Productivity The Verge's David Pierce kicks off our new series on staying productive in the AI era — starting with why you should stop trying to stay ahead
This podcast touches on AI. My fiancé works at Anthropic. See my full ethics disclosure here.
Last season on the Platformer podcast, we explored what AI means for jobs — including the risk that huge numbers of them might soon go away. For our follow-up miniseries, I wanted to ask a more practical question: what can any of us actually do about it? Over the coming weeks, I'll be talking with people who can help us map which AI tools and strategies might help us keep your advantage at work — for now, at least.
And there's no better person to join me first than David Pierce. I've known David for about as long as I've been a tech reporter, and over that time he has become the tech press's chief productivity correspondent. He worked with David Pogue at the New York Times, edited at Wired, wrote the personal technology column for the Wall Street Journal, and served as editorial director at Protocol before returning to The Verge.
Today he is now editor-at-large, co-host of The Vergecast, and author of Installer, his weekly guide — and the most delightful newsletter I read each week — about what to download, watch, and try. More recently he has launched Version History, a show about the defining products from tech's past, from the hoverboard to Vine, and what they can teach us about its future.
Like me, David is a fiend for testing new productivity tools. He estimates that he has personally installed, used, and abandoned some 200 to-do apps — a number limited, he told me, "by the number of them that exist — not by the number of them that I'm willing to try." (He had actually switched notes apps the day we recorded our conversation.)
All that tinkering has left him with a usefully unromantic view of the current moment. "We're in a moment where everyone has decided that everything about how we do everything is about to change," he told me. "But actually, none of it has changed yet."
In David's telling, the returns on AI at work have so far been fairly modest. It's really good at the busywork of daily life — converting a folder full of files, clearing a thousand marketing emails out of your inbox in 45 seconds, or finding you a plumber. What it can't do consistently is exercise good judgment about what matters to you. When David set AI loose on his primary inbox, it "started getting almost everything wrong," he said — fooled by senders who make every message sound like a five-alarm fire, in what he suspects is the beginning of annoying new attention hack.
But what I found most refreshing in our conversation was his message to anyone who is feeling left behind by the AI era. "I think staying ahead is wildly overrated," he told me. "This idea that everyone is selling — that you have to either get on the AI train or get left behind — is pernicious and frankly wrong." His advice is straightforward and narrow: offload the dumb tasks, keep doing the work that builds your understanding, and when the hype starts to feel overwhelming, find-and-replace the word "AI" with the word "software." "It's just software, and that's OK," he said. "Sometimes it's very good software. But you should treat it like software."
A long excerpt of our conversation is below, edited for clarity and length. Listen to the entire conversation wherever you get your podcasts — just search for Platformer — or watch it on YouTube at youtube.com/caseynewton. And let us know what you think — we welcome your feedback at casey@platformer.news.
Casey Newton: David, most people try to minimize the number of new apps they install. You go out of your way to find new ones. Give us your sicko credentials up front: how many to-do apps do you think you've personally installed, used, and abandoned?
David Pierce: Oh, wow. Conservatively? 200. If you made me pick a number, it's probably somewhere in that range. And that's limited by the number of them that exist, not by the number of them that I'm willing to try.
Newton: If there were 400, you would have installed 400.
Pierce: Without question. All the way back to my first experiences with smartphones 20 years ago, the very first thing I downloaded in the App Store was Evernote, which tells you something about who I am as a person. This has been an ongoing journey. Especially as my professional life has gotten busier, and my personal life has gotten busier next to my professional life, it has gone from a thing I do because I think it's interesting to a thing I do both because it's interesting and out of deep necessity to remain a person.
In that sense, the last 18 months have been totally fascinating. We're in a moment where everyone has decided that everything about how we do everything is about to change. But actually, none of it has changed yet. So we're in this complete chaos phase of trying to figure out what the future of any of this stuff is before any of it has settled. It's delightful.
Newton: Let's dive into the chaos a bit. You're infamous for a perpetual quest to find the best notes app. After all your years of tinkering, what has actually survived, and how solid does your current setup feel?
Pierce: Nothing, and incredibly fragile, is the honest answer. I've learned pretty explicitly what I need. I spent a long time building really elaborate systems that would make sure everything was in its right place. I knew exactly how everything was going to be organized, tagged, and put in projects. I could tell you the lexicon of every single app that existed.
