AI, software & automation | Connecting companies, founders & individuals with the right teams | Research, sourcing & digital problem-solving | DMs open
Joined December 2025
- Tweets487
- Following45
- Followers45
- Likes9
Pinned Tweet
Don’t DM me saying “I need AI.” Tell me the problem.
I work with companies, founders and individuals who need something built, automated, researched, sourced, analyzed or organized.
If it’s a larger technical project, I help clarify what actually needs to be built and connect you with the right engineering team.
If it’s research-heavy work, I can often handle it directly.
AI systems, automation, software, digital products, business research, sourcing and much more.
Have a problem, project or idea you’re not sure how to move forward with? Reply or DM me.
Before you pay for an AI agent, tell me what your team is still doing manually.
Not “we need automation.” The actual task.
Something like: “Every order comes by email, and someone has to enter it into three different systems.”
I’ll pick a few replies and explain how I’d approach fixing them.
And if AI is overkill, I’ll say so.
Know a business owner who’s tired of doing the same task every week? Send this their way.
Digital Systems Lab | AI, Software & Business retweeted
🚨 URGENT @WhatsApp @Meta
I believe someone has taken over my WhatsApp account. Verification codes go to an iPhone 15 Pro Max I’ve NEVER owned.
My phone number and SIM are still with me and work normally. I have no idea how someone could access my WhatsApp without me receiving or sharing any verification code.
If anyone can contact WhatsApp employees or human support directly, PLEASE alert them and DM me!
🚨 URGENT @WhatsApp @Meta
I believe someone has taken over my WhatsApp account. Verification codes go to an iPhone 15 Pro Max I’ve NEVER owned.
My phone number and SIM are still with me and work normally. I have no idea how someone could access my WhatsApp without me receiving or sharing any verification code.
If anyone can contact WhatsApp employees or human support directly, PLEASE alert them and DM me!
I think we’ll see growing demand for people who can combine technical skills with business understanding. Companies will increasingly value those who can solve real problems, not just use the latest tools.
AI is making creativity more valuable than ever before and..
we have 3 years of data to prove it.
Introducing the Creative Intelligence 2026 report from @contralabs.
Full report: c87.to/creative-intelligence…
Digital Systems Lab | AI, Software & Business retweeted
If you have had a genuine dispute with @Topstep @MichaelPatak and were told the decision was final, read this.
Now that Part 1 has established the underlying dispute, Part 2 shows what happened after I moved beyond Topstep’s internal process.
This part is arriving a little later than originally planned. I wanted the documents organized clearly because the sequence matters.
By this stage, I had already initiated JAMS consumer arbitration and submitted a consumer complaint to the Illinois Attorney General.
Counsel representing Topstep then contacted me regarding those matters.
Topstep subsequently stated in writing:
“We are willing to discuss a potential resolution of your claims…”
But before any settlement proposal would even be considered, Topstep required me to agree to confidentiality covering settlement communications, including restrictions on publishing or sharing them publicly.
I did not accept the proposed confidentiality agreement.
Topstep later declared its confidentiality position final and stated the choice explicitly:
Agree to the confidentiality agreement and it would be willing to discuss a potential settlement, or decline and there would be no settlement discussions and the arbitration would proceed.
I declined.
The JAMS arbitration continued.
The four attached screenshots document that sequence directly:
Counsel enters after the formal proceedings are already pending.
Topstep expresses willingness to discuss a potential resolution.
Confidentiality is made a condition of that settlement route.
I reject the proposed terms and continue with the formal proceedings.
The proposed confidentiality arrangement was never accepted by me.
And this is why the distinction between an internal company decision and a formal dispute process matters.
A willingness to discuss settlement is not an admission of liability and does not establish who will ultimately prevail.
But an internal “final decision” does not necessarily mean every available avenue is finished.
I am also posting two additional screenshots in the replies below showing Topstep’s earlier position: the refusal of further refunds and its BBB response stating that the prior decision would not be reopened or overridden.
