The question we should continually insist on asking ourselves, both as makers of tools and users of them, is how they can help us improve the flow of love. Do they connect us with each other, and reinforce our instincts to treat each other as moral ends? Do they help us convey our love out into the world through information and interfaces, or help us know when we are being offered any?

I get what he’s saying, and there’s some nice prose here, but to me it seems like a whole lot of jibber-jabber. AI is making even the smartest people in my blogroll a bit loopy.

Today, we’re launching Claude Design, a new Anthropic Labs product that lets you collaborate with Claude to create polished visual work like designs, prototypes, slides, one-pagers, and more.

Stitch generates UIs for mobile and web applications, making design ideation fast and easy.

Figma es el lienzo donde el diseño, el código y la IA se unen. Desde la idea hasta el producto final: del concepto a la producción en equipo y en un solo lugar.

When you’re proficient with your editor of choice—whatever it is—it disappears into the background. But the moment it cannot handle something easily, it stops being invisible. What baffles me is that so many people treat that friction—the effort of working around a tool’s limitations—as the “fun” part, and then advertise it as evidence that the tool is great.

Part of why these debates turn religious is that a tool choice becomes a flag you plant—it says something about who you are. The “hacker vibe” isn’t a mere aesthetic; it’s tribal signaling, and that’s the real trap. Once your identity is invested in a tool, admitting its flaws starts to feel like admitting something about yourself.

Designing an ergonomic tool is fundamentally about having good defaults, while still allowing escape hatches where they’re possible/needed.

Much in common with Borretti’s “You Can Choose Tools That Make You Happy.”

see: https://borretti.me/article/you-can-choose-tools-that-make-you-happy

Very aesthetic presentation.

via: https://laurelsletter.substack.com/p/winter-spring-2026

A huge list of unconventional graphic design and text art tools, updated regularly (2026)

A Twitter HCI person. I don’t remember why he was in my RSS feed. Perhaps Andy Matuschak?

I’m a software engineer at Tyba, open-source maintainer, amateur musician, recovering entrepreneur, and father of two. In my copious free time I work on Biff (Clojure web framework) and Yakread (reading app).

Had a lot of really interesting ideas on unbundling social media while Twitter was going through the shitter. Unfortunately, a lot of his business bets on said ideas didn’t work out the way he wanted, but still an impressive designer and engineer, nonetheless.

see: https://obryant.dev/unbundling-social-media/

When you’re proficient with your editor of choice—whatever it is—it disappears into the background. But the moment it cannot handle something easily, it stops being invisible. What baffles me is that so many people treat that friction—the effort of working around a tool’s limitations—as the “fun” part, and then advertise it as evidence that the tool is great.

Part of why these debates turn religious is that a tool choice becomes a flag you plant—it says something about who you are. The “hacker vibe” isn’t a mere aesthetic; it’s tribal signaling, and that’s the real trap. Once your identity is invested in a tool, admitting its flaws starts to feel like admitting something about yourself.

Designing an ergonomic tool is fundamentally about having good defaults, while still allowing escape hatches where they’re possible/needed.

Much in common with Borretti’s “You Can Choose Tools That Make You Happy.”

see: https://borretti.me/article/you-can-choose-tools-that-make-you-happy

We received 553 answers to the question “If you could change one thing about Haskell, what would it be?”. This is the breakdown.

Building a language is fucking hard, man.

Konkat ist ein Studio für konzeptionelles Design mit Sitz in Hamburg. Wir entwickeln starke Marken und digitale Erlebnisse für Unternehmen, Start-ups, Kultur und NGOs.

An open source design system that is fully customizable and agent ready.

You probably know one hundred people. Picture two of them staring at a broken screen. The 98% statistic is a lazy shortcut. Truly robust engineering isn’t about what works for most; it’s about gracefully handling the edge cases. If a fancy new feature can’t degrade gracefully, then 98% isn’t “widely supported”. It failed to meet the basic minimum for 2% of the people out there.

via: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48816959

How to make make-making makers make makes you’ve made!

How I use AI as a design engineer on a daily basis.