I discovered that actually, the problem was I would make these really beautiful to-do lists and never look at them. Just never. I'd be like, "Well, that's weird — I don't do anything on my to-do list. Maybe I'll get a new to-do list." So the biggest change for me has been figuring out what I need to be successful.
The problem is I've become very clear on that, and now there is this incredibly annoying thing happening where there are a handful of apps that all have every feature that I want minus one. Then they keep adding things that are like the thing that I want, so I go back to try that app. I realize it still doesn't have the actual feature that's very important to me, so I leave for one of the other ones that has it. I'm in this cycle between five apps — I'm switching between Todoist and Reminders at all times, for a variety of reasons, and then I'm bouncing between four or five notes apps depending on which particular pain point I'm willing to put up with at a given time. I switched today, Casey. This is not a bit. I switched notes apps today.
Newton: What did you switch from and to, and why?
Pierce: I'm just an insane person; no one should ever hear me say this out loud. I switched from an app called NotePlan, which I really like. Obsidian has become this very popular app by building an app on top of a set of Markdown files. I think that idea is very important: that fundamentally, the thing at the base of it should be a bunch of things that I own, that do not exist in some proprietary format that's hard to get out and read on another device. I have a folder of files that I can upload to Google Drive, put on a thumb drive, print out, and hand to my wife. That's very important.
NotePlan takes that idea and spins a bunch of really interesting task-related stuff on top of it. Obsidian is very good for writing notes; NotePlan is much more geared toward being a daily notes and tasks app, and it does it very well. So I used it for a long time. Then there's Craft — which is the white whale of my productivity applications, because it is the one that is closest to doing everything correctly. It's almost a really great calendar app, it's almost a really great notes app, and it's almost a really great tasks app. Every time they make a tiny bit of progress in one of those directions, I throw my entire life back into it, run into the edges again, and leave.
The update today was that they've done a much better job of integrating tasks around the app, so now you can see all of the relevant tasks everywhere you're supposed to. Which sounds like a small thing, but it's just not how it worked before. Now it integrates with Apple Reminders, so I can tell my phone, "Remind me to water the grass tomorrow morning," and now that is in my daily note in Craft. That is a very important little bit of synergy that makes this stuff go a long way. So for now, I'm in Craft. By the time anyone hears this, there's a strong chance I will no longer be in Craft.
Newton: And when you say you're in Craft, you are also in Reminders. Does that mean you're also in Todoist as well?
Pierce: Todoist and Reminders are two apps with opposite strengths for me. My running theory of all this stuff is that capture is the most important thing by a mile, and none of the rest of it matters. I think AI is actually increasing that fact. You don't have to build a system; you don't have to care about where any of it is, because we actually have technology that is making it easy to find and organize these things after the fact. The whole idea is being able to get it out of your brain and into something. It's useless in your brain, and it's incredibly useful as long as it is somewhere.
Reminders I really like because it has unparalleled Siri integration; it's the cleanest way I've ever found to get something out of my head and into a system, so I always end up coming back to it, because it's so fast. Todoist is a vastly better app for managing projects and to-dos, but most of the time, what I actually need is just a list of all my tasks. I don't need it any more complicated than that. Reminders, because it does a good job percolating around other apps too, is mostly the one I've gravitated to.
Newton: When you interviewed your colleagues at The Verge about their productivity systems, the lesson you took away was that simplicity and a single source of truth beat the perfect system. Why are those two elements so essential?
Pierce: Having a single source of truth solves two problems at once, and we don't think enough about either of these problems. It's knowing where to put it, and then it's knowing where it is. I think that is the whole thing. I see this with people all the time, because I've made myself public as a productivity nerd, so people love to talk to me about this stuff. You can have the best-fit solution for every individual thing: "If I have this link, I'm going to put it over here. And if I have this thing that I need to do, I'm going to put it over here. But then if I have this other Google Doc..." What actually happens is all the systems break down, because there's too much friction to put stuff anywhere.
So the idea of saying, "This is the place I put things," is the single most important thing you can do. Then the reverse of that is: I know where it is now. You don't have to build some elaborate system that will reveal it to you at the right time; you don't have to jump from app to app to figure out where this thing is that you were doing the other day. People have this experience all the time — "Is this in my email? Is this in Slack? Is this in Google Docs? Is it in my to-do list app? Is it in my notes app?" The fewer places that can possibly be, the more likely you are to actually go interact with that thing.