Put together, the documented sequence is worth understanding:
Internal refusal → BBB refusal → formal proceedings → willingness to discuss a potential resolution subject to confidentiality.
If you have a genuine dispute with Topstep and assumed there was nothing you could do after being told “no,” do not automatically assume that.
Preserve your records. Read the agreement governing your account. Understand what formal dispute-resolution procedures may be available.
If you want to know how I personally initiated JAMS consumer arbitration, reply below. I can explain the steps and point you to the resources I used.
I am not an attorney, I am not a licensed legal representative, and this is not legal advice. I can only explain my own experience and the process I personally followed.
There is more documented material in this timeline. Additional parts will follow over the coming days.
@Topstep @MichaelPatak
Digital Systems Lab | AI, Software & Business retweeted
Don’t DM me saying “I need AI.” Tell me the problem.
I work with companies, founders and individuals who need something built, automated, researched, sourced, analyzed or organized.
If it’s a larger technical project, I help clarify what actually needs to be built and connect you with the right engineering team.
If it’s research-heavy work, I can often handle it directly.
AI systems, automation, software, digital products, business research, sourcing and much more.
Have a problem, project or idea you’re not sure how to move forward with? Reply or DM me.
Most businesses don’t have an “AI problem.” They have a process that wastes time, money or attention.
Fix the process first. Then decide whether the answer is AI, automation, software, research, or simply a better workflow.
What’s one process in your business you’d kill tomorrow if you could?
Don’t DM me saying “I need AI.” Tell me the problem.
I work with companies, founders and individuals who need something built, automated, researched, sourced, analyzed or organized.
If it’s a larger technical project, I help clarify what actually needs to be built and connect you with the right engineering team.
If it’s research-heavy work, I can often handle it directly.
AI systems, automation, software, digital products, business research, sourcing and much more.
Have a problem, project or idea you’re not sure how to move forward with? Reply or DM me.
A few examples of what this can include:
Internal AI tools, AI agents, chatbots, workflow automation, custom software, SaaS, web/mobile products, cloud and data tools, company and market research, competitor analysis, sourcing, vendor comparisons, opportunity research, documentation, evidence organization and other remote knowledge work.
If you’re not sure where your need fits, just describe the problem.
Digital Systems Lab | AI, Software & Business retweeted
Europe would be the real stress test for Cybercab.
Dense cities, old street layouts, cyclists, roundabouts, and a patchwork of national regulations are a very different environment from Austin.
If it works reliably there, that says a lot more than another easy expansion market. Which European city should be first?
Digital Systems Lab | AI, Software & Business retweeted
$7.5k on Day 1 and @Topstep @MichaelPatak basically said
“alright, go home” 😂
Different side of Topstep, but I’ve been dealing with a very different story over there. Mine ended up in JAMS arbitration:
xitter.cf/djosmith111/status/209…
If you have had a genuine dispute with @Topstep @MichaelPatak and were told the decision was final, read this.
Now that Part 1 has established the underlying dispute, Part 2 shows what happened after I moved beyond Topstep’s internal process.
This part is arriving a little later than originally planned. I wanted the documents organized clearly because the sequence matters.
By this stage, I had already initiated JAMS consumer arbitration and submitted a consumer complaint to the Illinois Attorney General.
Counsel representing Topstep then contacted me regarding those matters.
Topstep subsequently stated in writing:
“We are willing to discuss a potential resolution of your claims…”
But before any settlement proposal would even be considered, Topstep required me to agree to confidentiality covering settlement communications, including restrictions on publishing or sharing them publicly.
I did not accept the proposed confidentiality agreement.
Topstep later declared its confidentiality position final and stated the choice explicitly:
Agree to the confidentiality agreement and it would be willing to discuss a potential settlement, or decline and there would be no settlement discussions and the arbitration would proceed.
I declined.
The JAMS arbitration continued.
