THE OPERATING SYSTEM I BUILT WHEN I NEEDED TO SEND THE EMAIL
ALM No.94, October 2026
ESSAYS
There is a sentence that makes something in me stand up: That’s just how it works.
I know what the sentence is supposed to do. It is supposed to save time. It is supposed to tell me that the road has already been surveyed, the forms have already been printed, the doors have already been labelled, and there is no need to start taking measurements. Most of the time, this is sensible advice. Most people cannot spend their lives opening every wall to inspect the plumbing.
Unfortunately, I am the person who wants to know who put the plumbing there.
If something matters to me, I have a hard time encountering it casually. A film becomes a question about history. History becomes a question about law. Law becomes a question about infrastructure. Infrastructure becomes a question about who designed it, who benefits from it, what assumptions were buried inside it, whether those assumptions are still true, and what happens if you pull on the wrong bolt.
Then I start pulling.
This is useful until it is ridiculous. I can build the operating system when I needed to send the email. I can make a taxonomy when I needed to finish the form. I can discover six legitimate paths around a barrier and then realize that I am still one human being standing in the middle of all six of them, holding a notebook, looking offended that the day has only twenty-four hours.
I do not say this as a charming confession about being curious. Curiosity is harmless. This is closer to compulsion with project management.
I save the email. I find the regulation. I compare versions. I notice when the explanation changes. I want the primary source. I want the name of the office that owns the decision. I want to know whether the rule is law, policy, custom, software limitation, budget limitation, or simply the residue of somebody saying no in 2009 and everybody after them deciding not to ask why.
No is a complete answer when it actually means no. I have no quarrel with gravity. I do not negotiate with arithmetic. If the bridge cannot hold the load, I would rather have the engineer tell me than discover the fact halfway across.
But a surprising number of noes are not gravity.
They mean: we do not normally do that. They mean: you asked the wrong department. They mean: the form was not designed for this. They mean: there is another process, but nobody mentioned it. They mean: this would require work. Sometimes they mean: we thought you would go away.
I do not always go away.
This can make me extremely useful and extremely annoying, sometimes in the same afternoon.
I do not have much instinct for staying in my lane because I am not convinced most lanes are real. They are often filing systems mistaken for nature. Film is not sealed off from economics. Economics is not sealed off from ecology. Ecology is not sealed off from engineering. Engineering is not sealed off from politics. Politics is not sealed off from story. The world does not care which university department would like custody of the question.
So I wander.
A writer starts reading procurement rules. A filmmaker starts asking archaeologists questions. A business problem turns into a systems diagram. A scientific paper becomes the beginning of a documentary question. An institutional contradiction becomes correspondence, then a file, then research, then sometimes a larger argument about the institution itself.
The flattering version of this is that I am interdisciplinary. The less flattering and more accurate version is that I have repeatedly failed to learn the social value of leaving things alone.
There are consequences.
The first is scale. I can generate opportunities faster than one life can metabolize them. When I understand the structure of a field, I begin seeing possible routes everywhere: another publication, another collaborator, another customer, another public program, another expert, another jurisdiction, another mechanism nobody has tested yet. Each one may be rational on its own. Rational things still pile up.
That is the trap. People usually imagine overextension as carelessness: too many random commitments, too little discipline. Mine can arrive wearing a suit and carrying evidence. Every front has a reason. Every file can be defended. Every meeting could matter. Every branch has a plausible return. The problem is not that the branches are imaginary. The problem is that I am not a forest.
I have had to learn that possibility and priority are different nouns.
I am still learning it.
The second consequence is that I can look unreasonable immediately before I look obvious. This is dangerous knowledge to acquire about yourself because it can become an excuse for anything. Sometimes the unlikely route works. The stranger answers. The institution finds the exception it said did not exist. The expert takes the meeting. The work finds a home. The thing described as premature turns out to have been early enough.
A few successes like that can make a person suspicious of the border between unrealistic and merely unattempted.
They should also make him suspicious of himself.
I can be wrong. I can chase a possibility too far because it is interesting. I can mistake a beautiful architecture for an executable plan. I can become so interested in understanding the whole machine that I temporarily disrespect the tiny boring action that would actually move it. I can confuse the existence of a route with the wisdom of taking it now.
When that happens, reassurance is useless to me. So is flattery.
Show me the missing piece. Show me the contradiction. Show me the source. Show me the number. Tell me which assumption fails under load. Give me the better architecture.
I respect correction that can survive contact with evidence. What I have trouble respecting is surrender dressed up as practicality.
This is probably the most important warning about me: I do not automatically grant old categories moral authority just because they arrived before I did. If the available language does not describe what I am seeing, I will try to build better language. If two things have been bundled together for convenience but behave differently in reality, I will separate them. If everyone is fighting over opposite sides of the same inherited frame, I may be the irritating person in the corner asking whether the frame deserves to survive the argument.
Sometimes this produces clarity. Sometimes it produces a spectacular amount of paperwork.
Either way, I am happiest around the problems everybody else has accepted too early.
Give me the ugly file. Give me the contradictory evidence. Give me the thing nobody can quite categorize. Give me the project sitting between disciplines. Give me the institution saying one thing while its own documents say another. Give me the idea everybody likes but nobody has figured out how to operationalize.
That is where I stop being merely interested.
I want the meeting booked. I want the manuscript finished. I want the research question hardened. I want the application submitted. I want the customer found. I want the contradiction documented. I want the idea out of my head and somewhere in the world where reality can hit it.
And once reality hits it, I want the evidence back.
That may be the difference between how I think and how I look from the outside. From the outside, it can resemble restlessness: too many subjects, too many projects, too many questions, too much refusal to accept the first answer. From inside, the subjects keep touching. I am not moving from one world to another. I am following the wiring.
The warning is not that I think I can do everything. I cannot. The warning is that I can often see how things connect before I have decided which connection deserves my life.
That is a gift if I govern it and a liability if I do not.
So if you are going to work with me, argue with me, publish me, hire me, build with me, or simply hand me a problem over coffee, understand what you are doing.
Do not tell me something is impossible when you mean inconvenient. Do not tell me policy is law when it is policy. Do not tell me nobody does that as though nobody were a physical constant. Do not expect a vague explanation to survive just because it arrived on letterhead.
But also, if you see me building a cathedral where a doorstop would do, say so.
I may argue with you.
Bring evidence.
Because eventually every problem I care about reduces to the same dangerous question:
What would have to be true for me to do it anyway?
Subscribe to FREE digital flip copy of the Adelaide Magazine printed edition.