标签：#tools

Disclosure up front: I'm affiliated with diagram.now — I'm connected to the product. I'm posting this to get developer feedback on diagram import/export interoperability, not to pitch an install. Most teams I've worked with don't have one source of truth for their diagrams. They have: a few Mermaid blocks living in READMEs and Markdown docs, an old Visio ( .vsdx ) or Lucidchart file someone made two reorgs ago, a SQL schema that is secretly the "real" ERD, and a pile of screenshots pasted into docs and tickets. The diagram is rarely the hard part. The hard part is that the same diagram lives in five formats and none of them stay in sync with the docs they're supposed to explain. I've been working on diagram.now , a browser-based editor for technical diagrams — flowcharts, UML, ERD, BPMN, cloud/network architecture, mind maps, wireframes. It's a free browser editor with no signup to start. There's an optional Confluence app for teams that want diagrams editable inside Confluence pages, but that's intentionally not what I want to talk about here. I want feedback on the editor itself, and specifically on the interoperability story. What it does today Import/insert from Mermaid and SQL — paste a Mermaid graph or a CREATE TABLE block to start an editable diagram instead of a static render. Import Lucidchart and Visio .vsdx files — this is migration-oriented, and honestly the part I most want real-world files to stress-test. Export to PNG, SVG, PDF, or a URL. Templates/shapes for the diagram categories above. I'm deliberately keeping the Confluence side secondary. The thing I actually want to learn is whether the browser editor plus import/export is useful on its own. Where I'd love feedback Imports: Which format matters most to you — Mermaid, SQL→ERD, .vsdx , Lucidchart, or something else (PlantUML, draw.io XML, Graphviz)? If you've ever tried to migrate diagrams between tools, where did it break? URL export: Is a shareable diagram URL genuinely useful in your workflow (

Your daily memo that turns notes into a plan Discussion | Link

Autonomous penetration testing platform Discussion | Link

AI tab manager that suspends background RAM hogs Discussion | Link

Securely execute AI-generated & untrusted code Discussion | Link

A Mac app that asks why you opened that tab Discussion | Link

Clipboard history for Mac, right under the notch. Discussion | Link

An AI desktop cursor that does the work for you Discussion | Link

Clone yourself. Let AI do the work before you ask Discussion | Link

The average knowledge worker switches between apps 1,200 times per day, according to a 2024 Harvard Business Review analysis. Each switch is small. The cumulative cost is not. For freelancers managing their own tool stack, the problem is both a productivity drain and a billing leak. What the Research Actually Says The most cited figure comes from Gloria Mark at the University of California, Irvine: it takes an average of 23 minutes and 15 seconds to fully refocus after an interruption. That number gets quoted a lot, but the context matters. Not every app switch is a full context switch. Checking Slack for two seconds is different from switching from deep coding work to a client call. A more useful framing comes from the American Psychological Association, which distinguishes between task switching (changing what you are working on) and tool switching (changing which app you are using for the same task). Both have costs, but tool switching is uniquely wasteful because it does not change the work -- only the interface. You are still working on the same problem but spending cognitive effort navigating a different app. For freelancers, the most expensive switches are the ones between a task manager and a time tracker, between a calendar and a task list, and between a project view and a communication tool. These happen multiple times per hour during active work, and each one breaks the low-level focus that produces billable output. How to Audit Your Current Tool Stack Before consolidating tools, figure out what you actually use. For one week, keep a simple log: every time you open an app to do work (not social media or entertainment), note it. At the end of the week, tally the list. Most freelancers find they use 6-10 tools daily. The typical list looks something like this: Task manager (Todoist, Asana, Notion) Time tracker (Toggl, Clockify, Harvest) Calendar (Google Calendar, Outlook) Communication (Slack, email) File storage (Google Drive, Dropbox) Invoicing (FreshBook

Automatic customer context for product teams and agents. Discussion | Link

Emojis and GIFs, Anywhere on Your Mac Discussion | Link

Computational language built for humans and AI agents Discussion | Link

Automatic short-form video editing Discussion | Link

Android becomes an intelligence system Discussion | Link

AI replies that are trained to sound like you Discussion | Link

Learn new words from the world around you Discussion | Link

AI agents are making software development faster. That is great. But there is a problem I do not think we are talking about enough: testing is not speeding up in the same way. In many teams, testing is still held together by spreadsheets, meeting notes, screenshots, chat messages, and the memory of a few experienced QA engineers. That worked when delivery was slower. It becomes fragile when one developer can use multiple agents to change code across several modules in a single afternoon. The bottleneck is no longer "can we write more test cases?" The bottleneck is: Can the team prove what was tested, why it was tested, what failed, what was fixed, and whether the release is safe? That is the problem I built testboat for. The Most Dangerous Sentence Before A Release The sentence I worry about most is not: We did not test this. At least that is honest. The dangerous sentence is: I think we tested this. That sentence usually means the team has test artifacts, but they are disconnected: requirements live in a doc test cases live in a spreadsheet automation scripts live somewhere in the repo execution results live in CI logs or chat bugs live in an issue tracker release reports are written manually before sign-off Each piece may be useful on its own. But when a Tech Lead asks, "Which requirements are not covered?" or a founder asks, "Can we release today?", the team has to reconstruct the answer manually. That is not a testing process. That is institutional memory under pressure. AI Makes This Gap Worse AI agents are very good at increasing throughput. They can: implement a feature faster refactor code faster generate UI faster write automation faster fix bugs faster But faster change creates more testing uncertainty. If an agent changes the authentication module, what should be rerun? If a test fails, is it a product bug, a flaky automation script, or an environment issue? If a developer says "fixed", has the failed test actually been rerun? If a release report says "ma

See if Japanese AI search recommends your brand Discussion | Link

Turn your Mac notch into an intelligent active workspace Discussion | Link