I'd say this is a pretty unhelpful, demanding, and borderline damaging take to spread. I've learned from experience that it's unlikely "a designer" should follow this advice or accept the archaic guilt-trip "because you make six figures" whatever that means.
If you run your own design agency, you've got your own company's reputation and yours on the line, so be as opinionated as you find necessary, but otherwise if you're just an employee without an inordinate amount of clear authority within the scope of your discipline at the large company (you know if you do or don't) then don't try and create a mutiny, it will more than likely be a childish assumption of personal risk on your part, much more so than it costs the company, much more so than anyone else needs to care, because someone on a forum told you to be passionate about round rects or small icons or whatever. If you need to tell your boss "google NN group", you probably don't have the trust or experience to be successful with such a play.
It's okay to have a personal hatred of it and do what you can to steer the work appropriately, but when you're tasked with a dumbass plan, let it be the decision-makers' dumbass plan, unless it's your decision to make. Let it be the project we tried and it didn't and couldn't have worked out, which sometimes happens, but you learn and then leave if it's pervasive and you have other options.
It would be remarkably stupid to single yourself out as the person who thinks of themselves as the reincarnation of Steve Jobs and risk your livelihood to save Apple's reputation. The unlikely upside is that you get your way and that can boost your confidence, but the downside is that you fumble your best shot at financial security for the rest of your life because you thought you'd be received well.
That's not to say you shouldn't say no to nothing, or have love for your craft, just don't pretend it's your job to, unless it is, which it's probably not. Disagree and let it be a failure if it's going to be, feel vindicated if it is, but the money is there for you if not. The people who worked on the Vision Pro aren't responsible for it being a dud product, and they can be proud of what they did design-wise and technologically despite that.
I think your take is unhelpful, demanding, and damaging to engineering ethics. If you want to live in a 90s corporate workplace hierarchy model, that's your value system. But it is untenable and harms people in the long run.
Ethically speaking, the parent seemed to be demanding that some hypothetical designer put their livelihood on the line because good taste in UI design is paramount, we're not talking about building a skyscraper in a swamp out of twigs. Pat yourself on the back I guess if you want to volunteer to be a trillion dollar company's human meat shield, and relish in the virtue of being unemployed in a very bad market due to having a volatile emotional temperament, but I'd just recommend not doing that.
In the long run, no you don't want to set that much of your taste or expertise aside forever, but you shouldn't have to, it comes with all the things I said, trust & agency.
I think I went through a phase of feeling like you do, but eventually I realized it was a pretentious, excessively online, insufficiently adventurous, disconnected way to engage in life, that was lacking in humility and vulnerability, relying too much on control.
I realized all of this while not having gone to the apparent extreme you have, and never stopped building new friendships, but my level of engagement in those friendships and how I felt about them did change. I don't believe you can constantly add new arbitrary friends and have them all be equally as deep or stimulating—it's not economical from a time perspective, assuming you want to be friends with yourself too and devote time to your own interests alone—but that doesn't mean you need to exempt yourself from social life altogether.
Additionally, I've found that the people I'm exposed to and can build strong relationships with are only limited by own interests and depth. I have been fairly one-dimensional at times, and thus my friends end up being people who can tolerate that one-dimensionality. If I bring political bs to every party, I'll only be invited to parties I won't kill the vibe at, it's not their fault, and likewise if all I could talk about was programming, I'd only have tech friends. Incidentally I have only two tech friends among at least 20-30 pther "strong" friends from completely unrelated backgrounds with different dispositions.
It's okay to not miss a specific type of social life, but I think it's worth reflecting more deeply on a lack of interest in any social life. Your social life should not be transactional, imho. A book won't show up to your wedding, a book will not wave at you while on your to a grocery store, and a book will not climb a mountain, go biking, or play cards with you during a rainstorm on a train. Your romantic partner might, but they can't be expected to do it all the time. I don't do any of that with all my friends either.
Absolutely, and I try to keep that in mind. I tried to explicitly indicate that it's not a homogeneous group, not in terms of longevity, ethnic background, common ground, age, location, or frequency, although they are mostly the same sex among my closest friends. I try to just start small, open myself up to new experiences and people, and then identify when we have good chemistry, which takes a bit of personal honesty. For every good friend, I have probably 3 acquaintances that I also see regularly in group settings but not super close, and some of those that might have become close friends but dropped off for whatever reason.
