writing an authoritative explainer is the explore-exploit dilemma in IRL.

I'm naturally biased toward "explore", which is why I take the assignment in the first place.

I'm doing it for an outlet with a reputation for authoritative-ness, so I need to bias extra toward "explore" to deliver on that (not hard, our intrinsic motivations are aligned on this).

But my actual word rate and assigned length--the "exploit" part--is in direct opposition. If I optimized for that (i.e., aimed for a decent ROI on the assignment), I'd do 30 mins of Googling, talk to one expert, shit it out and call it a day.

Why do I take these assignments?!?? It's just too intrinsically motivating. I'm too curious and it's too fun to be "paid" (pennies for my time, ultimately, if I'm lucky) in order to learn something important and convey it succinctly and authoritatively as public-service journalism.

But in order to do a good job (and have a good time at it) I'm basically just going right into the red and (economically speaking) literally wasting my time and setting money on fire.

sigh. welp, back to it.