I thought the first picture was pretty good: it seemed like a clean, functional design for a sports game type thing, albeit not hugely original
One way of describing it is "boring", another is "functional, familiar, easy to make sense of, intuitive".
The article reads like teams of people going through millions of tokens and weeks and weeks of manufactured suffering. Maybe it's the writing style, but the time and effort that's gone into "fixing a boring design" - IMO - seems completely disproportional to the scale of the problem, if there even really was one.
Maybe this is why I'm not a designer though.
noelwelsh•6mo ago
stavros•6mo ago
I read the whole thing and still I'm not sure what it's about.
evertedsphere•6mo ago
billrobertson42•6mo ago
A lot of tech and tech-adjacent writing is like that these days. Our cool project X now does Y! With no introduction about what X is, or even a link to something that describes it. So most readers are left to wonder about why should care. At times, I've even tracked down X's github repo only to find that their README has the same problem.
It's an easy trap to fall in when you write. It's easy to feel like you're over-explaining things. You, the author, know what it is, and likely many of the people who follow X know too. The problem comes when some curious person outside of the Xosphere takes a look. Chances are good you'll lose most, if not all, of them.
If you want people to be interested in your X, then make sure they have a way of learning about your X when you introduce improvement Y.
mrala•6mo ago
https://www.moonshot.ai/ https://moonshotai.github.io/Kimi-Researcher/