tlow - Tumblr blog

[tlow]

What is the next major advancement in computer science?

To know where we’re going, we want to start with understanding where we’ve been. When we can see where we are and where we’ve come from, then we just connect those dots and make our best guess about the future by drawing a line projecting forward, right?

Not so much. Thomas Kuhn argues in his book The Nature of Scientific Revolutions, which coined the term ‘paradigm-shift’, that advancement isn’t a gradual progression of accumulation, but rather is more like water building up behind a dam, first cracks begin to emerge, then small leaks, but then suddenly a total breakthrough. Once the dam is broken, things aren’t like they were before. No one knows where the next dam is, when it will break or what the world will look like post-break. For further reading you can find a great synopsis about Kuhn’s book here: https://www.simplypsychology.org/Kuhn-Paradigm.html)

Taking into account Kuhn’s model, it makes sense that we see time and again how the world's leading experts totally fail to predict the future. They were working from a mental-model of the world from before the dam broke. When they make a simple linear projection forward from an outdated model, it just doesn’t work. For example, consider Thomas Watson who led IBM into the behemoth it became from 1914 to 1950s.

> In 1943 Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, said, "I think there's a world market for maybe five computers."

(from https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1059.htm)

For fun real quick, let’s use the classic approach and draws lines forward.

Let’s begin with computers, since computer science requires computers, it’s domain is necessarily limited by things it can address, access and manipulate.

First there were mainframes

Then there were desktops

Then there were laptops

Then there were smart-phones

Now there are smart-cars

Now there are smart-homes with smart-appliances.

Now smart seems to be everywhere, but it’s really only just begun. We’ll continue to see an advancement of products with computing enabled.

If we look at where computers have not gone yet, we can have some ideas about near-term advancements. Let’s look a little further. What happens when the best computer automation is available to every consumer? That could easily disrupt a multitude of industries and make new ones possible.

What happens when DNA becomes controllable with software. Sounds like a paradigm shift. We can ask a lot of questions based upon the assumption this becomes possible.

Lorenzo Pieri argues that a revolution in low-cost robotics is coming soon. What happens when the best industrial automation is available to anyone for $20/mo? That could have a huge impact on a whole range of industries, especially manufacturing.

I think the big picture is that Marc Andreeson was right when he argued that Software is eating the world

So to answer this question, I would say this, the future of computer science is the continued growth of the reach of things controllable and accessible by software. This will enable discontinuous spurts of growth when existing modus-operandi and destroyed by paradigms shifts when what was previously impossible becomes possible. So look at what is impossible now and imagine. The future is full of things we haven’t yet imagined, it should be exciting to see where we go.

-------------------------------------

If you find these thoughts interesting, follow me here on twitter https://twitter.com/douglastarlow

You can find more posts like this on my blog at www.dougtarlow.com

For professional inquiries please reach me at

www.linkedin.com/in/dougtarlow

[tlow]

Creativity Inc - Pixar and Prototyping

In my recent tweets https://twitter.com/douglastarlow/status/1432504347426844679 I discussed Ed Catmull’s interesting book, Creativity Inc, which gives us an inside look at Pixar. Surely there can be no doubt that Pixar is brilliant, delivering original hits time and again. Therefore, I think it’s particularly interesting to look at Catmull’s thoughts on process and prototyping and how we might connect this to the design challenges at technology startups.

As it came time to create Finding Nemo, Catmull observed “A large portion of our cost stemmed from the fact that we never seemed to stop tinkering with the script of our movies… if we could only settle on the story early on, our movie would be much easier and thus cheaper to make”

In an effort to reduce costs, Pixar tried to pursue a managerial methodology where they aimed to reduce their costs by preventing unneeded production that comes with producing scenes that ultimately don’t make the final movie. What Catmull learned however, is that this simply wasn’t possible. In fact he goes on further to say “in order for greatness to emerge, there must also be phases of not-so-greatness”.

The process Pixar uses includes designing, prototyping and testing, much like the high-level method to produce the ubiquitous digital products we use today. Bringing this back together with design; design is a discovery oriented process where unknown unknowns are discovered, products are calibrated and tested with actual uses and learnings are iteratively fed back into a creative synthesis to iteratively produce exploratory variation studies as possible steps forward to pursue.

But to what purpose? And this is key to Pixar’s success:

“I see this over and over again in other companies, we came perilously close to embracing a fallacy… making the process better easier and cheaper is an important aspiration, something we continually work on, but it is not the goal, Making something great is the goal.”

The thing that united Catmull and Pixar’s owner Steve Jobs was their agreement on the why: to make something great.

[tlow]

I’ve updated my portfolio featuring my work in User Experience Design and Digital Product Design at https://dougtarlow.org/portfolio/user-experience-design/

I practice a robust human-centered-design process, which empowers my repeatable success in creating strategy and execution plans for new product design.

[tlow]

New lighting and signage project. Who is it for? Next post will include at least 5 more letters =p

[tlow]

CREATING A PROCESS FOR CROWDFUNDING IDEA GENERATION, VALIDATION AND LAUNCH

Trying to create a repeatable process for validating crowdfunding project ideas, this is a first draft. Feedback appreciated (post or email to doug.tarlow att gmail.com)

Helped bring the Quickey Multi-Tool to market:

- https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/quickey-the-key-that-opens-everything-but-doors

- Helped roll out ecommerce: http://quickeytool.com/

[tlow]

Just giving a shout, some friends of mine just launched this project. Check it out and if you like what you see, please consider backing it today.

