harv

design / code / write

[harv @haroldvarde]

@nandafyi Been actively using cloudflare these days and I gotta be honest, I still get lost sometimes. The canvas nodes you did here is kind of brilliant if you guys could transform it in some kind of breadcrumbs on the dashboard for easier navigation. Just my 2 cents

[Jakub Krehel @jakubkrehel]

I added a new /state-machine skill to the collection.

It renders any component you want in all of its states on a throwaway page with mock data.

I enjoy working like this a lot. It makes it very easy to work on more complex components.

https://t.co/BCKpZjCdVU

[harv @haroldvarde]

This thread is all you need to bring your spark back in designing. So good

[Agu Seguí @agusegui]

want to see how the whole Paper Mono launch video was made?

everything is code but I didn't touch any of it

here we go 🔥

[Edward A. Perin - Psychologist @DoctorPerin]

"Cringe" has become a slur for sincerity, designed to kill joy and talent starting when we're children.

[Vlad Moroz @vladmoroz]

Paper Mono!

sooo excited to finally release our free and beautiful mono font

it works incredibly well for design, coding, and even prose, and it’s packed with features: variable font weight, coding ligatures, duospacing (!) for long-form text, and more.

sound on:

[Tareq Ismail @tareqistyping]

It's here! Episode 2 of Interfaces that think.

It's a controversial one on using AI to change how we read long form text.

[jhey ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ @jh3yy]

progressive blur > masked blur 🧑‍🍳

maskin' jus' fades it, layers can progress it ↓

[joshpuckett @joshpuckett]

Introducing Graphical.

It's a simple, powerful, and fun tool to design visual languages, style components, and work with coding agents to create interfaces that look memorable and feel unique.

I hope you'll check it out at https://t.co/crX3W8hHCz!

[hardmaru @hardmaru]

Recently learned that Schmidhuber’s Formal Theory of Fun and Creativity, covering compression progress and intrinsic motivation and their relationship to beauty, curiosity, art, science, music, and jokes, was published in a Japanese scientific journal in 2009.

https://t.co/iQcJf9r3K2

It is wild that this framework: compression progress as the basis for beauty, curiosity, art, science, and even jokes, was laid out in full formal detail in a Japanese journal 15 years ago.

[harv @haroldvarde]

@Elizabeth_JxJ Dude, that's our John Stewart and J'onn J'onzz if @JamesGunn lock in

[harv @haroldvarde]

@jamesm me who have been using ITC Garamond Condensed and Instrument Serif way before it became popular with agents:

[harv @haroldvarde]

@kentcdodds Dude this is way better, mine is just "kindly proceed"

[harv @haroldvarde]

@dabit3 daaang, serious question tho, are those 500+ commits for how many repo/projects each?? i can only do 5-10 commits per project in a day.

[clo @clo_wang]

Why does it feel so wrong to spend time in Figma these days?

I wrote about atrophy of the creative mind when AI gets me to 99% of what I'd make, 10x faster. What happens when you accept that 1% drop over and over?

Read it in one sitting! The page degrades every time you cmd + tab:

[harv @haroldvarde]

@raphaelsalaja all the best, man.

[Jeffrey Katzenberg @jeffreykWNDR]

The World is Changing: AI For Creativity

By Jeffrey Katzenberg

A few months ago, I sat in my office in Silicon Valley and watched as a tech founder showed me something extraordinary. On the screen was a fully realized, beautifully lit, well-composed animated scene. It was stunning and it made me feel exactly what I felt in 1986 watching Luxo Jr. That was the first time I watched a computer-animated 3D character take a breath and seem, against all reason, to have life. It left me in awe.

Later that day, I received a text from an artist I've known for thirty years, 350 miles to the south, in the city where I spent most of my career. After seeing a similar video, she texted: "Is this the end of us?" My answer was, "Certainly not.”

I have spent the better part of the last decade in Silicon Valley, but the heart of my career has been in Hollywood. Being deeply connected to both worlds means I have deep loyalties to each and a responsibility to speak honestly to both.

