Alexander Vilinskyy

The one divide ai increased is between nerds and jocks. The dynamic has been flipped at least 3 times in the last 20 years.

when I say "there's too much money invested into ai without really good use of them to increase productivity" people hear, that I criticize investors or industry. I actually think investors and industry are correct. It's the builders, who are building underwhelming stuff and therefore will screw the economics of everyone in the chain.

No one would replace photo of their child to "Award-Winning Photo". No matter how good you are "at taste", if the "personalisation" is low, you just can't beat what other person considers "theirs". The same thing in software, in the possibility of endless personalisation, any "decision" that distributor tastefully makes, can be a detractor against the software user and their retention.

I complain about "ai companies using travel as a demo too much" and then I actually try to book the hotel and average experience is: 1. Ads of unrelated thing, while I need to book a room 2. Endless popups 3. Requirement to login before seeing the price 4. Poorly designed date selector 5. Buttons are hidden behind the scroll 6. Information architecture of a swamp 7. Errors and Mistakes on a "Happy Path" It's such a mess. It's one of those moment, where "AI would do better job". My biggest worry is that they will keep getting away with this, because banks don't have enough pressure to work on better software product, and now even less.

We already had Touch Trackpad, we could’ve just add a little spice to it.

AI = Immigration > natives get comfortable, output slows, prices don't drop
> cheap labour arrives to fill the gaps
> natives get angry: now they have to rethink pricing and offering
> natives split into reactionaries and opportunists
> reactionaries want a ban ("ban AI")
> opportunists use the cheap labour and the new market
> laws don't stop it, the incentives work for too many players
> tension stays The one thing everyone agrees on: "better assimilation and slower pacing."

Old Apple would release Touch to all their models all at once (2 MacBoon line up). Having a choice is fantastic. I was feeling screwed when they took my F1-12 keys for a damn TouchBar.

I already have a list of requests to this thing: 1. Flipback hinge to turn it into screen only mode 2. And support of  Pencil 3. Sturdier hinge to remove shaking 4. Deactivated touch zones to avoid accidental touch, but allow touch-friendly actions in special zones (fluid, unpresize, etc) 5. Brought back shining apple logo? Bring back breathing sleep indicator for ai agents. 6. Allow "Full AI Computer Use" if you pass "AI literacy" exam.

We need "Meat for Meat" law, where: 🤖 if company is using ai or automated support system → i should be able to use my own ai/automated system too 🍖 if company asks me to prove humanity → they need to switch to humans as well Otherwise, it's unbalanced.

Strong Hardest Button to Button reference

Mark my works, they will be "Rewards" in credit card companies and have "miles" incentives just like airline industry.

My favorite fact about glowing Apple logo is that it didn't waste any energy on that, because it was using screen's original brightness to light up the hole cut in aluminium. It's just so sexy, when someone comes up with such an elegant way to be efficient.

It's impossible to build "the right UI" in the age, where people are so spoiled not only by choice, but also their capability to build something unique to them. "Great UI" has qualities and one of them is "how personalized" it can be. And traditional apps just can't the variability that people have in their mind. For example: 1. You can't have weird shortcuts like "remind me in 1:30hrs" in email clients 2. You can't live your life in fractions of 10 minutes, if Apple decided it's 15min 3. You can't choose to have 6-7 items in navigation instead of 5, even if you really want it. This especially feels to me, because no UI tricks can ever trick me into paying for something, that just works between me and server. I don't care about HDR, micro-animations, etc. I know it takes nothing to build. I'm still dependent on bank (paying for it). I'm still dependent on social (paying for it). I'm still dependent on servers (paying for it). I'm still dependent on data (paying for it). There's still space for great apps and they might be better than self written one for security and update reasons. But there's no market to "just build UI so well that people would pay solely for it". And to be frank, people didn't like to pay for it before anyways. It always felt like a donation for an effort, rather then a legitimate economical transaction.

Is everyone building window manager now?

K-shaped willpower.

I’ll bite: Because one-shotting design might not be the best solution (and I’m talking “one shotting” both from mind or from ai). While I agree that development process should move closer to the code, the design process should actually have some distance in order to avoid being “optimized” by tech scalability too soon. But because we keep conflating creative stage and scalable stage, we get: 1. People, who use outdated tools to scalable work (e.g. ui design in figma for new feature) 2. People, who use scalable tools for creative work (e.g. asking claude to design design system from loose words).

this is just another woke era, but this time the narrative that we must recycle is "we're optimistic about future" as if it can override internal anxious thoughts that people feel without properly adopting them

everyone is building Jarvis to book airlines and cancel $9 subscriptions