I knew someone who allegedly worked on the Special Project after a successful career at more familiar premium automotive brands. He was expressing exasperation with the process and said "I don't get why they're letting people who don't like cars design one. You wouldn't send your kids to a school full of teachers that hate children!"

> a new way to connect your apps and tools to Claude. We're also expanding... with an advanced mode that searches the web.

The notion of software eating the world, and AI accelerating that trend, always seems to forget that The World is a vast thing, a physical thing, a thing that by its very nature can never be fully consumed by the relentless expansion of our digital experiences. Your worldview /= the world.

The cynic would suggest that the teams that build these tools should go touch grass, but I think that misses the mark. The real indictment is of the sort of thinking that improvements to digital tools [intelligences?] in and of themselves can constitute truly substantial and far reaching changes.

The reach of any digital substrate inherently limited, and this post unintentionally lays that bare. And while I hear accelerationists invoking "robots" as the means for digital agents to expand their potent impact deeper into the real world I suggest this is the retort of those who spend all day in apps, tools, and the web. The impacts and potential of AI is indeed enormous, but some perspective remains warranted and occasional injections of humility and context would probably do these teams some good.

It's possible the Shapr rendering engine is not very subtle, or perhaps the G2 math is accurate in a strict sense but the output is not very differentiated from G1. It's mathematically possible for there to be a continual change in local radius, i.e. be curvature continuous, while still having local changes be sufficiently aggressive that it visually appears discontinuous at a human scale. Each CAD kernel seems to make these things in its own way, hence different industrial design studios will strongly prefer the use of certain 3D CAD programs to make their final master models (e.g. Alias). Personally I drive CREO as for ages most manufacturers overseas used pirated copies of Pro/E or CREO and thus I could send them "native" surfaces. In that program my preferred curvature continuous coefficient range was 0.52-0.57. I don't have Shapr access handy so messing around with the coefficients and finding a result that you like is outside my domain -- and perhaps you already did!

Still, all that is on the modeling side, but the best way to actually check the visual smoothness of your corners is to use analysis tools like curvature combs to check how aggressively the model is making transitions. It doesn't fundamentally matter if you use the built-in automatic tools or manually adjust b-splines in your NURBS: the smoother your combs change the smoother your corners will look. [I checked the support page for Shapr to see if it supports curvature comb analysis and saw nothing about it, so you may be out of luck on that front until future updates.] Absent that you have to just spin the model in CAD and see how smoothly the highlights roll around and hope the built-in rendering engine is doing its job well.

One last item of subjective crit in sculpting smooth models: when applying a fillet to an edge that turns a corner, such as your interior pocket, you'll have a less visually cramped and abrupt appearance if you use a fillet chord (edge radius) that's nontrivially smaller than the chord length of the turn it has to make (corner radius). Maximized fillets that come to hard corners and make a full spherical bubble, e.g. your initial models shown in gray, generally look less natural than those that allow the fillet to turn the corner. This lets the highlight work its way around in a racetrack form instead of getting "stuck" in the extremes.

Nice work dude, I wouldn't comment if it didn't seem like you're dedicated to making continual improvement and learning new tricks.

Currently all your corners (excepting the ones that use Apple's supplied bezier points) appear to be tangent but not curvature continuous. As someone with the utmost respect for the learning amateur I would like to kindly inform you that having G1 corners from just hitting "fillet" is the #1 way for design cognoscenti to ascertain that a model was built by an engineer. Alternatively you could try to mimic or offset the G2 curves Apple already paid a bazillion dollars to fine tune.**

* this particular industrial designer x mechanical engineer does not use Shapr but I do see G2 / curvature continuous fillet tools exist via their support page.

** this designer also thinks Apple's and Dieter's corners are too squashed square and has been building devices with slightly sharper and more accelerated corner curvature as the world's natural bends are parabolic or catenary. So roll your own and find your aesthetic voice!*

My replica Moonswatches cost $25US, looks fairly spiffy, hint at space history, are super lightweight, and keep time. I have a handful of nice watches but I have come to appreciate the combo of comfort / cheap / cheeky.

I also bought a fantasy Moonswatch based on a Japanese render artist's interpretation of Omega's "dark side of the moon" watch. It's a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy! (Moonwatch > dark side > swatch > render > rep.) As a designer of hardware products I think it's a super fun piece of commentary on modern branding and manufacturing.

But the real reason I'm not upgrading is because of software compatibility:

1. This is about as new a machine I can get that runs Adobe CS6 & Lightroom with perpetual licenses. (F your subscription)

2. The new M machines do not appear to run the Intel-driven CAD software I currently run in Bootcamp, not even in emulation. (I'm not keen on owning 2 machines for my dayjob, nor wholly converting to Windows.)

Meanwhile my less mission critical software has gotten cheeky lately and started telling me my machine is too old. Spotify and Signal both refuse to update further and launch with big nastygram windows saying so. Wheeee.

Moreover, being able to think at a strategic, systems level about the technology landscape is a trained mindset and it helps to have sources of inspiration accordingly. Reading the work of people who think in ways you also wish to be able to think seems like good training for your mental muscles. Like all commentary and advice you learn to keep what you think is relevant and supplement it with your own information and ideas, but having the framework and the examples can absolutely push your further, faster.

The intro claims the character of the Estonia brand is "nordic, surprising, smart" but the Aino font in particular seems way too focused on being surprising at the expense of legibility, which certainly diminishes expression of the smart element.

