His latest demo of Realtalk, Biomolecular design in Realtalk, showcases the strenghts of Dynamicland. Really impressive stuff, as usual.
https://youtu.be/_gXiVOmaVSo?t=865
What do you think will be the keys to any future battle between this, something like Apple Vision Pro, and traditional desktop metaphors? I have to admit, on first viewing every single component of this looks unbearably clunky but presumably it’s going somewhere, and I can’t say I want to live in a future where I have to strap on a headset either.
The tree of Spatial Computing has many branches. The use of Tangible User Interface mechanics in a super specific application like this is a perfect bottom up design from function approach and I love it. He has all the building blocks, no pun intended, to reshape the same experience deeply customized for any number of domains like digital twin monitoring of manufacturing plant lines or dynamic ERP dashboards or K-12 like the original Dynamic Land work. Looking forward to whatever he is getting ready to reveal.
This looks super impressive, but at the same time, I'd really like to hear someone actually working in molecular biology what they think of this. While I am working in this field, I only deal with software, not molecular design and wetlab stuff. But I see how people there currently work and have a very hard time imagining them fiddling with pieces of paper and origami blocks on a desk, looking at poor quality images and awkwardly move stuff with a laser pointer. I like the physicality, but at the same time, it seems very limiting to me in terms of scope.
This is very impressive work and I'm glad people are doing it. For any billionaire, funding it would be a no-brainer.
That said, it makes more salient for me the dichotomy between demos and reality. This demo looks very much like molecular biology does in the movies.
But what is it to look like something "in the movies"? I don't know exactly... All tools have overhead, no matter how cleverly designed. Maybe "the movies" is what you get when you ignore this overhead.
There's a clear phenomenon in looking back on old demos and concluding we must have taken a wrong turn because our systems are still not as good. This is true of Victor's own demos from a decade ago, and many well-known demos from decades earlier.
But rewatching a Victor demo earlier this year, which had blown my mind when I saw it live, it seemed full of a kind of naivety (and a bit of sleight of hand). Of course, he made clear it was only a demo. It was meant to inspire. But now I feel that's an easy excuse for not investigating what really advances our use of tools – and what holds it back.
Transcribed for accessibility. (Google Lens did a really good job but I cleaned up what I noticed.)
July 4, 2023
Hi
Dynamicland is still going, just quietly. We closed the Oakland space for covid, but Realtalk development and collaborations have continued basically as originally planned, if more slowly due to our small size.
I'm hoping to spend the summer working bionano, and get back to preparing new on the Dynamicland website in the fall. It might be ready by the end of 2023? It'll have everything.
I'll try posting at @bret@dynamic.land (currently Mastodon until we have time to do our own thing in Realtalk). Id appreciate if you don't ask for my Opinions about things.
Dynamicland is still going, just quietly. We closed the Oakland space for covid, but Realtalk development and collaborations have continued -- basically as originally planned, if more slowly due to our small size.
I'm hoping to spend the summer working on bionano, and get back to the new Dynamicland website in the fall. It might be ready by the end of 2023? It'll have everything.
I'll try posting at @bret@dynamic.land (currently Mastodon until we have time to do our own thing in Realtalk). (I'd appreciate if you don't ask for my opinions about things.)
The optimist in me hopes that a UBI-like system would enable more people to tackle research, nonprofits, and other long term “social good” type projects.
Reminds me of a demo of using MS hololens to tell a scientist where to pipette something.
Just put the plates on a liquid handling robot - stop trying to treat the person as a robot.
The other aspect - the human -> computer ( as oppose to the computer -> human ) interface is interesting - it sort of reminds me of the first multi-touch demos.
ie exploring how best for humans to communicate intent to computers - though again - a bit like the example above around automation - in my view the best UI is no or less UI!
I assume most wet labs have robots that do part of the workflow. But they are mostly useful for automating repetitive tasks, and need a lot of setup before they can get to work.
For small experiments, when setup is 90% of doing the job, then you just don't win much by letting a robot do the remaining 10%.
Programming the robot, and putting the and register the reagents and source material.
Given that they can produce instructions for humans, I don't see why they could produce instructions of the robot ( with perhaps some human instructions for making the reagents and source material etc available ).
A lot of traditional liquid handling robots are large and have relatively large buffer tanks etc - so need flushing etc etc. But I don't see why you could use something like RoboCat to be much more flexible for simple container to container pipetting.