The four attached screenshots document that sequence directly:
Counsel enters after the formal proceedings are already pending.
Topstep expresses willingness to discuss a potential resolution.
Confidentiality is made a condition of that settlement route.
I reject the proposed terms and continue with the formal proceedings.
The proposed confidentiality arrangement was never accepted by me.
And this is why the distinction between an internal company decision and a formal dispute process matters.
A willingness to discuss settlement is not an admission of liability and does not establish who will ultimately prevail.
But an internal “final decision” does not necessarily mean every available avenue is finished.
I am also posting two additional screenshots in the replies below showing Topstep’s earlier position: the refusal of further refunds and its BBB response stating that the prior decision would not be reopened or overridden.
Put together, the documented sequence is worth understanding:
Internal refusal → BBB refusal → formal proceedings → willingness to discuss a potential resolution subject to confidentiality.
If you have a genuine dispute with Topstep and assumed there was nothing you could do after being told “no,” do not automatically assume that.
Preserve your records. Read the agreement governing your account. Understand what formal dispute-resolution procedures may be available.
If you want to know how I personally initiated JAMS consumer arbitration, reply below. I can explain the steps and point you to the resources I used.
I am not an attorney, I am not a licensed legal representative, and this is not legal advice. I can only explain my own experience and the process I personally followed.
There is more documented material in this timeline. Additional parts will follow over the coming days.
@Topstep @MichaelPatak
Digital Systems Lab | AI, Software & Business retweeted
Apple’s most interesting AI move may not be a model. It may be making serious local compute this small.
The Mac mini turns something that once looked like “workstation hardware” into a box you can put almost anywhere.
If local AI keeps improving, that form factor becomes much more important than it looks today.
Small machine. Much bigger strategic role.
@tim_cook @Apple
Apple’s most interesting AI move may not be a model. It may be making serious local compute this small.
The Mac mini turns something that once looked like “workstation hardware” into a box you can put almost anywhere.
If local AI keeps improving, that form factor becomes much more important than it looks today.
Small machine. Much bigger strategic role.
@tim_cook @Apple
Digital Systems Lab | AI, Software & Business retweeted
Agreed. No need to forge anything when the written record already tells the story. My documented dispute with @Topstep is now proceeding through JAMS consumer arbitration. @MichaelPatak
xitter.cf/djosmith111/status/209…
If you have had a genuine dispute with @Topstep @MichaelPatak and were told the decision was final, read this.
Now that Part 1 has established the underlying dispute, Part 2 shows what happened after I moved beyond Topstep’s internal process.
This part is arriving a little later than originally planned. I wanted the documents organized clearly because the sequence matters.
By this stage, I had already initiated JAMS consumer arbitration and submitted a consumer complaint to the Illinois Attorney General.
Counsel representing Topstep then contacted me regarding those matters.
Topstep subsequently stated in writing:
“We are willing to discuss a potential resolution of your claims…”
But before any settlement proposal would even be considered, Topstep required me to agree to confidentiality covering settlement communications, including restrictions on publishing or sharing them publicly.
I did not accept the proposed confidentiality agreement.
Topstep later declared its confidentiality position final and stated the choice explicitly:
Agree to the confidentiality agreement and it would be willing to discuss a potential settlement, or decline and there would be no settlement discussions and the arbitration would proceed.
I declined.
The JAMS arbitration continued.
The four attached screenshots document that sequence directly:
Counsel enters after the formal proceedings are already pending.
Topstep expresses willingness to discuss a potential resolution.
Confidentiality is made a condition of that settlement route.
I reject the proposed terms and continue with the formal proceedings.
The proposed confidentiality arrangement was never accepted by me.
And this is why the distinction between an internal company decision and a formal dispute process matters.
A willingness to discuss settlement is not an admission of liability and does not establish who will ultimately prevail.
But an internal “final decision” does not necessarily mean every available avenue is finished.