They're people that I've known typically for at least 2 years, I trust, and I'd be able to DM for a hangout, drink with, engage in a variety of common interests together, we can roast each other and be toxic and give each other a pass as long as it's all in good humor.
The skills and traits that make me reasonably good at that don't help me in the kinds of activities that make people boring and successful in a nostalgic middle class suburbia sense, so it has tradeoffs, and it's not always easy, but it averages out to easy. I used to be very shy, and probably wouldn't be this way if I'd stayed in my hometown where everyone just stays away from each other and knows their high school mates. I live in a relatively expensive city, don't have a car or a house, or kids, or many physical assets. I'm employed, but probably have not been for more than half of my adult life, and I rent.
Spreading myself too thin beyond that isn't really sustainable until there's a good foundation of trust built and it's not as necessary to see each other every week. Some older friends I see once a year, others I've seen 4 times this week due to holiday parties, and some are people I know in my community. Events and lots of socializing come in bursts and it can be tiring, so I'll just dip out for a while and refresh when necessary, which I'm currently looking forward to, but have a wedding and a birthday coming up in the next 3 days lol
Incidentally, I've also never once known my immediate neighbors beyond a brief few conversations.
> There will still be fine programmers developing software by hand after AI is good enough for most.
This fallacy seems to be brought up very frequently, that there are still blacksmiths; people who ride horses; people who use typewriters; even people who use fountain pens, but they don't really exist in any practical or economical sense outside of 10 years ago Portland, OR.
No technological advancement that I'm aware of completely eliminates one's ability to pursue a discipline as a hobbyist or as a niche for rich people. It's rarely impossible, but I don't think that's ever anyone's point. Sometimes they even make a comeback, like vinyl records.
The scope of the topic seems to be what the usual one is, which is the chain of incentives that enable the pursuit of something as a persuasive exchange of value, particularly that of a market that needs a certain amount of volume and doesn't have shady protectionism working for it like standard textbooks.
With writing, like with other liberal arts, it's far from a new target of parental scrutiny, and it's my impression that those disciplines have long been the pursuit of people who can largely get away with not really needing a viable source of income, particularly during the apprentice and journeyman stages.
Programming has been largely been exempt from that, but if I were in the midst of a traditional comp sci program, facing the existential dreads that are U.S and Canadian economies (at least), along with the effective collapse of a path to financial stability, I'd be stupid not to be considering a major pivot; to what, I don't know.
No job is special, even though many programmers like to think of themselves as so. Everyone must learn to adapt to a changing world, just as they did a hundred years ago at the turn of the century.
I was pretty much told this in the 90s that I would have no real stability in life like my parents did and my life would be constant reinvention. That has been spot on.
It is the younger people who started their career after the financial crisis that got the wrong signaling. As if 2010-2021 was normal instead of the far from equilibrium state it was.
This current state of anxiety about the future is the normal state. That wonderful decade was the once in a lifetime event.
Yep, could be right. It might have only ever been a few stalwart professions that were expected to be constants. But I think the cost of life during the pre-2010 era absorbed the reasons those anxieties existed, whereas the severity of the rise in that cost of necessities since is the problem. As in, having an expectation of a volatile income-earning life is one thing if a house costs $80k or rent is $400, but having a volatile life with rent for the smallest serviceable apartment being $2-3k, and the same house costing $2m; that lack of stability isn't priced in by the markets
This is always said as if the buggy whip maker successfully transitioned to some new job. Please show me 10 actual examples of individuals in 1880 that successfully adapted to new jobs after the industrial revolution destroyed their old one, and what their life looked like before and after.
'Sure the 1880 start of the industrial revolution sucked, all the way through the end of WW2, but then we figured out jobs and middle class for a short time, so it doesn't matter you personally are being put at the 1880 starting point, because the 1950s had jobs'. Huh?
I don't have a dog in this disagreement, but putting the bar at "dig up the personal details of 10 different individual people and the changing dynamics of their lives over decades _starting from 1880_" is a pretty insane ask I'd imagine. How many resources for reliable and accurate longitudinal case studies from the 19th century are there really? I suppose we could read a couple dozen books written around then but that's just making a satisfactory reply so prohibitively time intensive as to be impossible.
Indeed, and when 10 were pulled up by zozbot234, they say that doesn't count. This sort of discussion is not really useful in my eyes, shifting goalposts around and not saying what one means.