And then this is the newest part of my theory, and I'm curious how you feel about this. I've become a big believer in mess in those spaces. I used to think I didn't want to see any tasks that I didn't need to worry about right now; I only wanted to have the most important things in front of me every minute. Then I started talking to authors and very productive people working on lots of creative projects. What they discovered is that actually seeing things over and over again is really important. That I'm forced to wade through my to-do list every day makes me more likely to accomplish the things on it, because it plants them back in my brain. It helps create connections between things. You should be confronted by all of your stuff as often as possible. That's another reason having fewer places for that stuff is really valuable.
Newton: Right — and this is the logic of seeing your tasks in an app like Craft: you're going there in the morning, starting a daily note, looking at your calendar, and all the to-do lists are right there. If folks take nothing else away from this conversation, it is that simplicity is your friend and a single source of truth is your friend.
Interestingly, most of the stuff we've talked about so far is not very high-tech — most of these tools could have been built in 2010. We've seen a lot of productivity fads over the past 15 years: Inbox Zero, Getting Things Done, second brains. Now I think we're in some sort of Claude Code, Obsidian and OpenClaw moment. What do you think AI has genuinely changed about the way that normal people work in the last year?
Pierce: Not as much as I would have thought, to be honest. There is a certain kind of annoying maintenance task that people are really quickly starting to learn to do with AI, which I think is really cool. Claude Cowork was a really big moment in that, where it's like: I have a folder of stuff, and I need that folder of stuff to be different in some material way. I need all these PNGs to be JPEGs, I need all these files to be in this consistent format, I need all this stuff to just be different in some way. It's the kind of thing that you could do manually, and it's actually not that hard to do manually, but it's super annoying and it's the kind of thing you just don't do. That is chef's-kiss perfect stuff to give to AI. I'm starting to see people do that more and more, and I think that's very cool.
What I have not seen is any enthusiasm for the idea of letting AI rule your life. There are things that AI is very good at. I've heard from a lot of people that one of the things they like to do is say, "Show me all the stuff in Slack and my email and my to-do list that I missed yesterday. Just show me some high-priority stuff." They're getting mixed results — those are great when they hit, and they're sort of useless when they don't, and that's fine. It's a relatively low-stress activity, so people get something out of it. But there are so many tools out there now that are like, "We are going to perfectly prioritize your time for you, we're going to base it around your energy levels — all you do is plug in the API keys for five apps you use and we'll take care of everything for you." There is just absolutely no evidence in my life, or anyone else's that I talk to, that any of that stuff works at all.
Newton: There's a phenomenon that seems to only happen on X.com, which is Silicon Valley folks giving very performative accounts of how they're using AI. I love to pick on Garry Tan, who runs Y Combinator — a very nice guy, but he's always tweeting about his "G stack" and how he's used AI to write 100,000 lines of code to run his entire life. What do you make of the folks who say, "No, no, no — I have the Mac mini in the closet, it is running my life, and this is the way of the future"?
Pierce: It's mostly productivity porn, right? I remember a few years ago when the Notion community really took off. Notion went from being this niche little productivity app to genuinely huge — a mainstream thing that lots of people knew. The Notion Reddit became completely overrun with people showing off these gorgeous, incredibly beautifully designed bespoke dashboards that accomplished nothing. They just accomplished nothing! It's so fun to make that stuff, and I totally get it. In the same way that I really like building myself elaborate new systems that don't make me any more productive, setting up a bunch of agents that feel like they're doing something feels great, and it's fun to do. It does not help you get anything else done.
A thing I have come to believe relatively recently is that there's a lot of basic day-to-day life-task stuff that is very helpful to offload to AI. It's the same as the Claude Cowork level of things to do: "I need to find a plumber." Just a real thing that happens all the time. I can go onto Nextdoor and Yelp and cross-reference all these different platforms to find a plumber. Or I can just go to Claude or Gemini or ChatGPT and say, "Can you find me a plumber that generally has pretty good reviews?" And they do a good job. There are a lot of tasks like that in our lives that are simple but time-consuming, and a lot of that is useful to offload as a way to run through your day-to-day life. But people are telling these stories about the agents they have managing their finances — don't do that! Just don't do that. If you're off your work priorities to AI and trusting that it will do a good job, it is going to fail you over and over and over again. It just will.
