<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Agentic on It Might be Working</title><link>https://iguessthatworks.com/tags/agentic/</link><description>Recent content in Agentic on It Might be Working</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><copyright>Jeff Mayeur</copyright><lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0700</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://iguessthatworks.com/tags/agentic/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>POLP</title><link>https://iguessthatworks.com/posts/06-2026/polp/</link><pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0700</pubDate><guid>https://iguessthatworks.com/posts/06-2026/polp/</guid><description>
&lt;p&gt;One of the useless things I spend time on is &lt;a href="https://mtn-aqi.com/"&gt;mtn-aqi.com&lt;/a&gt; and a bunch of its siblings. I have a few air quality monitors and I occasionally like to play with the data they collect. The data itself isn’t incredibly accurate, the temperatures are off from the official record. The humidity data is worse, I’m not really sure how you get 104% Humidity (it’s actually the compensation math). The PM2.5 data is probably the most accurate. The PMS5003 sensor itself is pretty reliable, and surprisingly durable. For me that’s good enough, I’m not running a scientific study, nor looking to manage indoor air quality. Mostly I just want to know if it’s really bad more mostly good outdoor air quality; in other words should I open the windows or not.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>