One interface I think is quite good is the spreadsheet - ( and I'm not talking horrible ribbons or poor charting - I'm talking about the core concept of a reactive grid of cells ).
You enter numbers and the computer immediately updates the results - the cells updating is the computer -> human interface, but it feels almost invisible as part of the task. The user has a mental model of how the spreadsheet works and treats it almost like a real world object.
You get a similar effect with the drawing/painting tools which use touch.
Great to see he's still around. Bret Victor's post on abstraction and his visualization of Strogatz classic paper on networks are two of my favorite pieces posted on the internet.
Glad to hear from Dynamicland; the last video got me so excited I decided to try and build a demo for tinkering with at home: https://github.com/deosjr/elephanttalk
It's a lot slower/less mature than paperprograms, but it does attempt to implement the wish/claim/when model using a homebrew datalog implementation :)
I feel that as well. I'm at the point where I am knee deep in my PhD work, and I see that my commitment to that work makes me want to remove myself from other stuff. I just don't want to use any of my energy on anything else, and especially dealing with people in anything but an uncomplicated manner is the last thing I want to do. I am sure it must be doubly so if there is an audience to whatever you say and end up regret.
I have often envied how (I romanticize) it was before social media and hyper-connectivity, where you might be able to just fade out a little bit to focus on a project. Its a bit hard to get that long term focus when people expect you to be available and able to reply within the hour. Just saying "no" drains enough as it is. I don't have the backbone to put out that message though.
I've echoed this sentiment from time to time and someone recently asked me "Why don't you just disconnect and apologize later?"
Might not work for you, but I found this surprisingly liberating: allowing myself to just drop the ball, not respond, or just say "Sorry I can't" with no justification, so I can focus my energy where I need it
It's challenging to be a public figure, present yourself on contemporary social media, and not be pressured (implicitly or explicitly) to speak up on everything.
Though I don't read this as being about political or social issues. How else would you have someone politely say, "I'd like to be left alone to do my work, but I'd also like to share with you what I'm working on."
I just made the mistake of reading a few recent DHH blog posts, and I really appreciate the difference between these two people. Both have a large following, but one sits down and does his work, while the other owns a company and seems physically unable to stop opining.
In defense of DHH, a lot of the things he blogs about are completed and successful (to him) company open-source projects. He's sharing what they have done. It's not all bad.
A lot of views are contrary and he presents his views strongly, so it's kind of off-putting.
I think it conveys a sense of dedication to his work that is at odds with the ever-looming desire to pontificate than it does aloofness toward others.
I’m not familiar with him or his work beyond the cursory glance at his Wikipedia page that I made after recognizing the homepage from marginalia.nu binges, but I associated the statement with a certain level of exhaustion, or disinclination rather, from the desire to publicly comment on whatever bleeding edge or attention-grabbing topic a man of his profession and experience may encounter. I have no clue what this guy does with certainty, it sounds sort of Alan Kay-like? But based off this post it sounds like there’s a lot of ground he intends to cover with whatever he’s got going on that requires a lot of thought. Thought that he is reluctant to share at a toot’s notice.
I vaguely recall a meme somewhere about how ridiculous it is to ask, say, a sports or movie star their opinion on politics or something else that isn't their field just because they're famous.
Heck, even within one's field, Bret may have neat ideas about interfaces for programming and attained a sort of celebrity status for some of us, but that doesn't mean he can confidently answer random questions from strangers. He's a researcher, not a guru.
Readit News
That said, it makes more salient for me the dichotomy between demos and reality. This demo looks very much like molecular biology does in the movies.
But what is it to look like something "in the movies"? I don't know exactly... All tools have overhead, no matter how cleverly designed. Maybe "the movies" is what you get when you ignore this overhead.
There's a clear phenomenon in looking back on old demos and concluding we must have taken a wrong turn because our systems are still not as good. This is true of Victor's own demos from a decade ago, and many well-known demos from decades earlier.
But rewatching a Victor demo earlier this year, which had blown my mind when I saw it live, it seemed full of a kind of naivety (and a bit of sleight of hand). Of course, he made clear it was only a demo. It was meant to inspire. But now I feel that's an easy excuse for not investigating what really advances our use of tools – and what holds it back.
> …what really advances our use of tools - and what holds us back.
It’s money! It’s cost! The cheaper tool wins.
“Worse Is Better”
Billionaires still want ROI.