In 2023, I said that these new AI tools would cut the time and cost of producing world-class animation by as much as ninety percent within three years. Some colleagues were alarmed, many were furious.

There is growing fear and resistance surrounding AI within the creative community. I deeply understand it, because I've spent countless hours walking through animation studios watching gifted artists bent over their desks, rebuilding a single second of film for the tenth time because the ninth version wasn't quite right. I've sat in screening rooms where four years of people's labor played out in minutes, and I knew the name of every person that had spent countless hours bringing those images to life. The creative process is a calling, there's really no other way to describe it. From the outside some see resistance. From the inside, it is love.

People do not fight this hard for things they don't care about. The pushback coming out of Hollywood represents the collective effort of people who are deeply passionate about their craft.

Is History Repeating Itself?

The history here is more complicated than either side may realize. In 1906, the most famous composer in America, John Philip Sousa, published an essay titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music." He warned that the phonograph would become "a substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul."

Sousa's fight was not really about the machine, it was about money. The machines were playing his compositions, and the men who built them weren't paying him a cent. His campaign helped create the Copyright Act of 1909. He did not stop the technology. He changed the terms under which it could use his work.
A hundred years ago, sound came to the movies. We remember it now as a miracle, and it was. What we forget is who paid for it. Before sound, tens of thousands of musicians made their living in the orchestra pits of movie houses, scoring every film live, every night, in towns all over the world. When the soundtrack arrived, the work of one composer and one orchestra was recorded for a film that went into thousands of theaters. The union fought back with everything it had, taking out newspaper ads across the country warning against the menace of "canned music," one of them showing a mechanical man tearing the strings out of a harp while an angel wept.

They were not fools, and they were not Luddites. They were right. Those pit jobs did not come back. And yet (this is the part we have to be brave enough to admit), sound gave us the movie musical, the modern score, sfx, sound design, audio engineering, and an art form vastly larger than the one it disrupted. And it helped keep Hollywood in the forefront of world entertainment for the rest of the century and into the next. The loss was real. And yet the art form expanded.

This is a story that has been told over and over again. To resist technology is to risk irrelevance. Just look at Kodak or Blockbuster. To embrace technology is to open doors of new possibility. Just consider Apple and Netflix.

What I Learned From Walt Disney

In the mid-1980s, I was tapped to lead Disney's animation division at a moment when the studio was at an inflection point. Animation wasn't just another business unit. It was the soul of the company, a medium revered because of Walt's genius and his passion. But the production system was cumbersome and unforgiving. A single movie was 125,000 individual hand-drawn and painted cels, photographed one frame at a time. Every revision carried a cost measured in months. These degrees of difficulty shaped the kinds of stories we could tell.

We found our way forward in an unexpected place: Walt himself. The Disney archives held astonishing recordings of Walt explaining his creative process. His own writings. His notes and storyboards. Work product captured at every stage of his process. This was truly a gift. Listening, reading, sitting with the work itself, we heard him talk about character, about emotion, about how an audience feels when a character truly comes alive. He talked about making bold choices and refining a scene until it genuinely moved people. We didn't hear a word about pencils or paintbrushes. In fact, Walt was famous for being a technologist, forever hunting for state-of-the-art tools, often inventing them himself to achieve the images he saw in his head. But he never defined animation by the tools. He defined it by whether the audience believed the character. His principles were timeless. The tools were not.

That realization changed everything. We co-developed the Computer Animation Production System (CAPS) with a young Northern California company called Pixar, replacing hand-painted cels with CGI. In The Little Mermaid, the final scene shimmered with a dimensionality and light that the old process simply couldn't achieve. In Beauty and the Beast, the ballroom sequence moved with a cinematic sweep that placed the audience inside the emotion of the moment. In Aladdin, the Cave of Wonders felt vast and alive, and the Magic Carpet became an intricate, compelling character all its own. In The Lion King, the stampede carried a scale and intensity that raised the emotional stakes beyond anything we'd done before. Technology didn't diminish the craft, it expanded the canvas. It gave artists more room to create.

