Piccalilli

@piccalilli.front-end.social.ap.brid.gy

High quality, approachable and transferable content from people with decades of elite industry experience. 🌉 bridged from ⁂ https://front-end.social/@piccalilli, follow @ap.brid.gy to interact

Just a thoroughly delightful read, as per usual from Jim. https://blog.jim-nielsen.com/2026/good-at-things/

Being “Good” at Things

Golf content on social media is my online junk food and the other day I came across a video interviewing professional golfers that asks: “What does an amateur golfer have to shoot to be considered good?” It’s a leading question because the phrasing implicitly frames a number as the answer for a qualitative measurement, but I digress. All the pros give their answers. Some say you gotta shoot a number in 90’s. Others say the 80’s. Some even say the 70’s. Then along comes Collin Morikawa: > I don’t think there’s a number, but I think you have to be able to finish out every hole without, like, picking up a two-footer. Love it! I don’t want to go too deep on a social media golf interview clip, but… I love how he breaks out of the question’s implicit framing and really strikes at the heart of the qualitative question: “What does it mean to be good at golf?” Being “good”, in his eyes, is not shooting a specific number. Numbers are standardized proxies for measurement across a wide variety of players, skill levels, and — to be quite frank — degrees of honesty. Anyone who has played golf knows that scores can be easily manipulated. On a casual outing amongst friends, my “82” may be very different than the “82” of the players in front of me — or even the players in my own group. It all depends on how you play the game. So saying “if you can shoot number ___” is a very lossy picture of what it means to be “good” at golf — at least for amateurs. That’s why I love Morikawa’s answer: if you finish every hole and don’t get a double bogey, you’re “good” at golf. Because guess what? Finishing is the hard part. The consistency. Showing up to every hole, finishing out based on the actual rules of the game, not taking mulligans, not picking up a two-footer and saying “That’s good.” (Or even missing a two-footer and re-putting and giving yourself the make.) Relieving yourself of the exacting burden of the reality of the game is the easy way to play, but it doesn’t make you a better golfer. I think that’s true of so many things we do as humans: programming, design, writing, etc. If you want to be “good” at what you do, do the hard, little things that others gloss over. Do them consistently and well, with discipline and perseverance. If you do, then I’d say you’re “good” at what you do because “good” isn’t a number. It’s quality. A disposition. A way of being.

blog.jim-nielsen.com

Some much needed art that does exactly what it says on the tin. https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2026/03/chris-perani-macro-photography-insects-wings/

Xylocopa latipes wing. All images © Chris Perani, shared with permission # Extreme Macro Photos of Insect Wings by Chris Perani Layer Thousands of Images March 16, 2026 ArtNaturePhotography Kate Mothes * Share * Email __Bookmark For Chris Perani, the most diminutive details—the kind that are virtually impossible to see with the naked eye—are an endless source of wonder. His ongoing series, _Wings_ , focuses on the prismatic effect of insects’ anatomy in what he describes as “extreme macro.” The images reveal details we’d otherwise only be able to see clearly beneath a microscope, and a meticulous process illuminates undulating, scaled surfaces that resemble chromatic pixels, stained glass, or even beadwork. Perani uses special lenses that magnify objects up to 10 times, but he also takes up to 2,000 carefully measured shots of each specimen. He then digitally stacks them to achieve incredible clarity and dimension. Each high-resolution image is captured at 10-micron intervals—a distance shorter than the width of a human hair—so precision is paramount. Bee The organic architecture of bees’ wings, plus those of wasps, damselflies, beetles, and butterflies, illustrates the precision of their anatomy and the way a prism of hues is produced by both pigmentation and structural color, like iridescence. “With many of these insects, light completely changes the result,” Perani says. “Bees, for example, often have wings that appear dark and colorless at first glance. But when light hits them at exactly the right angle, thin-film interference suddenly reveals remarkable colors, textures, and intricate structures across the wing’s surface, turning what first appears dark into a delicate fabric of light and structure.” See more on Perani’s Instagram. Male Valanga nigricornis Madagascan sunset moth Jeweled flower mantis Papilio ulysses Xylocopa latipes Damselfly **Do stories and artists like this matter to you?** Become a Colossal Member now, and support independent arts publishing. * Hide advertising * Save your favorite articles * Get 15% off in the Colossal Shop * Receive members-only newsletter * Give 1% for art supplies in K-12 classrooms ### Join us today! $7/month $75/year Explore membership options Previous article Next article

thisiscolossal.com