I agree, but I do wonder if because those times were generally less specialized, urbanized, etc.. it would have been more possible to simply pivot to another non-specialized "job", because you were either uneducated and poor and needed to be able to do everything, or born rich and able to do the one special thing your whole life. Like when the buggy whip maker couldn't sell whips anymore, they just did 4 of the other jobs they had to do anyway.
The classic old person advice is to just walk in somewhere, give the owner a stern handshake, and you got a job, and if that job could pay your mortgage, then problem solved. Whereas now, to become a buggy whip maker (or whatever), we've developed yhe expectation that you go to school for 4 years and start out at the bottom of the income ladder. If the income we need to pay for the basics (which admittedly are different) requires a lifetime of experience, then it's impossible to pivot
1. Samuel Slater: Textile mill worker → Factory founder
Before: Born to a modest family in England, Slater worked as an apprentice in a textile mill, learning the mechanics of spinning frames.
After: In 1790 he emigrated to the United States, where he introduced British‑style water‑powered textile machinery, earning the nickname "Father of the American Industrial Revolution." He built the first successful cotton‑spinning mill in Rhode Island and became a wealthy industrialist.
2. Ellen Swallow Richards: Teacher → Pioneering chemist and sanitary engineer
Before: Taught school in Massachusetts while supporting her family after her father's death.
After: Enrolled at MIT (the first woman admitted), earned a chemistry degree, and applied scientific methods to public health, founding the first school of home economics and influencing water‑quality standards.
3. Frederick Winslow Taylor: Machinist → Scientific management consultant
Before: Trained as a mechanical engineer and worked on the shop floor of a steel plant, witnessing chaotic production practices.
After: Developed Taylorism, a systematic approach to labor efficiency, consulting for major firms and publishing The Principles of Scientific Management (1911), reshaping industrial labor organization.
4. John D. Rockefeller: Small‑scale merchant → Oil magnate
Before: Ran a modest produce‑selling business in Cleveland, Ohio, struggling after the Panic of 1873 reduced local demand.
After: Invested in the nascent petroleum industry, founded Standard Oil in 1870, and built a monopoly that made him the wealthiest person of his era.
5. Clara Barton: Teacher & clerk → Humanitarian nurse
Before: Worked as a schoolteacher and later as a clerk for the U.S. Patent Office, earning a modest living.
After: Volunteered as a nurse during the Civil War, later founding the American Red Cross in 1881, turning her wartime experience into a lifelong career in disaster relief.
6. Andrew Carnegie: Factory apprentice → Steel tycoon
Before: Began as a bobbin boy in a cotton factory in Scotland, later emigrating to the U.S. and working as a telegraph messenger.
After: Invested in railroads and iron, eventually creating Carnegie Steel Company (1901), becoming a leading philanthropist after retiring.
7. Lillian M. N. Stevens: Seamstress → Temperance leader
Before: Earned a living sewing garments in a New England workshop, a trade threatened by mechanized clothing factories.
After: Joined the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, rising to national president (1898‑1914) and influencing social reform legislation.
8. George Pullman: Cabinet‑maker → Railroad car innovator
Before: Trained as a carpenter, making furniture for a small New England firm that struggled as railroads expanded.
After: Designed and manufactured luxury sleeping cars, founding the Pullman Company (1867) and creating a model industrial town for his workers.
9. Mary Elizabeth Garrett: Schoolteacher → Medical education reformer
Before: Taught at a private academy in Baltimore, earning a modest salary.
After: Used her inheritance to fund the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (1893), insisting on admission of women and establishing the first women’s medical school in the U.S.
10. Henry Ford: Farmhand → Automobile pioneer
Before: Worked on his family farm in Michigan and later as an apprentice machinist, facing limited prospects as agriculture mechanized.
After: Built the Ford Motor Company (1903) and introduced the moving‑assembly line (1913), making automobiles affordable for the masses.
Come on. These are edge cases. We are talking Joe average that went from having their own business, to working an average job. You know, the mass scaled transfer that will be what happens for most of society when people say 'they will find new jobs'. Not the small amount outliers.
The guys that ended up spending their lives living in boarding houses with other men, never starting a family.
The guys that ended up living in tramp camps traveling the country looking for work.
The families that ended up as migrant workers. The people that broke and lived in flop houses or those long term hotels in downtowns.
