<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Technology - Trotzendorff</title>
	<atom:link href="https://trotzendorff.de/tag/technology/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://trotzendorff.de</link>
	<description>Running over sticks and stones</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 09:02:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.1</generator>

 
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">72357874</site>	<item>
		<title>Why AI Keeps »Forgetting« Your Work—and How to Deal With It</title>
		<link>https://trotzendorff.de/running/why-ai-keeps-forgetting-your-work-and-how-to-deal-with-it/</link>
					<comments>https://trotzendorff.de/running/why-ai-keeps-forgetting-your-work-and-how-to-deal-with-it/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Trotzendorff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 08:58:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Coffee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Running]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Collaboration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://trotzendorff.de/?p=54007</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Gone. Just gone. Two weeks of work. Gone to waste? Two minutes earlier I had been perfectly happy. The new feature worked on the first try. Exactly the way I’d described it. I clicked through the application one more time, just out of habit, and suddenly stopped. Two features that had been working flawlessly for weeks were gone. Not broken. Just gone. So I started digging: comparing files, tracing changes, restoring older versions from backups. Probably half an hour of extra work. It wasn’t the first time this had happened. And every time I found myself asking the same question: How can an AI delete something it should already know exists? The answer is surprisingly mundane. It also says a lot about what working with tools like ChatGPT or Claude is actually like. Most people probably imagine an AI working on a software project the way another developer would. It knows the current state of the code, adds new features, suggests improvements. It remembers what already exists, what decisions have been made, which mistakes have &#8230;]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://trotzendorff.de/running/why-ai-keeps-forgetting-your-work-and-how-to-deal-with-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">54007</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>We Are Entering the Age of Plausibility Overload</title>
		<link>https://trotzendorff.de/psychology/we-are-entering-the-age-of-plausibility-overload/</link>
					<comments>https://trotzendorff.de/psychology/we-are-entering-the-age-of-plausibility-overload/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Trotzendorff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 10:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plausibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://trotzendorff.de/?p=53979</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[We all knew AI would eventually generate fake citations. That was almost the boring part. The more interesting question is why so many of them passed through systems designed to evaluate knowledge in the first place. A recent study audited 111 million references across 2.5 million papers and preprints. Its estimate: nearly 147,000 hallucinated citations entered scientific literature in 2025 alone, many surviving peer review and later appearing in published journal articles. The numbers are striking. But that was not the part that stayed with me. The Weak Point What stayed with me was how little friction a plausible-looking citation can encounter once a system is already operating near capacity. Science has always depended partly on trust. Organizations do, too. Peer reviewers are overloaded, researchers publish under pressure, managers skim presentations between meetings. Very few people can independently verify the assumptions behind a market forecast, an AI roadmap or a strategy paper. So credibility often gets assessed indirectly: institutional reputation, internal alignment, familiar language, confidence. Large language models fit remarkably well into environments like these. &#8230;]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://trotzendorff.de/psychology/we-are-entering-the-age-of-plausibility-overload/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">53979</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Most Dangerous Thing About AI Might Be How Much Effort It Still Feels Like</title>
		<link>https://trotzendorff.de/psychology/the-most-dangerous-thing-about-ai-might-be-how-much-effort-it-still-feels-like/</link>
					<comments>https://trotzendorff.de/psychology/the-most-dangerous-thing-about-ai-might-be-how-much-effort-it-still-feels-like/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Trotzendorff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 09:31:43 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Mental Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Work]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://trotzendorff.de/?p=53965</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The first time I spent an entire afternoon working with AI, I closed my laptop with that strangely satisfying feeling of having done hard intellectual work. My brain felt cooked. I had compared models, refined prompts, rewritten outputs, tested workflows, chased better phrasing, discarded entire approaches. It felt intense. Dense. Productive. But later that evening, an uncomfortable thought appeared. What exactly had I been working so hard on? Not the actual text, at least not in the way I used to. Not the slow process of building an argument sentence by sentence, wrestling vague intuitions into something coherent, discovering what I actually think while writing. A large part of the effort had moved elsewhere. Into steering the machine. Recently I came across a clip of Cleo Abram talking about »time under tension« in weightlifting as a metaphor for intellectual growth. Her point was simple and powerful: muscles grow under resistance, and maybe thinking works the same way. Writing, editing, struggling with ideas, staying inside the tension of not yet knowing where a thought leads. That &#8230;]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://trotzendorff.de/psychology/the-most-dangerous-thing-about-ai-might-be-how-much-effort-it-still-feels-like/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">53965</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>How I Ended Up Next to John Irving</title>
		<link>https://trotzendorff.de/running/how-i-ended-up-next-to-john-irving/</link>