A decade later, the canvas expanded again. When Disney released Pixar's Toy Story, it wasn't simply a technical milestone. It was proof that a fully computer-animated film could carry real emotional weight, that it could make audiences laugh, cry, and believe. At DreamWorks, we made the difficult decision to sunset hand-drawn animation and become a fully computer-animated studio. It was the right thing to do, but it was not without pain. It cost talented people their place in an industry where they had worked their whole lives. Some made the leap to the new tools and did the finest work of their careers. Some never did.

Tools are never the point. The instruments change with every generation. What endures is taste and imagination. The magical ability to make an audience feel. One of the greatest storytellers of our generation, George Lucas, succinctly captured the eternal essence of this issue: “It’s not the how, it’s the why.”

A Distinction With a Difference

I asked one of the leading AI models a question that has been challenging me for months. What is the difference between reasoning and creating? Its answer changed how I think about almost everything happening in this industry. It said . . .

Reasoning and creating are two distinct cognitive modes, though they also work together. Reasoning is fundamentally evaluative and analytical. It operates on what already exists: facts, premises, evidence. It moves toward a conclusion that was in a sense already implied by the input. Reasoning is constrained by logic and truth. Its goal is to arrive somewhere correct, not to invent somewhere new.

Creating is fundamentally generative. It produces something that didn't exist before. And crucially, there's no single right answer waiting to be found. A blank page has infinite valid responses. Creation involves choices that can't be fully justified by logic alone. Taste, intuition and vision fill the gap where deduction runs out.

Reasoning is what Silicon Valley has been perfecting. Creating is what Hollywood has been practicing for more than a century. AI today operates almost entirely on the reasoning side of the line. It can deduce, evaluate, optimize, and pattern-match brilliantly. And while it can create, there is a real distinction to being creative. What it doesn’t yet have is those things that make us human: empathy, devotion, serendipity, the kind of creativity that comes from a person trying to say something only they could say. When the bot generates a piece of art, it is not trying to communicate anything. It is statistics, not soul; it is emulating things that have been done. By contrast, human creativity isn’t about repeating patterns of zeros and ones; it is about doing something new.

One day, AI may close this gap. Three years ago, the leaders building AI would have called what they are achieving today, improbable, if not impossible. Impossible is no longer improbable.

Today, the line between reasoning and creating is real. Even the leading technologists acknowledge we are not there yet. There is no scientific path to crossing this divide that anyone in the field can articulate today. Understanding that gap is where we will find common ground.

A Path Forward

In 2016, I closed one chapter in Hollywood with the sale of DreamWorks and opened another in Northern California, co-founding WndrCo. We’ve backed more than 50 founders building the next generation of technology and watched how breakthroughs in Silicon Valley emerge, first as experiments, then as platforms, and finally as infrastructure that reshapes entire industries. It's worth remembering that the last great revolution in animation also came from the north. Pixar was a Northern California company, forged not in the conventions of the Hollywood studio system, but in the technological breakthroughs of Silicon Valley. I've spent years on both sides of this bridge. For sure, I don’t have all the answers (take Quibi, for one!). But, from my past and present vantage points of my long career, here is what I see . . .

Brilliant people in Northern California building this technology have made something extraordinary. They have earned the right for the rest of us to be, if not believers, at least optimistic that what comes next will be remarkable. But they have not made an artist. The tools are powerful, but they are not what makes a story matter. That knowledge lives 350 miles to the south, inside people whose life's work has informed the very models you are building. The right path forward includes them by design, with credit, with consent, and with compensation. Build this with the storytellers. Not on top of them. Taste is not something that can be synthesized, it is uniquely human.

At the same time, Hollywood needs to accept that AI is not going away. The energy they are spending trying to make it disappear is energy they are not spending deciding the terms on which it will exist. And the terms are everything. The north needs something from it that they cannot build and cannot buy: creativity. The kind that takes a blank page and conjures a single right answer where there was none and has held audiences for a century. Without it, the most powerful reasoning engine ever invented will still be missing the only thing that makes a story worth telling.

