5,510 karma · joined December 11, 2023
2) Apple committed to 10 years of lightning support to weather the backlash from dropping 30-pin
USB-C on iPhone was going to happen regardless of the EU.
Actually of course yes, every capacitive touchscreen has basic hover capabilities in some form, it’s just a fairly narrow range (a few mm at most) and not exposed as a public API.
This feels like the LLM-enabled version of this behavior (except that in the former case, students will quickly realize that what they’re doing is pointless and ask a peer or teacher for help; whereas maybe the LLM is a little too good at hijacking that and making its user feel like things are still on track).
The most important thing to teach is how to build an internal model of what is happening, identify which assumptions in your model are most likely to be faulty/improperly captured by the model, what experiments to carry out to test those assumptions…
In essence, what we call an “engineering mindset” and what good education should strive to teach.
That’s kind of a weird speculation to make about creative people and their processes.
If Caravaggio had had a computer with Photoshop, if Eintein had had a computer with Matlab, would they have been more productive? Is it a question that even makes sense?
In that view, it doesn't matter whether you use it for placeholder or final assets. You paying your ChatGPT membership makes you complicit with the exploitation of that human creative output, and use of resources.
you likely know this already, but just in case - or for anyone reading this and getting ideas - fading over time due to sun exposure will be a real issue, so make sure to have scans of your favorite images…
Modern society, and the push to optimize every single thing that can be measured, in a nutshell.
You can cheat on tests, shoplift in stores, and pretty much nothing will happen to you.
When teachers can’t give failing grades to students or kick them out of their class for blatantly breaking the rules, this is what happens.
Meanwhile I took a language exam in Japan last weekend where a bunch of people got kicked out of the room - instant fail - for using their phone during the break when it was expressly disallowed (we had to put it in a sealed envelope that we couldn’t open until the exam was over, break included). Given reports I’ve heard, I suspect at least a single digit percent of test takers failed the test this session simply for breaking this rule.
From the test takers who got kicked out of the room and tried to negotiate (unsuccessfully) with the proctors, it was instantly obvious who came from cultures where the consequences of rules are carried out and who didn’t.
> every photon exists, from its point of view, for only infinitely small amount of time
Why is that amount “infinitely small” and not 0 since photons travel exactly at the speed of light?
His statement “prior to today never heard much about [Steve Lemay]” leads me to think he doesn’t have intimate access to anyone deeply familiar with design decisions, because anyone who’s spent a little bit of time behind closed doors in that space absolutely knows who Lemay is.
But then he quotes sources who are supposedly “in a position to know the choices”, which would imply they are quite embedded in the design org…
Maybe it’s all voluntary misdirection on his behalf.
Software craftsmanship at large scale is dead, so we shouldn’t expect to see that make a return any time soon.
The last few decades of free market experimentation and evolution have revealed the playbook to maximize engagement+money: sell software as subscriptions, use every means possible (push notifications, full screen ads, etc) to monopolize the user’s attention, prevent users from importing/exporting data to keep them trapped in your walled off app…
In this kind of environment, the little touches and consideration that gave software its “wow” factor are a liability, since everything gets redesigned every 18 months anyway to keep up with the new trends and what A/B testing reveals.
The Apple of the 2000s could offer genuinely delightful experiences because software was in such a different, immature state back then and thoughtful design could be a meaningful differentiator. Similar to how the most successful+profitable games nowadays are filled with loot boxes and dark patterns, and have nothing to do with the masterpieces from a few decades ago.
Indie developers can still make delightful things that treat the customers’ wallet+time+attention with respect (thank God), but those will never make billions and billions the way Fortnite or TikTok or ads in the Settings app can.
"Less probable" is the understatement of the century. This rumor came out of nowhere, and it should instantly set off the BS-meter of anyone familiar with how Apple is run.
The most likely explanation for it is that Tony felt like a little boost to his profile couldn't hurt whatever his next step might be, and so he made a few phone calls to get this rumor ball rolling so that his name is in the news for a bit (hey, it worked!).
It’d be fun, as a side project, to build a pixel perfect replica of it (along with the core apps that make it useful) that runs on a modern Linux kernel and preserve it in amber forever.
When I go back to my rural hometown, the people working the earth, growing the food, and managing the livestock don’t look as… prim.
Man people keep count of this stuff?! Maybe I should too, it does make flexing easier.
We’ve went from conceiving of software as tools - constructs that enhance and amplify their user’s skills and capabilities - to magic boxes that should aim to do everything with just one button (and maybe even that is one action too many).
This shift in thinking is visible in how junior designers and product managers are trained and incentivized to think about their work. “Anticipating the user’s intent”, “providing a magical experience”, “making the simplest, most beautiful and intuitive product” - all things that are so routine parlance now that they sound trite, but that would make any software designer from the 80s/90s catatonic because of how orthogonal they are to good tool design.
To caricature a bit, the industry went from being run by people designing heavy machinery to people designing Disneyland rides. Disneyland rides are great and have their place, but you probably don’t want your tractor to be designed like one.
The real news is that he is being replaced with Steve Lemay, one of the most OG interaction designers at Apple.
Not someone with a marketing or packaging design background; someone who sweats over pixels and knows what "discoverability" and "affordance" and "feedback" and all those dirty human factors words mean.
Could you please elaborate with concrete examples on how aeronautics in the 20th century felt like having a fictional friend in a text file for the token predictor?
And now we've made a complete 180 and people are getting excited about proprietary black boxes and "vibe engineering" where you have to pretend like the computer is some amnesic schizophrenic being that you have to coerce into maybe doing your work for you, but you're never really sure whether it's working or not because who wants to read 8000 line code diffs every time you ask them to change something. And never mind if your feedback loops are multiple minutes long because you're waiting on some agent to execute some complex network+GPU bound workflow.
That’s how these tools encourage you to use them. If the tool crumbles under its own usage modalities, that’s because it’s poorly designed, not the user’s fault.
When you’re an exec in charge of a whole area, the buck stops with you and, to quote Steve Jobs - the reasons stop mattering.
As a user I don’t care about having “extraordinary insight into the development process”. All I know is you’re vice president of interface design and the interfaces are getting worse over time.
Their background is in marketing/packaging/retail design, and they were at Kate Spade before Apple.
https://a-g-i.org/user/alaindye/
It’s not too much of a stretch to imagine why someone from that world would prioritize things looking good in promotional photos/videos, and not care too much about human factors and fundamentals of interaction design.
And sometimes, the exact opposite happens.