					<comments>https://trotzendorff.de/running/how-i-ended-up-next-to-john-irving/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Trotzendorff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 09:46:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Running]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Literature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://trotzendorff.de/?p=53957</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A few years ago, I contributed an essay to a book about running. It was called Die Philosophie des Laufens (The Philosophie of Running) and published by Mairisch, a small independent press with excellent taste and the kind of literary courage that larger houses often like to claim for themselves. In January, Mairisch got in touch with me about something unexpected. Diogenes — one of the most established and respected publishers in the German-speaking world — wanted to include my essay in an anthology. The book would be called Lauf und davon — Geschichten vom Jogging (Run and Away — Stories of Jogging). Of course I said yes. It felt like one of those decisions you make instantly, happily, almost casually, without fully understanding what is actually happening. The Experience of Being Alive in a Running Body Only today did it really land. My contributor’s copy arrived in the mail, and suddenly the whole thing became real in the most physical, unmistakable way. There it was: my name, my text — Im Takt, aus dem &#8230;]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://trotzendorff.de/running/how-i-ended-up-next-to-john-irving/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">53957</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>When Silence Becomes Signal</title>
		<link>https://trotzendorff.de/psychology/when-silence-becomes-signal/</link>
					<comments>https://trotzendorff.de/psychology/when-silence-becomes-signal/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Trotzendorff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2026 11:19:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Instagram]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://trotzendorff.de/?p=53876</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A few weeks ago, I posted on LinkedIn that my current role is coming to an end and that I’m exploring what’s next. The response was generous. Messages. Comments. Encouragement. The kind of digital warmth that makes you believe platforms can still be relational spaces. And then, as always, the curve flattened. Which is normal. Attention spikes and fades. That’s how feeds work. But I noticed something subtle: I began to hesitate before opening LinkedIn. Not because I feared missing something. Because I feared there would be nothing. That small pause — that fraction of a second before tapping the icon — felt strangely revealing. It was weird. The Fear of Non-Response We’ve become fluent in the language of FOMO — the fear of missing out. The concept was formally defined by Andrew K. Przybylski and colleagues as »a pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent«. But what I felt was almost the opposite. It was the fear of non-response. What if no one commented today? What if &#8230;]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://trotzendorff.de/psychology/when-silence-becomes-signal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">53876</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Not AI Is the Threat — People Are</title>
		<link>https://trotzendorff.de/psychology/not-ai-is-the-threat-people-are/</link>
					<comments>https://trotzendorff.de/psychology/not-ai-is-the-threat-people-are/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Trotzendorff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 08:02:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Humanity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://trotzendorff.de/?p=53829</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[»I tend to think that most fears about A.I. are best understood as fears about capitalism.« When I read that line from Ted Chiang recently, it landed because it pulls the mask off the monster. A lot of what we call »fear of AI« is really fear of incentives: who funds the systems, who deploys them, who benefits when they scale, and who gets hurt when they fail. Still, I don’t think »capitalism« is the final layer of the explanation. Capitalism doesn’t appear out of nowhere like weather. It’s a set of rules, norms, and defaults people agree on (or tolerate) and then keep reinforcing. Depending on how those rules are written and enforced, you get very different outcomes: extractive versions that squeeze people, and constructive versions that build real value. Either way, it’s a human project. So if we keep pushing the question back — who shaped the incentives, who chose the trade-offs, who decided what counts as »efficient« — we end up at the same place: people. That framing matters because we talk &#8230;]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://trotzendorff.de/psychology/not-ai-is-the-threat-people-are/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">53829</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do the Homework Before the Hype</title>
		<link>https://trotzendorff.de/running/do-the-homework-before-the-hype/</link>
					<comments>https://trotzendorff.de/running/do-the-homework-before-the-hype/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Trotzendorff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2026 09:50:03 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Running]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Algorithms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gadgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://trotzendorff.de/?p=53803</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[There’s something mildly absurd about modern running tech. Every brand talks about AI now. Smart coaching, predictive training plans, readiness scores, recovery scores, stress scores, you name it. My watch apparently knows my future. It just doesn’t know what happened five minutes ago. Take heart rate. I run with a chest strap or the wrist sensor, doesn’t matter. Every now and then the data goes completely off the rails. Suddenly my pulse jumps to 190 while I’m jogging easy, stays there for three minutes, then drops back like nothing happened. No hill, no sprint, no drama. Just noise. Same with GPS. Clean route along the river, then one glitch and the track cuts straight through buildings like I teleported. The device shrugs and saves it as truth. I can live with imperfect sensors. Sweat, movement, bad satellite reception — physics is messy. What I don’t get is why all that so-called intelligence doesn’t clean up the mess afterwards. Because statistically speaking, this is the easy part. Outliers are not some exotic phenomenon. They’re textbook stuff. &#8230;]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://trotzendorff.de/running/do-the-homework-before-the-hype/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">53803</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>«Running is about finding joy in the journey»</title>