I am also posting two additional screenshots in the replies below showing Topstep’s earlier position: the refusal of further refunds and its BBB response stating that the prior decision would not be reopened or overridden.
Put together, the documented sequence is worth understanding:
Internal refusal → BBB refusal → formal proceedings → willingness to discuss a potential resolution subject to confidentiality.
If you have a genuine dispute with Topstep and assumed there was nothing you could do after being told “no,” do not automatically assume that.
Preserve your records. Read the agreement governing your account. Understand what formal dispute-resolution procedures may be available.
If you want to know how I personally initiated JAMS consumer arbitration, reply below. I can explain the steps and point you to the resources I used.
I am not an attorney, I am not a licensed legal representative, and this is not legal advice. I can only explain my own experience and the process I personally followed.
There is more documented material in this timeline. Additional parts will follow over the coming days.
@Topstep @MichaelPatak
Digital Systems Lab | AI, Software & Business retweeted
Some things get more interesting when you’re told not to look. My documented dispute with @Topstep is now in JAMS consumer arbitration, including what followed the internal “final” decision. @MichaelPatak
xitter.cf/djosmith111/status/209…
If you have had a genuine dispute with @Topstep @MichaelPatak and were told the decision was final, read this.
Now that Part 1 has established the underlying dispute, Part 2 shows what happened after I moved beyond Topstep’s internal process.
This part is arriving a little later than originally planned. I wanted the documents organized clearly because the sequence matters.
By this stage, I had already initiated JAMS consumer arbitration and submitted a consumer complaint to the Illinois Attorney General.
Counsel representing Topstep then contacted me regarding those matters.
Topstep subsequently stated in writing:
“We are willing to discuss a potential resolution of your claims…”
But before any settlement proposal would even be considered, Topstep required me to agree to confidentiality covering settlement communications, including restrictions on publishing or sharing them publicly.
I did not accept the proposed confidentiality agreement.
Topstep later declared its confidentiality position final and stated the choice explicitly:
Agree to the confidentiality agreement and it would be willing to discuss a potential settlement, or decline and there would be no settlement discussions and the arbitration would proceed.
I declined.
The JAMS arbitration continued.
The four attached screenshots document that sequence directly:
Counsel enters after the formal proceedings are already pending.
Topstep expresses willingness to discuss a potential resolution.
Confidentiality is made a condition of that settlement route.
I reject the proposed terms and continue with the formal proceedings.
The proposed confidentiality arrangement was never accepted by me.
And this is why the distinction between an internal company decision and a formal dispute process matters.
A willingness to discuss settlement is not an admission of liability and does not establish who will ultimately prevail.
But an internal “final decision” does not necessarily mean every available avenue is finished.
I am also posting two additional screenshots in the replies below showing Topstep’s earlier position: the refusal of further refunds and its BBB response stating that the prior decision would not be reopened or overridden.
Put together, the documented sequence is worth understanding:
Internal refusal → BBB refusal → formal proceedings → willingness to discuss a potential resolution subject to confidentiality.
If you have a genuine dispute with Topstep and assumed there was nothing you could do after being told “no,” do not automatically assume that.
Preserve your records. Read the agreement governing your account. Understand what formal dispute-resolution procedures may be available.
If you want to know how I personally initiated JAMS consumer arbitration, reply below. I can explain the steps and point you to the resources I used.
I am not an attorney, I am not a licensed legal representative, and this is not legal advice. I can only explain my own experience and the process I personally followed.
There is more documented material in this timeline. Additional parts will follow over the coming days.
@Topstep @MichaelPatak
Digital Systems Lab | AI, Software & Business retweeted
Congrats on getting funded 👏 Topstep can produce very different trader experiences. I’m documenting the other side of that spectrum: what happens when a dispute moves beyond support and into JAMS consumer arbitration.
xitter.cf/djosmith111/status/209…
If you have had a genuine dispute with @Topstep @MichaelPatak and were told the decision was final, read this.