That is the real picture no one shows. What does 'find new work' after the industrial revolution look like for the average person, and the answer isn't 'become Henry f'ing Ford' now is it post WW2 style middle class employment.
OK, here's 10 concise, plausible examples of how average individuals in the late 19th century might have adapted to new jobs after economic change (e.g., industrialization, mechanization, decline of artisan trades, agrarian shifts). In order to focus specifically on the "average", we now choose to simply build illustrative, composite scenarios based on common historical patterns (as opposed to specifically documented people) so you can see typical before-and-after lives.
1. Blacksmith → Railroad Carriage Foreman
Before: Local village blacksmith, shoeing horses, forging tools; works long hours in a small shop; income modest but steady; reputation tied to local farmers.
After: Takes a job at a nearby railway workshop as a metalworker assembling and repairing iron carriages; works in shifts under foremen; more regular wages and slightly higher pay; moves to a rail town, his kids gain access to a school; he loses some independence in his new setting but has marked gains in job security and cash pay.
Before: Home-based handloom weaver producing cloth on commission; schedule flexible but income fluctuates with orders; household-centered labor.
After: Employed in a textile mill running power looms; fixed hours, supervised by overseers; steady wage, production quotas; exposure to somewhat harsher factory conditions, but more reliable monthly income and potential for overtime pay.
3. Sailmaker/Canvas Artisan → Industrial Tent or Sail Factory Worker
Before: Small workshop making ship sails and canvas goods for local ships; skills highly specialized and tied to maritime trade.
After: Joins a larger factory producing canvas goods and tents for military contracts or industrial customers; moves from bespoke work to standardized production; learns new machine operations; steadier demand, less artisanal pride but higher throughput.
Before: Owner-operator of a few acres, subsistence mixed with small-market sales; vulnerable to crop failures and market price swings.
After: Sells or loses land, takes wage labor on larger farms or in orchards; seasonal work, long hours during harvests; cash wages replaced self-provisioning, children sometimes work; potential to move seasonally to find work.
5. Canal Boatman → Dockyard or Stevedore Worker
Before: Independent canal boat operator transporting goods along waterways; income from tolls and freight; lifestyle itinerant but autonomous.
After: With canal traffic declining due to railways, he becomes a dock laborer unloading goods at a port; work is bunched into long, physical shifts; income less variable but less autonomy; often joins laborer networks or unions.
6. Carpenter (Craft) → Construction Gang Member on Urban Projects
Before: Skilled carpenter building houses and furniture for local clients; runs small crew, has flexible custom work.
After: Migrates to a city for large-scale building projects (tenements, bridges); works as part of an organized gang, specializing in one repetitive task (e.g., formwork); wages steadier including opportunities for overtime, though with less creative control.
Before: Family tannery producing saddles and boots for local markets; knowledge-intensive, smelly but respected craft.
After: Enters a leather goods factory operating stitching or cutting machines for mass-produced footwear; learns machine maintenance; working environment more regulated, discipline stricter, pay more regular.
8. Rural Cooper (Barrelmaker) → Brewery or Canning Works Employee
Before: Independent cooper making barrels for local brewers and farms; demand falls as metal containers and standard packaging rose.
After: Hired by an urban brewery or canned-goods plant to maintain wooden vats or operate filling machinery; moves closer to urban amenities; job is less entrepreneurial but offers steady pay and sometimes benefits.
9. Watchmaker/Clock Repairer → Precision Machine Operator or Assembler in Electrical or Watch Factories
Before: Skilled artisan repairing and crafting clocks, serving local clientele; income from repairs and small commissions.
After: Joins an urban precision workshop or early watch factory assembling parts or operating lathes; narrower tasks but higher volume and a connection to emerging industrial technologies; more predictable pay and potential for apprenticeships for children.
10. Fisherman (Small-Boat) → Cannery Worker in Coastal Town
Before: Independent small-boat fisherman selling catch to local markets; income seasonal and weather-dependent; family-based operation.
After: Cannery expansion offers steady work in fish-packing plants, processing, salting, or canning; shift work with set hours and piece-rate opportunities; his income is quite a bit steadier, though the job is somewhat repetitive and sometimes hazardous.
Here's a sketch of the bigger picture we can see from these scenarios:
Greater wage stability: Moving from piecework, self-employment, or seasonal income into factory, railway, or dock wages usually meant steadier cash pay and more predictable household budgeting.