The artists who learn to wield these new instruments will do things the engineers never dreamed of. They always have. Edison invented the motion picture but made terrible movies. It took Chaplin, Lloyd, Keaton and so many others to make movies emotional. Now, the canvas is about to expand yet again. We should decide now that we intend to paint on it.

There are so many valuable lessons in history. This has happened many times before, and it was never settled by the technology. It was settled by the terms. Sousa did not stop the phonograph; he helped write the law that made sure composers got paid. And two years ago, when the writers and the actors walked out, they were fighting for the very things Sousa was fighting for in 1906. Consent, compensation, the basic recognition that human creative work has a price that must be paid. The terms of that fight are still being negotiated, but the principle is older than any of us.

The tools-versus-no-tools argument is a trap. First, we must all agree that there should be terms. Then we can have the crucial debate about what fairness requires.

What I Learned From Steve Jobs

Years ago, Steve Jobs said, "It's in Apple's DNA that technology alone is not enough. It's technology married with the liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our hearts sing." He was describing a device. But he could just as easily have been describing this tale of two cities.

What I See Coming Soon

As the barriers and the costs come down, more films will get made, not fewer. Studios will get to take more risks. There will be more seats at the table, and very soon entirely new forms of storytelling. In the 1980s, animation was dismissed as a niche corner of the business. Today it is one of the most beloved and profitable forms of storytelling in the world. In live action, filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and Peter Jackson embraced new visual tools not as shortcuts, but as instruments, and expanded cinema in the process. Every time storytelling has met a genuine technological shift, from synchronized sound to color to computer animation, it has redefined the boundaries of the medium and grown larger in the process.

Assuredly, I don’t have all the answers, but I am confident that the creative opportunities will expand yet again. How we come through this is a choice. The north has the new tools. The south has the creative soul. The best future will draw on the best of both worlds.

[Ryo Lu @ryolu_]

efficiency, productivity, speed

we keep worshipping these words like they are what we live for

ship faster
merge more
manage more agents
compress every loop
remove every pause
turn every hour into output

but what is the point of endless production if there is no time left to think deeply?

not react
not optimize
not summarize
not clear the queue

think

to sit with a question long enough that your real intention starts to appear
to find the purpose underneath the motion
to ask whether the thing being accelerated should exist at all

ai could be a new canvas

a way to make strange things
personal things
impossible things
tools, worlds, poems, games, interfaces, films, languages, rituals
things that let more people touch the shape of their own imagination

but instead, so much of it is becoming slop factories

more content
more funnels
more tickets
more fake work pretending to be value

you can merge 2000 prs
you can manage 500 agents
you can wake up to dashboards proving that the machine kept moving while you slept

but what is the point if you only sleep 5 hours a day?

what is the point if you stop talking to other humans?
stop learning about the past?
stop playing?
stop wandering?
stop being surprised?

what is the point if your whole life becomes optimizing the system that is consuming you?

speed is not meaning
scale is not wisdom
automation is not freedom if it only makes everyone run faster

and where are we running?

toward what?

a world where every person becomes a manager of machines, and every machine produces more things no one had the time to truly want?

the danger is not that ai makes us lazy

the danger is that ai makes us endlessly busy

that it gives us infinite production before we have found intention
infinite execution before we have developed taste
infinite motion before we have learned how to be still

maybe the real frontier is not more speed

maybe it is discernment

knowing what not to make
knowing when to stop
knowing when the most productive thing is to sleep, read history, call a friend, play with a cat, walk without tracking it, or stare at the ceiling until the false urgency dissolves

tools should give us more life
not turn life into a tool

if ai is going to matter, it should not just help us produce more

it should help us become more human
more imaginative
more free

otherwise, it’s the same old factory
just without humans

[harv @haroldvarde]

@cassidoo how about moving the [home | feed] nav-list tabs on top instead on the sidebar? not sure if this is cleaner but what i prefer

[harv @haroldvarde]

@DCFilmNews dude is this animated or a live action?? they look the part in real life (except for logan, he looks like damian more than jason)

[Jonathan Moore @Moore]

Designing at the speed of voice.

Speaking the layout into existence into existence with Jev, @shadcn and a local transcription model.