Now that Part 1 has established the underlying dispute, Part 2 shows what happened after I moved beyond Topstep’s internal process.
This part is arriving a little later than originally planned. I wanted the documents organized clearly because the sequence matters.
By this stage, I had already initiated JAMS consumer arbitration and submitted a consumer complaint to the Illinois Attorney General.
Counsel representing Topstep then contacted me regarding those matters.
Topstep subsequently stated in writing:
“We are willing to discuss a potential resolution of your claims…”
But before any settlement proposal would even be considered, Topstep required me to agree to confidentiality covering settlement communications, including restrictions on publishing or sharing them publicly.
I did not accept the proposed confidentiality agreement.
Topstep later declared its confidentiality position final and stated the choice explicitly:
Agree to the confidentiality agreement and it would be willing to discuss a potential settlement, or decline and there would be no settlement discussions and the arbitration would proceed.
I declined.
The JAMS arbitration continued.
The four attached screenshots document that sequence directly:
Counsel enters after the formal proceedings are already pending.
Topstep expresses willingness to discuss a potential resolution.
Confidentiality is made a condition of that settlement route.
I reject the proposed terms and continue with the formal proceedings.
The proposed confidentiality arrangement was never accepted by me.
And this is why the distinction between an internal company decision and a formal dispute process matters.
A willingness to discuss settlement is not an admission of liability and does not establish who will ultimately prevail.
But an internal “final decision” does not necessarily mean every available avenue is finished.
I am also posting two additional screenshots in the replies below showing Topstep’s earlier position: the refusal of further refunds and its BBB response stating that the prior decision would not be reopened or overridden.
Put together, the documented sequence is worth understanding:
Internal refusal → BBB refusal → formal proceedings → willingness to discuss a potential resolution subject to confidentiality.
If you have a genuine dispute with Topstep and assumed there was nothing you could do after being told “no,” do not automatically assume that.
Preserve your records. Read the agreement governing your account. Understand what formal dispute-resolution procedures may be available.
If you want to know how I personally initiated JAMS consumer arbitration, reply below. I can explain the steps and point you to the resources I used.
I am not an attorney, I am not a licensed legal representative, and this is not legal advice. I can only explain my own experience and the process I personally followed.
There is more documented material in this timeline. Additional parts will follow over the coming days.
@Topstep @MichaelPatak
Digital Systems Lab | AI, Software & Business retweeted
The real AGI benchmark: can it make a printer work on the first try? 😂@elonmusk
Digital Systems Lab | AI, Software & Business retweeted
Mobile app before GTA6? Sure. A transparent dispute-escalation path before both would be even better. My @Topstep dispute is now in JAMS consumer arbitration. @MichaelPatak
xitter.cf/djosmith111/status/209…
If you have had a genuine dispute with @Topstep @MichaelPatak and were told the decision was final, read this.
Now that Part 1 has established the underlying dispute, Part 2 shows what happened after I moved beyond Topstep’s internal process.
This part is arriving a little later than originally planned. I wanted the documents organized clearly because the sequence matters.
By this stage, I had already initiated JAMS consumer arbitration and submitted a consumer complaint to the Illinois Attorney General.
Counsel representing Topstep then contacted me regarding those matters.
Topstep subsequently stated in writing:
“We are willing to discuss a potential resolution of your claims…”
But before any settlement proposal would even be considered, Topstep required me to agree to confidentiality covering settlement communications, including restrictions on publishing or sharing them publicly.
I did not accept the proposed confidentiality agreement.
Topstep later declared its confidentiality position final and stated the choice explicitly:
Agree to the confidentiality agreement and it would be willing to discuss a potential settlement, or decline and there would be no settlement discussions and the arbitration would proceed.
I declined.
The JAMS arbitration continued.
The four attached screenshots document that sequence directly:
Counsel enters after the formal proceedings are already pending.
Topstep expresses willingness to discuss a potential resolution.