[tlow]

Physical Products, Crowdfunding and the Production Problem

In the past year I have become highly involved in crowdfunding. I’ve been on, advised, and worked with a variety of teams which have had incredible results. I also have the distinct pleasure of having been on the team which designed the Coolest Cooler — the largest raising crowdfunding product to date. I’ve been the campaign manager for the highest raising tool product ever on crowdfunding the Quickey and I’m currently working on bringing the world’s first all Carbon Fiber Airplane to market (http://igg.me/at/carbonflyer/x/6578809 - referring link). The Carbon Flyer is controlled by bluetooth with onto and has an onboard video camera, besides that it’s beautiful and unbelievably durable (I’ve crashed my fair share of foam RC airplanes with catastrophic results, but I’ve yet to even damage a Carbon Flyer).

Now let’s pause for a second and jump back to late 2008 when I found myself immersed in reading Chris Anderson’s wonderful book “The Long Tail”. That’s when I first came across an phrase that instantly resonated with me “democratization of the tools of production” though I read it as the tools of creation[1].

The original iPhone came out on June 29th, 2007. I waited in line for 39 hours in front of the University Avenue Apple store just behind Robert Scoble and his son. What many of us forget is that the original iPhone launched without an App Store. It wasn’t until WWDC that year that Jobs announced an SDK for iPhone, which wasn’t available until 2008.

Enabling software developers from all over the world to write Apps for iPhone was, I argue, the most valuable and biggest achievement of the iPhone itself. All over the world for many decades hardware and software enthusiasts had been writing software without a real means to go to market. They lacked the ability for “production”. iPhone and the App Store gave these developers a direct line to customers eager for new wares who also happened to have their credit cards already tied to their devices which made buying software an extremely low cognitive load transaction. This was production truly democratized. Looking back now, we can see that people from across the entire Globe contributed to the app Store. Tiny Wings was developed in Germany. Spotify was developed in Sweden. WeChat comes from China. Angry Birds comes from Finland. People all over the world jumped at the opportunity to bring their products to mass market.

And here’s the issue, there are people from all over the world working on crowdfunding, just this week I had a conversation with Japan’s largest crowdfunding company. And although there are projects on crowdfunding from all over the world, nearly all of them are still being produced in one place: China. Unlike the world of the App Store, where a product, in this case a software app can be completely developed and deployed the mass market, physical goods still need to be produced. By and large these physical products are still being produced in the same means as the products you see in stores.

So what’s the answer. It’s not 3d printers. We have 3 separate 3d printers in our offices, two are some of the most sophisticated in the world, but they can’t solve the problem of mass production.

I don’t know what the answer is, but before we can claim we’ve democratized the products available too us, I think it’s worth looking at the homogenous process by which most of the world’s physical goods are still produced. I’m excitedly looking for new answers and solutions to this problem, but I haven’t seen a truly viable one yet.

Thanks for reading. Please direct questions future article suggestions or comments to doug.tarlow@gmail.com

[1] The tools of production are not yet democratized. It remains a burdensome challenge to mass produce a physical object. I’ve seen a lot of very smart people struggle with this challenge.

[tlow]

[tlow]

Nice. 

Los Angeles based furniture designer David Okum has reimagined the extension cable to create a flexible row of wooden spheres and cubes containing multiple sockets that also prevent the cable from tangling (via dezeen)

[tlow]

zaha hadid and norman foster shortlisted for mexico city airport expansion

via dezeen.com

[tlow]

http://www.zaha-hadid.com/design/genesy-lamp/

surprisingly made of EPS and lacquer finish

[tlow]

fougeron architecture builds the fall house next to the pacific ocean

via (designboom)

[tlow]

BoxHome, Oslo, Norway by Sami Rintala | via

In the North all buildings for living have to be made in an advanced way due to the ever-contrasting weather. Additionally, the houses have to be properly heated with external energy more than half of the year’s course. Therefore producing smaller homes would bring about a considerable economical and ecological benefit. Today the construction activity stands alone for more than one third of total global energy and material consumption, well exceeding that of all traffic and transport.

This should be a crucial question especially in Scandinavia, where people, in accordance with their growing wealth, possess larger and larger houses. And in most cases, this in addition to a second home called a summer house or a cottage.

Boxhome is a 19 square meter dwelling with four rooms covering the basic living functions: kitchen with dining, bathroom, living room and bedroom.

CJWHO:  facebook  |  instagram | twitter  |  pinterest  |  subscribe

[tlow]

i'm against gamification of education

gamification of education is senseless. why impute contrived value? education is inherently valuable.

[tlow]

The 9 Rules of the New Google UI

This applies to all product teams effective ASAP. Products with high and very high user #s, those with pro and/or paid users may provide instead a 'new look beta' in which to more slowly transition their users.

1. action buttons of most importance shall be in the top of the left nav in red.

2. we shall use iconic representation whenever possible.

3. in cases of uncertainty or inability of iconic representation to communicate action, single word, or only if absolutely necessary, double word, representation of action shall be used.

4. confirmation buttons shall be green.

5. we shall endeavor to, whenever possible, provide a less dense data presentation. breathe. 

6. given our requirement for lower content density, we must be more careful with the words and actions we present to users.

7. we use drop downs over modals.

8. groups, and reader are exempted, because of their imminent shutdown. (I suspect)

9. when we are uncertain about design decisions, we shall avoid designing.

Questions about whether design is necessary or affordable are quite beside the point: design is inevitable. The alternative to good design is bad design, not no design at all. Douglas Martin, 1989 [1]

Or at least this is how I imagine it went.

[1] (as from: http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-meaningful-and-notable-user-experience-quotes)

[tlow]

Vibration. See the unseen. 1000fps (by FlukeCorporation)