What an astonishing thing the computerized spreadsheet is. The central innovation—that a cell can contain not just a value but an expression which references other cells’ values—is embodied in a new primitive abstraction: the “formula cell”. Critically, apart from their values being automatically calculated, those formula cells behave just like other cells. Formula cells compose neatly into a larger whole, one which is already exquisitely tuned by years of use. What does it feel like to invent something like this? [...] Progress in design comes from inventing new primitives, finding new ways to combine old ones, spotting new places to apply them, and so on. Growth feels like an accumulation of patterns, principles, and methods. We may find unifying principles and frameworks now and then, but they’re forever contingent. [...] Direct manipulation, linked representations, copy and paste, and menus are good examples. More recent wide-reaching primitives include “multiplayer” editing affordances, increasingly reliable voice-to-text interactions, and, yes, contextual backlinks. At the periphery, more tenuous ideas—the pervasive financialization of computational primitives; ML-generated media; etc—may end up becoming important puzzle pieces. [...] The dominant methodology in design these days is “[human-centered design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-centered_design)”. Reductively, in this framework, a designer begins by immersing themselves in the worlds of potential users, trying to understand their values, goals, challenges, barriers. Then, often with the direct participation of the users, designers iteratively create artifacts which will solve the users' problems. This is a remarkably effective method for creating products and solving problems. But, [among other limitations](https://numinous.productions/ttft/#how-to-invent-hindu-arabic-numerals), I think it’s missing something that’s been central to many of the most transformative tools for thought: a strong perspective on how the world _should_ be, what’s beautiful, what’s worth amplifying. “[Dream Machines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Lib/Dream_Machines)” is a telling title. Ted Nelson had a dream of what computers could mean for personal creativity and freedom. This is not “design thinking”. Much of Alan Kay’s work was driven by an almost spiritual belief in the wasted creative potential of young children. Consider [his metrics](http://www.vpri.org/pdf/hc_pers_comp_for_children.pdf): “Where some people measure progress in answers-right/test or tests-passed/year, we are more interested in Sistine-Chapel-Ceilings/lifetime.” [...] Yearnings like this are sometimes the driving force for my work, too. [Orbit](https://www.patreon.com/posts/bringing-ideas-36925173) could be framed as a tool for retaining what you learn. That’s what every other memory system does. But that’s not [how I think about it](https://notes.andymatuschak.org/z4RKWtfRfrTaSKM8B9QzRjGCTnxZcEU4ZPLGW). What gets me excited is the feeling of imbibing ideas more deeply, of being supported in forming an ongoing communion. In some very real sense, this project is an expression of how I want to relate to knowledge. The impulse I just described feels quite different from the sense of possibility I feel when designing, or the hunger to understand I feel when engaging analytically. It’s more like a desire to manifest that which I think is beautiful. It’s personal, idiosyncratic. It’s a reflection of my telos. When this drive dominates, I feel like I’m making a kind of art. [...] Oh. That’s a jeweler’s loupe. We use it to see the pixels.” That knocked me on my back. It was an absurd answer. I’d spent my entire young life with software people, and I’d never met one with a jeweler’s loupe. Yet it was also obviously right. It was a potent symbol of what people there valued. And those loupes were, in fact, quite practically useful! In my first weeks I was given a subtle bug to fix: the edges of a particular kind of button were “fuzzy.” I looked. I couldn’t see what they were talking about. I looked with the loupe, and then I saw. A straight edge seemed to be antialiased into the neighboring pixels. I took the loupe away, and I couldn’t un-see it. The loupe is synecdoche for my whole experience at Apple. This same story happened again and again over the years—with touch interactions, with animation, with conceptual models. Each time the burr in my colleague’s eye was at first invisible to me; each time I was helped to see; and each time I could no longer un-see thereafter. I left Apple, but the indoctrinated obsession for craftsmanship has not left me. This impulse feels different from a drive to understand, or a sense of opportunity, or an expressive yearning. It feels like a consuming desire to personally manifest a kind of perfection. It feels like a ritualistic respect for things finely honed. And, because I can rarely achieve the sublimity this mindset demands, it’s often frustrating. [...] More prosaically, craftsmanship helps draw attention. It makes one’s work more legible and more attractive. I don’t think this is a high-order bit, but it’s worth considering. On the margin, I think this impulse is probably too strong in me. I’ll often spend an afternoon polishing the fine details of an interaction I’ll soon discard. Some amount of this is necessary, but I suspect I could often get away with much less. All in all, my instinct is that craftsmanship is not usually the high-order bit or the bottleneck for progress in this space, past some moderate threshold. I think there’s value to cultivating a tradition of craftsmanship among practitioners in this space, for the reasons I’ve described above, but I’m not sure what it would mean to make collective progress through craft as a primary drive. ## Patreon update - education component - moral worry about taking on students -- no pipeline for next step. Lack of clear end step is a problem - sense of insecurity for grantee, sense that I must keep producing - peer review: stasis, conservatism - crowdfunding: lay people, interested fans - you don't have to convince ppl very hard - less likely to be experts and peers - worry: to what extent can the crowd evaluate research? - what aboout less legible research, less fashionable? - open sourcing orbit now because he feels financially safe. Previously wanted to keep open option of raising seed funding for it - sees himself as public good provider - some software is better private source e.g. stripe. - am hopes he can run orbit long term with fairly little work - license meant to deter cheap copy cat commrcialisations - Kahn academy had this problem when it was open sourced people copied and put in app store for 10 dollars - commercialising orbit sounds boring - previous experience running open source, it was very taxing - research mindset Vs building things mind -- find it very hard to switch, even in same week. In 2020 spent 2/3 time in implementing mind building orbit - after a while in research mode, feel frustrated that all these ideas aren't being implemented, project is staying still. But when implementing, all these research questions I'm not making progress on, I'm not actually researching, just being an engineer. - a couple people have reached out to offer engineering help, one just made first commit - some donors have donated one off to enable am to hire a tech contractor - still looking for a contractor to hire Thought: where's the good open source equivalent to Patreon. Patreon has many issues. Why can't I make a quarterly or annual commitment via Patreon. ## Note writing livestream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGcs4tyey18 Notes here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14WaxrPPqwVD1cRcdw_mpS7OUsLGIX0cIC6oN1mpb6RA/edit# <div class="hidden"Andy note points - Note writing livestream - Andy's notes - Orbit open source - essays - small encouragements - process / career path - commit to another year - Research context fit: I'm trying to finally get on top of my philosophical views.</div>