July 4, 2023
Hi
Dynamicland is still going, just quietly. We closed the Oakland space for covid, but Realtalk development and collaborations have continued basically as originally planned, if more slowly due to our small size.
I'm hoping to spend the summer working bionano, and get back to preparing new on the Dynamicland website in the fall. It might be ready by the end of 2023? It'll have everything.
I'll try posting at @bret@dynamic.land (currently Mastodon until we have time to do our own thing in Realtalk). Id appreciate if you don't ask for my Opinions about things.
Thanks, Bret
<img width="1056" height="792" src="July2023.jpg" alt="Hi,
Dynamicland is still going, just quietly. We closed the Oakland space for covid, but Realtalk development and collaborations have continued -- basically as originally planned, if more slowly due to our small size.
I'm hoping to spend the summer working on bionano, and get back to the new Dynamicland website in the fall. It might be ready by the end of 2023? It'll have everything.
I'll try posting at @bret@dynamic.land (currently Mastodon until we have time to do our own thing in Realtalk). (I'd appreciate if you don't ask for my opinions about things.)
Thanks, -Bret">
Just put the plates on a liquid handling robot - stop trying to treat the person as a robot.
The other aspect - the human -> computer ( as oppose to the computer -> human ) interface is interesting - it sort of reminds me of the first multi-touch demos.
ie exploring how best for humans to communicate intent to computers - though again - a bit like the example above around automation - in my view the best UI is no or less UI!
For small experiments, when setup is 90% of doing the job, then you just don't win much by letting a robot do the remaining 10%.
Programming the robot, and putting the and register the reagents and source material.
Given that they can produce instructions for humans, I don't see why they could produce instructions of the robot ( with perhaps some human instructions for making the reagents and source material etc available ).
A lot of traditional liquid handling robots are large and have relatively large buffer tanks etc - so need flushing etc etc. But I don't see why you could use something like RoboCat to be much more flexible for simple container to container pipetting.
One interface I think is quite good is the spreadsheet - ( and I'm not talking horrible ribbons or poor charting - I'm talking about the core concept of a reactive grid of cells ).
You enter numbers and the computer immediately updates the results - the cells updating is the computer -> human interface, but it feels almost invisible as part of the task. The user has a mental model of how the spreadsheet works and treats it almost like a real world object.
You get a similar effect with the drawing/painting tools which use touch.
http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/
http://worrydream.com/#!/ScientificCommunicationAsSequential...
Only dependency is on openCV through GoCV, otherwise pure Go. Supports a webcam/beamer setup. Uses Lisp for scripting instead of Lua (see https://github.com/deosjr/elephanttalk/blob/main/cmd/elephan...).
It's a lot slower/less mature than paperprograms, but it does attempt to implement the wish/claim/when model using a homebrew datalog implementation :)
I feel this.
Nice looking web page also.
I have often envied how (I romanticize) it was before social media and hyper-connectivity, where you might be able to just fade out a little bit to focus on a project. Its a bit hard to get that long term focus when people expect you to be available and able to reply within the hour. Just saying "no" drains enough as it is. I don't have the backbone to put out that message though.
Might not work for you, but I found this surprisingly liberating: allowing myself to just drop the ball, not respond, or just say "Sorry I can't" with no justification, so I can focus my energy where I need it
It's challenging to be a public figure, present yourself on contemporary social media, and not be pressured (implicitly or explicitly) to speak up on everything.
Though I don't read this as being about political or social issues. How else would you have someone politely say, "I'd like to be left alone to do my work, but I'd also like to share with you what I'm working on."
A lot of views are contrary and he presents his views strongly, so it's kind of off-putting.
I’m not familiar with him or his work beyond the cursory glance at his Wikipedia page that I made after recognizing the homepage from marginalia.nu binges, but I associated the statement with a certain level of exhaustion, or disinclination rather, from the desire to publicly comment on whatever bleeding edge or attention-grabbing topic a man of his profession and experience may encounter. I have no clue what this guy does with certainty, it sounds sort of Alan Kay-like? But based off this post it sounds like there’s a lot of ground he intends to cover with whatever he’s got going on that requires a lot of thought. Thought that he is reluctant to share at a toot’s notice.
Heck, even within one's field, Bret may have neat ideas about interfaces for programming and attained a sort of celebrity status for some of us, but that doesn't mean he can confidently answer random questions from strangers. He's a researcher, not a guru.
You can argue that it shouldn’t be zero sum. But time and attention both are, and you can’t focus fully if you’re trying to “grow an audience.”