		<link>https://trotzendorff.de/running/running-is-about-finding-joy-in-the-journey/</link>
					<comments>https://trotzendorff.de/running/running-is-about-finding-joy-in-the-journey/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Trotzendorff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2023 16:50:06 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Running]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gadgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trail running]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trends]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://trotzendorff.de/?p=39031</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In the world of running, trends come and go, but some have the power to shape the future of the sport. From the growing focus on recovery and self-care to the controversial debate around trail running and mega events, there is no shortage of topics to explore. In this interview with ChatGPT*, a cutting-edge AI language model, we delve into the latest trends and hot-button issues in running, and discuss the potential impact of technology on performance optimization. But beyond the data and analytics, we also touch on a more fundamental question: what does it mean to find joy in running, and how can we strike a balance between the pursuit of excellence and the intrinsic value of the sport? Join us on this thought-provoking journey into the heart of running, and discover what the future might hold for this enduring passion. Trotzendorff: Hey, can we do an interview? ChatGPT: Hello! Of course, I’d be happy to do an interview with you. What kind of interview are you interested in? I’d love to talk to &#8230;]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://trotzendorff.de/running/running-is-about-finding-joy-in-the-journey/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">39031</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Three running gadgets and technologies that cought my attention lately</title>
		<link>https://trotzendorff.de/running/three-running-gadgets-and-technologies-that-cought-my-attention-lately/</link>
					<comments>https://trotzendorff.de/running/three-running-gadgets-and-technologies-that-cought-my-attention-lately/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Trotzendorff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2022 16:07:50 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Running]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gadgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motesque]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Omorpho]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Whoop]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://trotzendorff.de/?p=25036</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[While it’s true you don’t need any tech or gadgets to run, there are a lot of them out there that are fun to use or can provide you with data, motivating insights or that can enrich your workout. I’ve come across three gadgets and new technologies lately that caught my attention — and that I’d like to briefly introduce to you. Whoop 4.0 Description: the Whoop 4.0 is a fitness tracker that collects data about recovery, strain and sleep performance. «From these figures, it offers advice on how you should balance your training and rest to achieve peak athletic performance,» Harry Bullmore writes on LiveScience. What sounds like any other fitness tracker on the market, has its USPs: the band itself is screenless, IP68 dustproof and water-resistant at depths of up to 10 meters for two hours. The lack of GPS might be another con for some of us, but on the data sight the Whoop is showing off, as «it is the multi-dimensional approach to calculating recovery that is the jewel in the &#8230;]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://trotzendorff.de/running/three-running-gadgets-and-technologies-that-cought-my-attention-lately/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">25036</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>«I made a horrible choice»: How a blogger discovered a runner cheating in a half-marathon</title>
		<link>https://trotzendorff.de/running/i-made-a-horrible-choice-how-a-blogger-discovered-a-runner-cheating-in-a-half-marathon/</link>
					<comments>https://trotzendorff.de/running/i-made-a-horrible-choice-how-a-blogger-discovered-a-runner-cheating-in-a-half-marathon/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Trotzendorff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2022 08:37:43 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Running]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Half Marathon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Races]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Strava]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://trotzendorff.de/?p=23773</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[«I think most people aren’t aware of how much cheating goes on in marathons.» Were you aware? I wasn’t. But Derek Murphy, an independent marathon investigator, should know. He recently took particular care to examine the case of Jane Seo, a food and fitness writer in New York City. She finished second among the women in Sunday’s Fort Lauderdale Half Marathon in 1 hour and 21 minutes, a blazing 6:15 mile. But she cheated. As an initial indication Derek found out, that Seo’s pace during the first 10 kilometers was 7:09 per mile, but during the last 11.08 kilometers, it increased tremendously to 5:25 per mile. He then turned to her account on Strava to have a closer look at certain details. And last but not least he observed in official post-race photos that a fitness tracking watch was wrapped around Seo’s wrist, displaying close to the proper time, but the incorrect mileage. Seo had skipped about a mile and a half of the race and rode her bike along the course later in the &#8230;]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://trotzendorff.de/running/i-made-a-horrible-choice-how-a-blogger-discovered-a-runner-cheating-in-a-half-marathon/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">23773</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