Newton: Here's where this gets a little edgier — some journalists would say, "I would absolutely not do this" — but I've been using AI for podcast prep. I did it for this episode! I had a pretty good idea of what I wanted to talk to you about. I wrote a long prompt, walked away, came back, and it had a shell. Some of the questions were stupid, and I deleted them. A lot of them were directionally right. And I feel like it saved me time in a meaningful way.
Then, in the same conversation, I said, "Summarize these topics so I can send an email to David to let him know what I want to talk about." This stuff took like three minutes, and that used to be an hour-and-a-half or two-hour process for me. I'm always trying to find where I'm actually getting more productive, as opposed to feeling more productive, and that is a space where I actually feel more productive.
Pierce: Talk this one out with me, because I've been thinking a lot about this recently. I also host this podcast called Version History. The show is part litigation of interesting products over time, and it is partly just straightforwardly a history show. So it has to be deeply researched; it has to be full of interesting reporting. I spend an enormous amount of time researching those shows. On the one hand, it's very fun, and I set it up as a show because I like doing that work. But I've also found myself wondering: is there a beginning of this process that I could offload? Yes, absolutely.
But every time I've done that, I think the show is worse. Because the less I know the material — and I think I know the material less when I'm not doing as much of the work — I really do believe there is a linear relationship between how much of the work I'm doing and how well I know the thing at the end. Reasonable people could disagree on that, but I firmly believe it.
Newton: There's a great Andrej Karpathy quote [it turned out to be a quote-tweet] that's just: "You can't outsource your understanding." There's a lot that you can hand over to AI, but the more you hand over, the less you are going to understand. And that really matters when you're hosting a podcast.
**Pierce: **One thing I've been thinking a lot about is: I will go and read for hours and hours, and I will talk to people, and I will end up with this giant mass of notes. One easy thing to do with AI is to say, "Hey, I have all of this. Put it in chronological order." That's another thing AI is fabulously good at: here's a bunch of dates, here's a bunch of things that happened, put them in the correct order. I'll go through and check at the end, but I wrote all of it. I don't think I have an intellectual problem with that being an AI thing. I also don't think I have an intellectual problem with, "Hey, can you recommend the 10 most-cited things about XYZ? If I were to start researching Nest, where do you think I should start?" I don't think that is outsourcing your understanding. But it falls down such a slippery slope into "I've actually done none of the work, and now I have an outline for a show that I've never read." I'm so terrified of getting to that point that I don't quite know where to cut it off.
Newton: I do think there is a version where you just snap your fingers and [get] podcast prep. There are podcasters who just read things their producers hand to them, and they are basically seeing it for the first time when they sit down in front of the microphone. I think those podcasts are mostly not great, and I don't want to make that kind of podcast.
Yet I can also imagine a world where you take the first 20 or 40 episodes of Version History, feed them into an LLM, and say, "This is the format our show follows. Our next episode is about Nest. Go do some research and create a prep document in this format." Maybe that saves you a couple hours. The tension is that the LLM is now going to choose what it thinks are the most important moments — you're outsourcing your judgment of what's important, and now you're maybe doing a different show than you would have done. That's the trade-off. I don't know what the right answer is there.
Pierce: I don't either. I'm also more and more suspicious of whatever LLMs think is important. I've been going through this thing recently — you mentioned Inbox Zero at the top. I was for a long time an Inbox Zero person; I was very on top of my email. Holy God, has that fallen apart on me. My email is in the worst state it has ever been in my entire adult life. I went in and thought: this will be a useful experiment and also practically helpful in my life. Let me see how far I can get having AI clean up my email.
It was the most fascinating experience, because it turns out there's a bunch of stuff in your inbox that is obviously not useful. Lands' End sends me an email every eight minutes, and I don't need those. Claude very quickly was like, "David, you don't need these," and it was able to cut out a lot of the stuff in my email very quickly. That's the kind of Cowork-y busywork that I think is incredibly useful. I have a lot of marketing emails in my inbox; I would like them gone. It's a task that would have taken somewhere between a few minutes and a few hours, and it took me 45 seconds. Fabulous. Huge, huge win.