Larger scale means less autonomy: Many tradesmen lost control over hours, pace, and methods, trading independent decision-making for supervised, repetitive tasks.
Increased urbanization and mobility: Job shifts often prompted moves to towns or industrial centers, changing family networks and access to services (schools, markets, hospitals).
Routine and discipline: Factory and industrial work imposed fixed schedules, time discipline, and stricter workplace rules compared with artisan or farm life.
Skill reorientation: Some workers adapted existing skills to machines and assembly roles, while others lost craftsman status as specialized knowledge gave way to standardized production.
Household changes: Women and children were drawn into wage labor more frequently; domestic production declined as cash purchases rose.
Health and safety trade-offs: Improved incomes sometimes came with worse working conditions, crowding, and new occupational hazards.
Social mobility mixed: For some, steady wages enabled upward moves (education for children, home purchase); for others, loss of independence and precarious labor markets limited long-term mobility.
Community and identity shifts: Occupational identities tied to craft or land weakened; new worker solidarities and urban social institutions (mutual aid, unions, churches) grew in importance.
Consumption patterns: Predictable wages led to more regular purchase of manufactured goods, changing diets, clothing, and household items.
Don't move the goalposts, you said find 10 and they did. Keep in mind it's much harder to find evidence for average people than for "successful" people, by definition.
I didn't move the goalpost. The point was to become better informed what 'find a new job' looked like at the start of the industrial revolution, not to own me. When people say 'in the industrial revolution, people found new work' they aren't referring to Henry Ford and you know that. You know their answer wasn't relevant to the discussion.
What did losing your stables/small scale manufacturing/family farm/etc and adjusting to post industrial revolution 'finding a new job' look like? Saying 'Henry Ford existed' doesn't add anything to understanding that.
> You know their answer wasn't relevant to the discussion.
You're the one who asked the question...
Sorry but if you're going to mean something other than what you say, then you should specify that in what you say rather than have people guessing or answering questions you yourself asked then saying, but no that's not what I mean. Well, yeah, we don't know unless you say so, and that's exactly where the goalpost moving is, you literally did it in the above comment.
Got it. When tech bros/AI proponents tell a single mom with kids who is worried about losing her middle class job to ai that 'new jobs come along' what they are saying is 'just be Henry Ford'. If you want to stick with this response great. It's on point for the whole pro-AI set.
'new jobs come' is very much pushed by the AI set when people bring up concerns. I was simply trying to define what that looks like. Apparently it's 'just become Henry Ford or a Rockefeller'. Good luck with that talking point.
No one said become Henry Ford. You keep trying to put words in people's mouths because you come into this discussion with a preconceived notion that you're correct, meanwhile multiple people are providing evidence that you're likely not. If you have any actual points to share please do so but it doesn't seem that you do rather than saying the same two points over and over and moving those talking points once someone tests it. I don't know about you but I don't find that very enlightening discussion.
Do you think those people just starved to death? They had to find other jobs and they did. Now I'm sure I could find you 10 such examples if I trawl through historical records for a few hours but I'm not going to waste my time like that on New Year's Eve.
Why are you constructing a strawman in your second paragraph? No one said or even implied that, you just made up your own quote you're attacking for something reason?
People imply that the jobs shakeup will 'work itself out', but tend to imply that working out looks like post WW2, when in reality we are at 1880 level change that took decades to 'work itself out' and working itself out included in 2 world wars during that time.
No one is waiting 70 years to work itself out, you're operating on a false premise that I don't even know where it comes from, people were not starving jobless for 70 years straight. Like I said, people found other jobs, within a decade span at most of their occupation being automated.
People definitely were starving and looking for work at the start of the industrial revolution. Your response is why what I said isn't a strawman. Your response of 'trust me bro, it worked out' very much is. The economy/job/living situation in 1880-1940, the 'working through it' phase of the industrial revolution, was very shitty and nothing like post WW2.
Tramps/homeless/tramp camps was a part of life.
Huge groups of men lived in 'boarding houses' their entire lives. Most people today don't even know what boarding houses were.
There were huge populations that traveled as migrant field workers.
The reality looked much different than post WW2 employment.