Confidentiality is made a condition of that settlement route.
I reject the proposed terms and continue with the formal proceedings.
The proposed confidentiality arrangement was never accepted by me.
And this is why the distinction between an internal company decision and a formal dispute process matters.
A willingness to discuss settlement is not an admission of liability and does not establish who will ultimately prevail.
But an internal “final decision” does not necessarily mean every available avenue is finished.
I am also posting two additional screenshots in the replies below showing Topstep’s earlier position: the refusal of further refunds and its BBB response stating that the prior decision would not be reopened or overridden.
Put together, the documented sequence is worth understanding:
Internal refusal → BBB refusal → formal proceedings → willingness to discuss a potential resolution subject to confidentiality.
If you have a genuine dispute with Topstep and assumed there was nothing you could do after being told “no,” do not automatically assume that.
Preserve your records. Read the agreement governing your account. Understand what formal dispute-resolution procedures may be available.
If you want to know how I personally initiated JAMS consumer arbitration, reply below. I can explain the steps and point you to the resources I used.
I am not an attorney, I am not a licensed legal representative, and this is not legal advice. I can only explain my own experience and the process I personally followed.
There is more documented material in this timeline. Additional parts will follow over the coming days.
@Topstep @MichaelPatak
Digital Systems Lab | AI, Software & Business retweeted
Footprint charts are useful. So are the footprints left by how disputes are handled. My documented dispute with @Topstep is now in JAMS consumer arbitration. @MichaelPatak
xitter.cf/djosmith111/status/209…
If you have had a genuine dispute with @Topstep @MichaelPatak and were told the decision was final, read this.
Now that Part 1 has established the underlying dispute, Part 2 shows what happened after I moved beyond Topstep’s internal process.
This part is arriving a little later than originally planned. I wanted the documents organized clearly because the sequence matters.
By this stage, I had already initiated JAMS consumer arbitration and submitted a consumer complaint to the Illinois Attorney General.
Counsel representing Topstep then contacted me regarding those matters.
Topstep subsequently stated in writing:
“We are willing to discuss a potential resolution of your claims…”
But before any settlement proposal would even be considered, Topstep required me to agree to confidentiality covering settlement communications, including restrictions on publishing or sharing them publicly.
I did not accept the proposed confidentiality agreement.
Topstep later declared its confidentiality position final and stated the choice explicitly:
Agree to the confidentiality agreement and it would be willing to discuss a potential settlement, or decline and there would be no settlement discussions and the arbitration would proceed.
I declined.
The JAMS arbitration continued.
The four attached screenshots document that sequence directly:
Counsel enters after the formal proceedings are already pending.
Topstep expresses willingness to discuss a potential resolution.
Confidentiality is made a condition of that settlement route.
I reject the proposed terms and continue with the formal proceedings.
The proposed confidentiality arrangement was never accepted by me.
And this is why the distinction between an internal company decision and a formal dispute process matters.
A willingness to discuss settlement is not an admission of liability and does not establish who will ultimately prevail.
But an internal “final decision” does not necessarily mean every available avenue is finished.
I am also posting two additional screenshots in the replies below showing Topstep’s earlier position: the refusal of further refunds and its BBB response stating that the prior decision would not be reopened or overridden.
Put together, the documented sequence is worth understanding:
Internal refusal → BBB refusal → formal proceedings → willingness to discuss a potential resolution subject to confidentiality.
If you have a genuine dispute with Topstep and assumed there was nothing you could do after being told “no,” do not automatically assume that.
Preserve your records. Read the agreement governing your account. Understand what formal dispute-resolution procedures may be available.
If you want to know how I personally initiated JAMS consumer arbitration, reply below. I can explain the steps and point you to the resources I used.
I am not an attorney, I am not a licensed legal representative, and this is not legal advice. I can only explain my own experience and the process I personally followed.
There is more documented material in this timeline. Additional parts will follow over the coming days.
@Topstep @MichaelPatak