The minute it turned to my primary inbox, it started getting almost everything wrong. Because what it does is it looks at something and thinks, "Well, this person seems to think that what they're emailing you about is very important, so it's probably very important." And it just made me think of SEO — you can game your way to the top of the search results by making everything seem like a five-alarm fire all the time. People are just going to learn to write emails that sound super personal, that use my name a lot, that start with "Re:" so that it seems like we've been talking before. It's a completely gameable system, and the LLM has no ability to look at this and say, "Here's what's important to me, David, right now — or even ever." So I extrapolate that out: can you do a reasonable job of telling me the facts, in order, about the history of Nest? Absolutely. Probably very well, and increasingly well over time. Can you actually point out the things that matter in this story? No. I just don't see it.
Newton: I think that's fair. Are there any tools or practices you've found that sincerely give time back to you?
Pierce: Not really so far, to be totally honest. The thing that is true, and the thing that I find hopeful, is that technology has always taken busywork away. I think the history of spreadsheets is really instructive in the history of AI. It didn't obviate accountants; it didn't change the way that we think about business, even. It just changed the tools with which you could do the job. What it let you do is do the work much faster, and it let you forecast more into the future, because you could operate with more numbers, changing them more quickly, and you could see the outcome of those numbers instead of doing it by hand. Steven Levy wrote a great thing many years ago about spreadsheets that I encourage everybody to go read, because it's a really interesting cultural study of what happens when suddenly a thing can do the work for you. Everybody thought we would never have accountants again. And then what it turns out is Excel is really hard to use, and one of the skills of being an accountant is now proficiency in Excel. I think there's going to be a lot of that with AI.
The thing that I am hopeful for, and frankly already grateful for in the technology, is that it can do a lot of the busywork I don't want to do. It can go in and clear out the thousand emails from Lands' End for me every morning. It can relatively successfully surface the tasks that I have today. It can collate a bunch of information from a bunch of different places and put it all into a single text message that I get every morning. That's the kind of thing that is useful. It's not creative. It's not even thoughtful. It's just administrative. There is a limitless supply of administrative tasks in our lives, and so I am not worried about people who do administrative tasks running out of them to do.
Anyone who tells you that we're all going to stop having to do work because of all this, and we're going to live on universal basic income and just live lives of leisure, is ridiculous. But I think there is some possibility that we're going to get to cut off the bottom of the pyramid of what we do at work and spend more time doing more interesting work. Which is why everybody should stop firing their workers, actually — you should hire more smart people to go do smart things, because that's going to be the thing that raises the ceiling of all this. Sitting around turning a bunch of paragraphs into a PowerPoint deck is not useful work. No one needs to be doing that job. We can all find better things to do than turning an Excel file into bar graphs in a PowerPoint. But there are people who do that for a living, because we have to. So if we can automate that out of existence, I'm actually extremely hopeful for what we can all go find to do instead.
Newton: Let me bring it back to the central question I want to try to answer in this series. For the people who are having anxieties about AI and their job, how would you encourage them to think about that? Does this feel like a case where staying open and curious and willing to try new things is going to help you stay ahead, or is it something else?
Pierce: I think staying ahead is wildly overrated, first of all. I really do. This idea that everyone is selling — that you have to either get on the AI train or get left behind — is pernicious and frankly wrong. But I do think you're doing yourself a disservice not to at least goof around with these tools, if for no other reason than because it is genuinely helpful to offload some really boring tasks to them. You have a bunch of photos that need to be organized in some way, and you'd like to rename them all? Just go throw them into Gemini and ask it to rename them. You can save yourself a couple hours here and there, and that's genuinely useful. So take all the dumb tasks and offload them.
Can it be a helpful tool, just like any other tool? Absolutely. Think of AI the way you think about your laptop: it is a thing that I can do things with, not a replacement for my brain or my family, and I think you're going to be fine.
Newton: If you take nothing else away from this, don't make AI replace your family!
Pierce: Listen, man, you'd be surprised.
Newton: No, it's a legitimate thing to say, because some people are trying. **It's also true that some people have terrible families, so I'm sympathetic to the folks who are looking for support elsewhere. **
Pierce: But a thing I tell people a lot is: if you read a thing about AI and you just find-and-replace the word "AI" with the word "software," everything gets a little more understandable and a lot less scary, and I think we should all maybe do it that way. It's just software, and that's OK. Sometimes it's very good software. But you should treat it like software.