The teachers are anticipating a return to hand written testing at high school and college levels in the AI-assisted present/future, so they are preparing students accordingly. (Then we visited the coding class and STEAM classrooms. It's not a Luddite reaction, more of a practical response to witnessed trends.)

The grade school pendulum has already started to swing from Chromebooks back to bluebooks.

The consumer hardware duopoly of Apple and Samsung are the only ones who seem to actually drive manufacturing trends. There are also tons of devices being made for the Chinese market, but you can't buy those because they're usually locked up in supplier agreements and honestly they don't meet "flagship" specs for display quality.

Component suppliers, true we-make-parts manufacturers, are not really trying to influence the big picture so much as make sure they are running their manufacturing lines at capacity. And if they are building panels on spec for open market sales, they are going to build >6" displays because it's a higher probability they'll actually sell at volume.

- 1. Supply chain / component R&D -

You will be very, very hard pressed to source a pre-existing, high quality, non-exclusive 5.4" display with a hole punch. If you end up doing this as your own startup then you're going to start by trying to buy off the shelf parts to keep costs down. But that display you want is simply not on any of the development roadmaps for the major component manufacturers. The industry has its own momentum, and the component suppliers have also been looking at the trendlines so they are building bigger and bigger.

If you can't find the screen you want in a catalogue then you have to pay someone to build it. Convincing BOE et. al that your phone will sell enough to pay off R&D costs is unlikely, so be prepared to pay several million bucks in NRE to make it worth their time (it might still not be) and the wait a year for them to spin up the fabs. So ~$5M and 9-18 months later you have a display.

- 2. Big players are uninterested, not uninformed -

Big companies are drowning in market data. They know some people really, really want small phones. But it's a long-tail opportunity they're willfully ignoring, and people who need phones will still buy something even if reluctantly. I've been in the meetings, small phone advocacy goes nowhere.

Also I'm a little surprised you're hoping an online petition will work after your prior experience trying to influence your acquirers. I presume you saw the inside of Fitbit / Google and how decisions are made...

Actual answer is: because after 10 years of having a mediocre classical piano teacher beat the love out of my must-syncopate-Beethoven-fingers I decided to learn guitar on my own terms.

I spent hours a day in my room with music I wanted to sing, screwing around with tabs and chord charts and fingering charts. Later when I took a jazz theory course (at a university no less!) I was handed staff music with all these weird scales: mixolydian, dorian, phrygian -- I had no idea this stuff existed. Since I never learned to read staff music on guitar, but I know it on keys, I had to translate by ear. Since I was learning improvisation I wanted a map of the "acceptable" notes that I could mess around on my just hitting them at random. (In a way this is like a hack's Wayne Krantz improv exercise.)

Every autodidact builds their own ruts and then when it's time to learn new tricks they have a choice: build on the rather particular foundations already laid and see if some interesting and useful architecture can be laid on top, or tear it down and do it the "normal" way. I chose expedience and uninterrupted passion, but had to hack my way into it. And I still love the instrument, and I still play in those mental visuals scribbled onto yellow legal paper.

There are myriad ways to approach the guitar, and it seems I found mine. When I check out something like the Pat Martino video course[1] I find it completely baffling, if not profoundly impressive. In my read people think guitar is easier than it is because the 4-chords pop chart is not hard to achieve, but if you want to exceed that the learning curve shifts quickly. I think Chris McQueen of Forq / Snarky Puppy / etc explains this all rather well. [2]

[1] Pat Martino sees different things than I do on the fretboard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc7Qvp8Zs6U&list=PL2TrPkuyjM...

[2] Chris McQueen knows he makes it look easier than it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCLv-tiQBuk

When I first started taking guitar seriously, after years of kid piano lessons, I really struggled to "find" notes. I mostly play both by ear and by visual shape, not by intervals or reading staves. So while taking jazz music theory courses I eventually sat down at a piano with a guitar in my lap, played the note on the keys to find the note on the fretboard, and then carefully drew out a scale map exactly like the one you have here for every mode I wanted to learn. Knowing what "shape" a scale had from the root has been enormously useful while improvising at my (still) intermediate level. I have kept that piece of notebook paper I wrote out for over 20 years now. This is a much finer implementation!

My only initial feedback is to put some of the logarithmic visual compression between frets into the visuals. This is a visual learning tool and visually the fretboard is not evenly spaced. Also, maybe dot markers?

For a good long time IG was the only place I could reliably see actual user-generated content. Moreover it was actual friend-generated content, and mostly they posted their actual (best, happy) lives.

With culling of the slideshow preachers, the media re-grammers, and the vacuous influencers, an honest social media experience can still be enjoyed-ish. But ads and re-designs will continue to chip away at the creative sharing and interactions that used to be the core UX until it's fully unusable for its original purpose.

Instagram now wants you to watch and scroll, not capture and share. Soon I'll need to take my creative sharing elsewhere, but where?

Also the thermal limits of the human dermis are pretty well studied and documented. The vast majority of CE products are designed not to exceed 50°C, which is when the thin skinned (children and elderly) start to get second degree burns pretty fast. 60°C is where you burn almost immediately.

Interestingly 45°C is "threshold of pain" for most folks, but few companies set that as the target limit. Since thermal dissipation is a ∆T game that last 5 degrees matters a LOT for wattage out (on a hot day outside 30-35°C is a good surface temp estimate, so that last five degrees is the difference between 10 or 15 degrees out, a non trivial delta.)