I disagree. I generally don't get too upset by UI changes - having been programming since before Windows I've seen many of them - but LG is a loser.
I upgraded my mac to Tahoe and I don't like any change to the UI that I have noticed.
I upgraded my phone the other day, thinking it was just an update to whatever it already had, and ended up with LG on there and it is a disaster. I enabled the 'more opaque' feature and it did almost nothing.
LG is an awful experiment IMO. I'd put it at worse than Vista (which I skipped) and Gnome 3 which didn't bother me because I don't expect anything from linux desktops. I also skipped Windows 8 so not sure about the ranking there. But I'd say it's that level of disaster.
From a company that spent decades harping on about taste, usability, human interface guidelines etc, it’s a train wreck. If Microsoft did it you’d just shrug your shoulders and carry on with life because good taste and usability was never a core promise.
Highly recommend checking out Andreas' other work on https://ertdfgcvb.xyz/. Probably one of my favorite websites of all time, his body of work is what complete commitment to an idea looks like. Couple cool hardware projects in there too.
From my experience in the generative art scene, there’s 2 main types of people making NFTs. There’s the crypto-first people who are into them for ideological or monetary reasons, and existing digital artists who saw it as a way to monetize their digital art and cash in on the gold rush.
I have a ton of issues with NFTs and while I don’t love that a lot of my favourite artists got involved with them, I at least understand that perspective a bit more.
> (…) monetize their digital art and cash in on the gold rush.
Those are the same thing. Doing it for money is doing it for money.
I do think there was a short period where established artists going into NFTs was understandable. If you’re still promoting yours in 2026, not so much.
It's amazing to be able to try a bunch of ideas with very minimal cost. That being said, AI code assistants don't have eyeballs and they often make things that don't look very good. Craft, polish and judgement still matter.
I find they can make some things look objectively "good", but they just look generic and it feels very easy to spot a site that was made without the vision, polish and judgement.
You can get LLMs to create some truly unique sites, but it takes a lot more work than a few prompts.
The entire crypto market cap is about $2.8T, which makes it about 75% as big as Apple. Would the same argument make sense if the author were to say Apple employees alone "push up prices for houses, resort hotels, and all sorts of other things they do with their money". Kind of a stretch if you ask me.
Crypto provides banking services (savings, moving money, exchanging overseas money, pensions, mortgages, ...) which in a lot of countries are normally entirely exploited by the government to the point that crypto is far superior. And yes, of course that means it's for dodging taxes, moving criminal gains, and dodging sanctions by Russia and North Korea.
But in many countries "exploited" means that the country is so corrupt that "yes, but your crypto savings can disappear overnight" is not a very good argument against crypto, because the normal system has the same problem. In some countries the very currency of the country itself has that problem, and it's not always hyperinflation. For example, I've heard quite a few times from Chinese people that they prefer bitcoin over Yuan, just for the ability to dodge the banking system. Apparently one factor is that normal people can't use Yuan outside of China without very strict limits (which is another instance of "why does anyone trade with China? They are never going to allow a fair bidirectional trading relationship with their citizens. Trading with China, you can only lose".
Crypto is also the only way Venezuelans, Egyptians, and many others ... have any banking services at all.
So I would argue crypto is a lot more useful than Apple. Just not to people living in the richest countries.
in the sense that if I have to change the shape of a complex static object or do anything tedious, it can just do it. What exactly would you say I have to learn from tasks like that?
The article has a link (citation 17) to a site selling toy models of that vehicle as an image source, I can find one (fourth image in the gallery) there where it sorta looks like the wing is missing because the wing is black against a black background but it's not the same image shown in the paper:
The name "Venturestar" is properly rendered in that image but "NASA" and "Lockheed Martin" are thoroughly mangled the way I'd expect text to be mangled in an AI image. The image from the toy site could have been used as as reference image to create the image in the paper one way or another.
Yes, if you look close, the paper is replete with error-filled generative reproductions of existing illustrations in the citations; including Fig. 6 (MC Escher struts), Fig. 7 (sprouting greeble tubes), and Fig. 8 (actuators replaced by tubes connected to mystery manifolds).
Even Fig. 2 shows the spike geometry magically changing, which is not addressed in the text and seems like an error carried over from the original illustration in the cited source.
Casts serious doubt on the credibility of the rest of the work.
reply