Newton: I like that. Well, speaking of software, David: last question. I can't let you get out of here without a recommendation. If a listener wants to turn their life over to one new piece of software tomorrow, in the realm of making them more productive, what should they check out?
Pierce: There's an app called MyMind that I really love. They developed it as a really beautiful visual reference guide. The idea is, I'm a designer — I guess designers read magazines all day, I don't know — you wander through beautiful museums and take pictures of them and upload them, and it does a really interesting job. This, actually, I think is a fascinating and great use of AI: it automatically categorizes everything you put in. It sorts it by color, it sorts it by type — all the pictures you take of cars, it understands are of cars, and it will find all the cars for you. It is just this endlessly reorganizable set of stuff.
And again, when I come back to "you just need to know where everything is": MyMind is a really great place to put stuff. The way I've been using it is as an endless compendium of things that I like. If I read an article that I like, I save it into MyMind. If I watch a movie that I like, it goes into MyMind. If I read a quote in a story that I like, it goes into MyMind. If I take a picture of my kid that I like, it goes into MyMind. And so now I can go through and be like, "Oh — I have a running set of my favorite pictures of my children." And did I read a great article in the last three months? All of them are in MyMind.
There's a very old idea of a commonplace book that people have been using forever, which is essentially this thing: you write down little snippets of things that are important or relevant to you. This is that, but in a way that is sortable and remixable, and you can find lots of stuff, and it's also just beautiful and lovely and available on every platform. It's expensive — I think it's like [$13] a month — but it is maybe my favorite piece of software that I use every day. So there's my recommendation.
Newton: I love that — I've tried it too, and can confirm it is a very fun and cool app. David, thank you for joining us on the Platformer podcast.
Pierce: Thank you. It's been a blast.
A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR
Give agents the right context
The hardest part of shipping with AI isn't the code, it's the context.
The Teamwork Graph in Jira by Atlassian provides the context agents need to deliver 44% more accurate results – with 48% less token usage.
Give every agent the context it needs directly from Jira.
Following #
New York’s data center moratorium
**What happened: **
New York became the first state to impose a statewide moratorium on new large data centers, blocking new environmental permits for data centers that draw 50 megawatts or more of power.
Governor Kathy Hochul imposed the moratorium via an executive order signed Tuesday, freezing new permits for up to a year while the state comes up with protections against environmental impact and rising energy prices for residents.
Meanwhile, a broader bill passed by the New York state legislature earlier this year is still awaiting Hochul’s signature. The Responsible Data Center Development Act would impose a one-year moratorium on the construction of new data centers using 20 megawatts or more of power, affecting more projects than the executive order.
Hochul has not said whether she will sign the bill, though the executive order suggests she favors a narrower approach.
**Why we’re following: **The move, while the first of its kind, has been a long time coming — data centers remain unpopular in the state and across the country.
A Siena Research Institute poll of New York registered voters in June found that 46 percent of respondents said a one-year moratorium on new permits would be good for the state, with only 21 percent saying it would be bad. Just one in three Americans approve of data center construction at a rapid pace, and most would oppose building one in their own community, according to a recent
. __Reuters/Ipsos poll__More than a dozen states have also introduced similar bills aimed at limiting the effects of data centers on power bills and the environment.
**What people are saying: **“We’re in the midst of one of the most significant economic upheavals in generations…perhaps ever,” Hochul said.
“New Yorkers aren’t convinced these massive facilities benefit them. Before we move forward, our communities need ironclad guarantees that their energy bills won’t spike, their water will be protected, and their air will remain clean,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) told WRGB Albany.
The order also saw pushback from the industry: “The moratorium will…undermine New York's economy and send a signal that the state is closed for business,” wroteDan Diorio, executive vice president of state policy and government affairs at the Data Center Coalition.
—Lindsey Choo
Those good posts
For more good posts every day, follow Casey’s Instagram stories.
([Link](https://www.threads.com/@thisone0verhere/post/DayMY_yEQni?ref=platformer.news))
([Link](https://www.threads.com/@will_kiley_santino/post/Dawh4FwgP7A?ref=platformer.news))
([Link](https://www.threads.com/@thetangledandtrue/post/Dawj8VVDUdQ?ref=platformer.news))
Talk to us
Send us tips, comments, questions, and feedback on these changes: casey@platformer.news. Read our ethics policy here.