Sure you said people found other jobs. But really, lots of people didn't. Or didn't find jobs that allowed them to live outside boarding houses and have families. There is a whole big picture waved away with 'found jobs' that implies post WW2 jobs/lifestyles, when in fact that is not what happened post industrial revolution, and did not happen until much later, and was not guaranteed to happen ever.
Ratelimited so editing:
People handweaving away legitimate fears with 'people found new work' are implying it is on the level/quality of life. My 'strawman' is pointing out their 'found new work' was shittier work and a shittier life and that the handwaving/minimizing peoples fears with such a hollow statement is bullshit and should be called out as such. 'found new work' is nothing more than 'people didn't all die'.
> There is a whole big picture waved away with 'found jobs' that implies post WW2 jobs/lifestyles
No, you are the only one implying this, no one said anything about this which is why I said it is a strawman. I said nothing about the quality of work found, only that new work was found. That may or may not be the case for today's situation, no one can know and I am not in the business of prognosticating so.
> This fallacy seems to be brought up very frequently, that there are still blacksmiths; people who ride horses; people who use typewriters; even people who use fountain pens, but they don't really exist in any practical or economical sense outside of 10 years ago Portland, OR.
Did you respond with a fallacy of your own? I can only assume you’re not in or don’t have familiarity with those worlds and that has lead you to conclude they don’t exist in any practical or economical sense. It’s not difficult to look up those industries and their economic impact. Particularly horses and fountain pens. Or are you going by your own idea of practical or economical?
No, horses and fountain pens do not exist in any real sense today vs. the economic impact they once had. They are niche hobbies that could disappear tomorrow and the economy wouldn't even notice. They used to be bedrocks where the world would stop turning without them overnight if they disappeared. The folks put out of work would be a rounding error on yearly layoffs if every horse and pen was zapped out of existence tonight.
They are incredibly niche side industries largely for the pleasure of wealthy folks. Horses still have a tiny niche industrial use.
Horses might have been an overly broad claim, but I basically meant that the others aren't really viable pursuits to bet a chunk of your working life on, in terms of how likely it is that their markets exist in a practical economic sense. The equivalent in the programming world now might be rare old bank mainframes. COBOL isn't a thing you go to school to learn and expect it to be around forever, but that's just one. Times do change, but if the core skill stops being bought, except in niche circumstances, then there's no reason to pursue it, just the novelty.
> I am guessing: Maybe you are not used to or comfortable with delegating work?
The difference between delegating to a human vs an LLM is that a human is liable for understanding it, regardless of how it got there. Delegating to an LLM means you're just more rapidly creating liabilities for yourself, which indeed is a worthwhile tradeoff depending on the complexity of what you're losing intimate knowledge of.
The topic of liability is a difference but I think not an important one, if your objective is to get things done. In fact, humans being liable creates high incentives to obscure the truth, deceive, or move slowly to limit personal risk exposure, all of which are very real world hindrances.
In the end the person in charge is liable either way, in different ways.
Real world responsibilities to manage, which sometimes can be hindrances at certain levels, but no functional society lets people just do arbitrary things at any speed regardless of impact to others in the name of a checklist. I mean that if I ask a person on my team that I trust to do something, they'll use a machine to do it, but if it's wrong, they're responsible for fixing it and maintaining the knowledge to know how to fix it. If a bridge fails, it's on the Professional Engineer who has signoff on the project, as well as the others doing the engineering work to make sure they make a bridge that doesn't collapse. If software engineers can remotely call themselves that without laughing, they need to consider their liability along the way, depending on circumstance.
As a technical manager, I'm liable for every line of code we produce - regardless of who in the team actually wrote the code. This is why I review every pull request :)
This is interesting. At what level and team size? There's going to have to be a point where you just give in to the 'vibes' (whether it's from a human, or a machine), otherwise you become the bottleneck, no?
I think there's a place for this, it's not rare for one person to be the PR bottleneck like this, but I don't think it would be for me in either position; people should be able to be responsible for reviewing each others work imo. Incidentally "Agile" with a capital A sucks and should die in a fire, but lowercase a "agile" probably does by necessity mean smaller teams.
Matias Sculpted keyboard. I definitely didn't expect it to be good, and since I got the first shipment, reviews didn't exist yet. Now they seem to accurately describe its problems.
