Concept seems fun, and I'm expecting we'll see a bunch of those in the next few weeks/months. UX of that specific page seems broken, however, as the container for the explanation of each "function" doesn't scroll along with the rest of the content (stays stuck at the top) and makes it impossible to see.
I'm not intimately familiar with the UI/UX principles behind Liquid Glass so I could be wrong, but the main difference I see here is that in the second screenshot, on the Reeder app on the left, the "floating" section is used for emphasis on the main content area (right hand side), while in the Finder screenshot on the right, it's the navigation menu on the left that is floating, and brings unneeded emphasis to itself.
Looking at it for 30s, I still don't understand what Apple was trying to do. What am I supposed to believe happens to the table as it goes under that floating menu? It clearly doesn't seem to continue all the way to the left edge of the window. Why not? If not, why bother with that whole floating menu concept if the underlying content arbitrarily stops at the menu?
The most surprising part to me is how people keep calling that nonsense "skeuomorphic" when it doesn't replicate any kind of physical intuition known to mankind. It's just made up physics that looks dumb.
So instead you get a sophomoric meta-ending that has absolutely no originality and shits on decades of storytelling? The ending is trash and an insult to the fans' intelligence because the author can't accept he's "just" writing adventure fiction, as if that's beneath him and instead needs to make some philosophical point about the nature of aging, thereby completely stepping out of his skill set. Go read Proust, Ron Gilbert, and leave that silly ambition to rest.
Looking at it from a slightly different angle, one I find most illuminating, removing "friction" is like removing "difficulty" from a game, and "friction free" as an ideal is like "cheat codes from the start" as an ideal. It's making a game where there's a single button that says "press here to win." The goal isn't the remove "friction", it's the remove a specific type of valueless friction, to replace it with valuable friction.
You can't be unaware of the existence of the field of accessibility in design? It's literally one of the trendiest things in design, probably trendy enough for you to specialize in it entirely if you wanted to.
If it was designed, it was designed by a designer. That that designer also happened to play other roles, or that it's a CLI and not a GUI is immaterial. You're clearly confused about what designers do and who they are.
Again, this is lazy, topsy-turvy thinking. It's conjuring up a purely academic definition of utopia as a corpus of texts and saying that since they're all boring, that must mean utopia is by definition boring. The point of utopian thinking is precisely to identify those failure modes as such with respect to the utopian project. Thus, if something is "tedious", it can only ever be a failed attempt at utopia.
For the specific case of Banks, Yudkowsky has some interesting ideas about why it fails. [0]
A24 is at the same stage of the hype curve Netflix was with House of Cards. They're going to commoditize their own aesthetic, expand until quality is mediocre at best, rinse and repeat.
What's most puzzling to me is how at this point a larger part of SV hasn't distanced itself with All-in Podcast-adjacent people a lot more vocally. I think the lasting power of that region hinges on some important voices doing that sooner rather than later, because they're actively damaging the whole brand of SV at this point.
Being French and having traveled in every corner of the country for ~30 years, never once have I heard of that, much less actually traveled with my own linen. Sounds like it's simply some thinly veiled extra charge for cleaning?
If you've done any sort of optimization / operations research, you know that most things can (sometimes unhelpfully) be rephrased in terms of an optimization problem. If "success" (whatever that means) is to be seen that way, then (some) successful people probably do both: set constraints to reduce the search space, and chase goals within that space (optimization). You can relax some constraints but then you need to be better at optimizing fast, or willing to accept other goals / winning conditions (get rich by being a criminal).
Oh great, can't wait for our AI overlords to control us more! That's definitely compatible with a "utopian society"*.
Funnily enough, I still think some of the most interesting semi-recent writing on utopia was done ~15 years ago by... Eliezer Yudkowsky. You might be interested in the article on "Amputation of Destiny."
Having tinnitus for a couple decades at this point, I can tell you for a fact "absolute silence" is definitely a very clear memory for me. I would lie in my bed before sleep, and enjoying the experience of complete silence was almost part of my go-to-sleep routine. I'm quite surprised people in this thread seem to assume everyone always has some low-level hiss. I certainly didn't.
Beyond Wikipedia, more generally, it doesn't account for consumer surplus in any exchange, which should be the only quantity that matters if we were to build a metric that means something. Unfortunately, that's much easier said than done.
Correct. And those are the wordmarks I'm not talking about. Let me try it differently: Would you say typeface choice plays no functional role in the branding of companies that do rely on pre-designed typefaces? Vignelli's work would look the same with different fonts? No, you know that's just absurd. Or are we just equivocating on "functional" here? If we're talking about letter forms, certainly looking a certain way is part of their function? And I know you know more than the average guy about type design, which is precisely why I'm confused as to why you would go for that seemingly meta-contrarian take.
Take any famous wordmark and replace it with a different typeface. You have a different wordmark. Typefaces aren't only used in body text. If you've read Bringhurst and are a typeface nerd, you should know you're arguing in bad faith. (Also generally like your comments, fyi, but you should know not to chime in that way about that topic on HN where the average attitude to anything design related is a mix of contempt and ignorance).
Some people around here think Elon Musk is good at public speaking. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the opinions of nerds on topics like charisma.