We need a Blender-like design tool specifically for product design. Using HTML/CSS for rendering so it covers most web needs and that usually more than encompasses native app-layout emulation. Open source, technical, and not expected to be picked up in a day or fully understood top-to-bottom by everyone.

The reason Figma is putting us into a design box is because it doesn't have all the CSS features that actually let you create incredible experiences.

Figma is a great tool for 90% of basic and boring design. A lot of product design is not just basic and boring, and a lot of stuff I need simply cannot be reproduced in Figma. So yes I do just write the code directly, but that doesn't let me explore those complicated layouts and iterate on them visually the same way I could if it was HTML/CSS in a Figma-like design canvas.

When my devs just copy whats in Figma dev-mode they get so much stuff wrong.

I work in complex SAAS product design. Basic things I can do in CSS I can't do in Figma. Things like a table? Yeah it is entirely faked and awful in Figma. Don't even get me started on anything more complicated than flex rows and columns.

Half the debate over designer/dev handoff in the industry right now is simply because of Figma's limitations and the refusal of designers and front-end devs alike to learn HTML and CSS.

We need a Blender-like tool for web and app product design. Highly capable and advanced, you aren't expected to know all of it, and it can do anything you want it to.

I need a tool that is more than just a fancy rectangle drawer.

Your black and white way of looking at this is naive at face value. We need both federal and private funded research. Is there fraud in science? Yes. So your answer is throw it all out instead of rooting out the fraud? Somehow expect fraud not to exist in privately funded research? Your comments here are so myopically driven by a bias against something rather than what is the best outcome for scientific research.

Our bodies are such strange mechanisms.

Cursor has consistently felt faster and easier to use with better inline auto-complete and faster large edits in chat than VSCode ever did. The way suggestions and chat is shown is just a bit easier to read and more elegantly presented.

These things make a big difference.

I've found the lowest motion-smoothing setting makes watching stuff like this far more enjoyable while avoiding the awful soap-opera effect you get from higher settings.

It felt awful to admit to myself since I hated on motion-smoothing for so long, but I simply cannot not see the 24 frames in pretty much all scenes where the camera is panning and background has to move a lot.

His lying doesn't change the incredible work by those engineers and other employees of SpaceX.

I don't know how people don't see how poor quality so much AI writing is, even when referencing good quality work.

Also making effective visualizations that do a good job of illustrating a concept is not just a matter of being able to write the code.

My visual imagination absolutely can have a time dimension just like my audio imagination. I can remember sequences of film from movies I have seen many times with high level of detail, and then if I so choose change what happens in that sequence to whatever I want.

I think it's more that as humans our audio fidelity in general is less detailed than our visual fidelity so it is easier for us to notice limitations in our ability to imagine visuals than in our ability to imagine audio.

I can have very vivid mental imagery, I can imagine all sorts of fantastical things in detail in my mind on command. But that doesn't mean I don't see black when I close my eyes. It doesn't mean the mental imagery blocks what I can see normally with my eyes open. It is in your "mind's eye", so it is still triggering the vision parts of the brain, but almost like its on a different screen.

Similarly with imagining sound or music. I can almost perfectly recall some of my favorite music, I can compose a new piece (poorly) in my head based on music and sounds I have heard, but none of it will drown out an actual sound I hear around me.

That being said, if I am very mentally focused on some mental imagery it can still distract me from my real vision and or even sort of "replace it" without my closing my eyes. Sort of like the feeling you get when driving and zoning out thinking about something (but you are still safely driving).

> Only a small subset of what our brains do is actually conscious. What makes some information processing more special than others that some of it is conscious and the rest is not?

This is an excellent way of approaching the question, but I just as easily can say isn't it more likely that the difference is the pattern of the information and not the strict physical structure that makes it? Look at how many different physical structures and mechanisms we have for seeing, hearing, breathing, touching, etc across nature. Many of them are fundamentally different from each other, but end up in the same result of a sense.

Isn't it more likely that conscious thinking is like other senses in that it's a kind of information processing, rather than a specific mechanism of processing?

This also make it more likely to answer your question of why are some mental processes conscious and the majority are not, it would seem far more likely that the brain's neuronal structures (most of which are the same basic cell throughout the brain, just in different types of structures) discover different patterns rather than fundamentally different physical processes.