Although it was a decent effort, their overall build quality is pretty cheap, and it's not good enough to recommend. I took a chance on their 2nd revision and it was at least good enough to keep for periodic use, but it really isn't worth buying atm. Half of the spacebar stops working nearly every day and I need to reset it
Matias Sculpted keyboard… Although it was a decent effort, their overall build quality is pretty cheap, and it's not good enough to recommend
I concur. I thought I'd save a few bucks by buying the Matias keyboard that looks like the Apple Magic Keyboard with Numeric Keypad. After all, there are thousands of people on the internet who swear that Apple's prices are disconnected from build quality. It turns out the chattering masses online are wrong.
The Matias keyboard lasted all of a year. I ended up replacing it with the real deal from Apple, which is still going strong six years later.
More often than online "experts" would have you believe, you really do get what you pay for.
I think Matias is sort of notorious for stuff that looks good in theory, but is plagued by reliability issues they just can't seem to sort out. I didn't know it was possible to mess up a scissor switch keyboard, but apparently Matias found a way to do so.
They've also been trying for 10 years to make a 60% keyboard (see the infamous thread on geekhack). Granted they do seem to refund anyone who wants it, but it's hard to understand why on earth a keyboard would take 10 years to develop.
They're really good at identifying niche products and designing things to fit the target market, but not so good on actually manufacturing them.
> I didn't know it was possible to mess up a scissor switch keyboard, but apparently Matias found a way to do so.
That indeed does seem to be the sentiment, and seems true, but to be fair, Apple also botched their laptop keyboards to the point of class action for years. But the current Macbook Pro keyboard seems fine so far.
Ya I agree. Manufacturing is hard, but Apple has it generally locked in. Apple's greatest weakness has always been ergonomics. Their mice are built well, but they're little more than art projects in terms of usability. Their external scissor switch keyboards (I hated their older keyboards) have always been quite good for what they are, and if they made one in the shape of the sculpt, I'd try it. The magic trackpad is amazing, but I just find myself never reaching for it compared to my mx master 3
Maybe I got lucky - my Matias Quiet Pro has been fine (though I did have to replace one failing switch >10 years in) since ~2013 - possibly earlier, but at least since 2013.
Maybe, or they did. The switches on my Matias Sculpted only detract from the design imo. They feel crunchy and don't align well with their cutouts. I'm fully willing to believe that their reputation comes from not investing heavily in reducing the variability in their manufacturing process. Once a viable but far from imperfect product gets shipped, they might stop improving it, idk tho.
You'll be happy to know that the InCase Sculpt is being sold again, if you can buy one before they sell out. They're nearly identical to the old MS Sculpt, down to the obscure bug with the keyboard matrix. The only difference that you can tell from a side-by-side comparison with new old stock is that the key caps feel slightly coarser, and less velvety. The palmrest is actually updated to the original, plusher MS sculpt design (it was changed in a later revision)
I ended up getting the mWave from Kinesis which seems at least 85% great. My problem with the InCase version of the sculpt is that for the price, it would have to be much better build quality than the original. Incidentally, I gotta give credit to Matias on the palm rest upgrade in their version; despite the rest of their troubles, the palm rest material is way better than the original.
Problem with the original, is that it's a perfect shape, but it wears down too quickly and becomes a paperweight if the dongle is lost. The price is insultingly high for the almost exactly original
Can you write a short review comparing to the sculpt in terms of shape and tactile feel? The mwave seems to have a more pronounced bump just eyeballing it. And as someone who is comfortable with scissor switches, whether on a laptop or MS sculpt, I'm not sure how mechanical ones would feel.
The switches are much lighter to the touch, and although I also prefer scissor switches, I've grown to like the mWave switches too. The lighter switch feel causes some typos, and I'm not yet as fast on it as even my MacBook keyboard, but there's always an adjustment period. They're also a little louder than the sculpt, but nothing remotely close to other mechanical switch types, and I think I might even say it's just a different type of sound, since I can type more softly than before.
The palm rest is a more comfortable softer pad than the the o.g sculpt, but I find for me it does get a little sweaty. I take Adhd meds during the day and drink a shit ton of coffee, so tend have very sweaty hands. I can't yet speak to durability, but the sculpt palm rest starts looking tattered around the ~2 year mark, while the Matias palm rest is a replaceable piece of rubber with a fantastic velvety feel (I use it when I'm at the office).
Connectivity is way better than the sculpt, but it's a little finicky when switching between devices on Bluetooth, which I feel I might just be doing wrong and haven't tried to learn about yet.
