambition, and self‑preservation form a powerful cocktail. So the silence is not surprising. It is simply… instructive.

More telling is the reaction abroad. London — usually the picture of composure, even when Washington is on fire — has shown signs of genuine alarm. The British do not rattle easily. When they do, it is because they have assessed the situation and found it wanting. Their concern is not theatrical. It is mathematical.

The next few months will not be smooth. They will be the kind of months where diplomats cancel vacations and intelligence officers develop new hobbies involving late‑night phone calls.

Speaking of intelligence, if someone were to ask how many officers from the other Four Eyes are currently in Washington, I would offer an educated guess: more than usual. Not because they are investigating us — that is not how the alliance works — but because when one partner becomes unpredictable, the others quietly increase their presence. It is not adversarial. It is maintenance.

Meanwhile, the President continues to make remarks about staying in power, extending terms, or otherwise rewriting the job description. Even members of his own party look uneasy when he does this, though their discomfort is expressed through the time‑honored Washington tradition of staring fixedly at the floor until the moment passes.

I am not drawing direct parallels to past crises. History does not repeat itself with that kind of precision. But there are familiar contours here — the sort that make seasoned observers exchange glances without speaking.

I am not diagnosing anyone. I am not predicting outcomes. I am not calling for constitutional remedies. I am simply acknowledging what is visible to anyone willing to look: abrupt behavioral shifts, erratic communication, uneasy allies, a conspicuously silent Cabinet, and rhetoric that makes even friendly governments check their contingency plans.

This is not hysteria. It is observation.

And in a moment when half the country is shouting and the other half is pretending not to hear, there is value in saying the quiet, steady thing: something is off. We do not yet know what it means. But it deserves our attention.


Scored by Copilot, Conducted by Leslie Lanagan

Life Update

After highlighting my hair with blue, everything else seems unimportant. The blue is very dark, so I’m waiting for it to fade a little so it actually shows. I think it’s really cute so far, but my hair needs to be styled every day. That’s the thing about short hair- there’s no getting away with a ponytail. My first job was at SuperCuts, where all of the hairdressers practiced on me. My hair went from the middle of my back to a fade fairly quickly. I think that a short cut makes my face look less round, so I’ve just kept it.

And in fact, my first job and my fade now often gets me interested in haircuts on YouTube. I particularly like Dan Gregory @ The Regal Gentleman. Just listening to him banter with the customers is interesting, and the haircuts are always spot on.

It’s not about learning to cut hair. It’s learning the lingo to get more precision results.

My weekend was absolutely wonderful. Every time I drive back to Virginia I recount all of my memories there and gawk at the monuments in DC on the way out. DC is still a mystery to me politically, but I absolutely love the architecture. Seeing it was part of the rhythm, part of the settling of my nervous system as I got out of town. The weather was miserably cold, but we didn’t care. We were inside gaming, watching movies, and cooking together.

It was different being in charge of a system like three kids with actual lives outside of me. I now know the rhythm of a parent and the cognitive load is heavier than advertised. But when you have kids who adore you, you do it willingly and gladly. Watch that youngest. They’re a little shifty.

There were a few things that absolutely were not on my bingo card, but it was fine. Dad just seemed happy the children were still alive.

But I finally had that moment of “oh, that’s why my parents probably did things the way they did them.” It’s intense and universal; Jeanne does not go back to the circle couch. You figure out a lot when you can finally bend the spoon.

The best part is that in addition to Maclaren the Frenchie, I had an additional dog, Beanie, who looks like Frank from “Men in Black.” Ayalla said, “she gets that a lot.” I’m sure. It’s not every day that you meet an intelligence officer.

I think I met one, though, and they’re currently ten years old because of course they are. That systems brain is always running, and trying to outrun me. Luckily, I caught on fast.

Tiina said, “they’re like velociraptors. Trainable, but don’t turn your back.”

I am currently almost catatonic out of exhaustion and yet when I woke up this morning I didn’t hear the dogs or the kids stirring. I was so disoriented that I thought “where are the children?!” And then I realized, “Oh. They’re not here.”

Tiina was also really sweet and let me visit the TV she got me for Hannukah.