I find that the keycaps have low quality printed characters on the mac version, and when the backlight is on, some keys are hard to read or don't shine through properly.
My biggest problem with this keyboard is that it has a small right shift key, a normal size left shift key, and arrow keys that I find less preferable to the sculpt. The small right shift key means it's harder to position my shoulders in an ideal way compared to the sculpt for my ridiculously large hands, and I have to contort my wrist a bit more than I'd like. I also just can't feel my way around the board as easily, since I used the shift keys and arrows as anchor points.
As I've gotten used to it a little more, this is becoming less of an issue.
For portability, the overall build feels more solid than the sculpt, which would sometimes get stuck keys if I'd throw it in my backpack and get a piece of dirt in there or something. The better connectivity is a huge relief, since I don't need to worry about a dongle for wireless, and/or can use a usbc cable if the batteries are dead. It seems a bit shorter but chonkier, and maybe weighs less.
So that's my review. 8.5/10, since some of these lean toward preferences rather than quality. I'm not as confident touch typing with it yet, maybe 70% as confident, but I think I'll keep it and refine that skill.
Additionally, although the printed/etched characters on the keycaps are low quality, I'm glad there's mac variant. I did use the sculpt overwhelmingly on my mac, and had to remap keys, which I'll now do if necessary on my windows PC for the minority of time I'm using it there.
I think the parent sufficiently qualified their take to mean how much an average person could realistically expect to make in inflation-adjusted dollars. Whether "exceptional" engineers were pulling numerically similar salaries or not seems like a bit of a strawman. Thankfully, the day-to-day conditions of cube farms in grey-space aren't as common today, but it's not wildly different for a majority of people. Trade the cube for a standing desk, and it's often still the same grey office in a tower somewhere working on something boring. After inflation and accounting for cost of housing, the numerically higher salary doesn't mean a whole lot, especially so since it's often theoretical money and not vastly changed tax brackets. Our needs as people haven't changed; we don't suddenly need a Porsche that we can afford instead of a house that we can't. Some things have become much cheaper in inflation-adjusted dollars, which is great, but if they didn't, we simply wouldn't have the money for them.
My point is that 20+ years ago, there was frustration here (and elsewhere) that even if we weren't 10x engineers, even being 3x engineers could not get us 3x the compensation.
That changed in the last 20 years for the better. People who had the work ethic and aptitude to become medical doctors or lawyers or management consultants no longer had to sacrifice compensation if they loved tech.
This is notable and worth calling out, and pointing out it wasn't always like this.
Ya I suppose that is a fair point, albeit a tangential somewhat luck-based one. Additionally, that ceiling has been likely raised across technical professions for non-men as well who have the potential and drive to be at the top of whatever ladder. I say tangential because while the ceiling was raised significantly, the parent's argument was that it wasn't nearly as necessary to be the 1% fortunate genius landing a dream gig, which is still true.
If you run your own design agency, you've got your own company's reputation and yours on the line, so be as opinionated as you find necessary, but otherwise if you're just an employee without an inordinate amount of clear authority within the scope of your discipline at the large company (you know if you do or don't) then don't try and create a mutiny, it will more than likely be a childish assumption of personal risk on your part, much more so than it costs the company, much more so than anyone else needs to care, because someone on a forum told you to be passionate about round rects or small icons or whatever. If you need to tell your boss "google NN group", you probably don't have the trust or experience to be successful with such a play.
It's okay to have a personal hatred of it and do what you can to steer the work appropriately, but when you're tasked with a dumbass plan, let it be the decision-makers' dumbass plan, unless it's your decision to make. Let it be the project we tried and it didn't and couldn't have worked out, which sometimes happens, but you learn and then leave if it's pervasive and you have other options.
It would be remarkably stupid to single yourself out as the person who thinks of themselves as the reincarnation of Steve Jobs and risk your livelihood to save Apple's reputation. The unlikely upside is that you get your way and that can boost your confidence, but the downside is that you fumble your best shot at financial security for the rest of your life because you thought you'd be received well.
That's not to say you shouldn't say no to nothing, or have love for your craft, just don't pretend it's your job to, unless it is, which it's probably not. Disagree and let it be a failure if it's going to be, feel vindicated if it is, but the money is there for you if not. The people who worked on the Vision Pro aren't responsible for it being a dud product, and they can be proud of what they did design-wise and technologically despite that.
reply